Category Archives: transportation

Toyota Gets It: Self-driving cars depend more on people than on engineering

I recommend reading this interview with Toyota’s Dr. Gill Pratt in its entirety. He discusses pont-by-point the challenges of a self-driving car that we consider in human factors, but don’t hear much about in the media. For example:

  • Definitions of autonomy vary. True autonomy is far away. He gives the example of a car performing well on an interstate or in light traffic compared to driving through the center of Rome during rush hour.
  • Automation will fail. And the less it fails, the less prepared the driver is to assume control.
  • Emotionally we cannot accept autonomous cars that kill people, even if it reduces overall crash rates and saves lives in the long run.
  • It is difficult to run simulations with the autonomous cars that capture the extreme variability of the human drivers in other cars.

I’ll leave you with the last paragraph in the interview as a summary:

So to sum this thing up, I think there’s a general desire from the technical people in this field to have both the press and particularly the public better educated about what’s really going on. It’s very easy to get misunderstandings based on words like or phrases like “full autonomy.” What does full actually mean? This actually matters a lot: The idea that only the chauffeur mode of autonomy, where the car drives for you, that that’s the only way to make the car safer and to save lives, that’s just false. And it’s important to not say, “We want to save lives therefore we have to have driverless cars.” In particular, there are tremendous numbers of ways to support a human driver and to give them a kind of blunder prevention device which sits there, inactive most of the time, and every once in a while, will first warn and then, if necessary, intervene and take control. The system doesn’t need to be competent at everything all of the time. It needs to only handle the worst cases.

Tesla is wrong to use “autopilot” term

Self driving cars are a hot topic!   See this Wikipedia page on Autonomous cars for a short primer.  This post is mainly a bit of exploration of how the technology is presented to the user.

Tesla markets their self driving technology using the term “Autopilot”.  The German government is apparently unhappy with the use of that term because it could be misleading (LA Times):

Germany’s transport minister told Tesla to cease using the Autopilot name to market its cars in that country, under the theory that the name suggests the cars can drive themselves without driver attention, the news agency Reuters reported Sunday.

Tesla wants to be perceived as first to market with a fully autonomous car (using the term Autopilot) yet they stress that it is only a driver assistance system and that the driver is meant to stay vigilant.  But I do not think term Autopilot is perceived that way by most lay people.  It encourages an unrealistic expectation and may lead to uncritical usage and acceptance of the technology, or complacency.

Complacency can be described and manifested as:

  • too much trust in the automation (more than warranted)
  • allocation of attention to other things and not monitoring the proper functioning of automation
  • over-reliance on the automation (letting it carry out too much of the task)
  • reduced awareness of one’s surroundings (situation awareness)

Complacency is especially dangerous when unexpected situations occur and the driver must resume manual control.  The non-profit Consumer Reports says:

“By marketing their feature as ‘Autopilot,’ Tesla gives consumers a false sense of security,” says Laura MacCleery, vice president of consumer policy and mobilization for Consumer Reports. “In the long run, advanced active safety technologies in vehicles could make our roads safer. But today, we’re deeply concerned that consumers are being sold a pile of promises about unproven technology. ‘Autopilot’ can’t actually drive the car, yet it allows consumers to have their hands off the steering wheel for minutes at a time. Tesla should disable automatic steering in its cars until it updates the program to verify that the driver’s hands are on the wheel.”

Companies must commit immediately to name automated features with descriptive—not exaggerated—titles, MacCleery adds, noting that automakers should roll out new features only when they’re certain they are safe.

Tesla responded that:

“We have great faith in our German customers and are not aware of any who have misunderstood the meaning, but would be happy to conduct a survey to assess this.”

But Tesla is doing a disservice by marketing their system using the term AutoPilot and by selectively releasing video of the system performing flawlessly:

Using terms such as Autopilot, or releasing videos of near perfect instances of the technology will only hasten the likelihood of driver complacency.

But no matter how they are marketed, these systems are just machines that rely on high quality sensor input (radar, cameras, etc).  Sensors can fail, GPS data can be old, or situations can change quickly and dramatically (particularly on the road).  The system WILL make a mistake–and on the road, the cost of that single mistake can be deadly.

Parasuraman and colleagues have heavily researched how humans behave when exposed to highly reliable automation in the context of flight automation/autopilot systems.  In a classic study, they first induced a sense of complacency by exposing participants to highly reliable automation.  Later,  when the automation failed, the more complacent participants were much worse at detecting the failure (Parasuraman, Molloy, & Singh, 1993).

Interestingly, when researchers examined very autonomous autopilot systems in aircraft, they found that pilots were often confused or distrustful of the automation’s decisions (e.g., initiating course corrections without any pilot input) suggesting LOW complacency.  But it is important to note that pilots are highly trained, and have probably not been subjected to the same degree of effusively positive marketing that the public is being subjected regarding the benefits of self-driving technology.  Tesla, in essence, tells drivers to “trust us“, further increasing the likelihood of driver complacency:

We are excited to announce that, as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. Eight surround cameras provide 360 degree visibility around the car at up to 250 meters of range. Twelve updated ultrasonic sensors complement this vision, allowing for detection of both hard and soft objects at nearly twice the distance of the prior system. A forward-facing radar with enhanced processing provides additional data about the world on a redundant wavelength, capable of seeing through heavy rain, fog, dust and even the car ahead.

To make sense of all of this data, a new onboard computer with more than 40 times the computing power of the previous generation runs the new Tesla-developed neural net for vision, sonar and radar processing software. Together, this system provides a view of the world that a driver alone cannot access, seeing in every direction simultaneously and on wavelengths that go far beyond the human senses.

References

Parasuraman, R., & Molloy, R. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced“complacency.” International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.

Some other key readings on complacency:

Parasuraman, R. (2000). Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models. Ergonomics, 43(7), 931–951. http://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409125

Parasuraman, R., & Wickens, C. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors, 50(3), 511–520. http://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X312198

Parasuraman, R., Manzey, D. H., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055

 

Human Factors Psychology Dominates Best Psychology Jobs

Edited because it’s even more awesome than I first thought…

A recent Buzzfeed article listed the “8 Awesome Jobs That Will Convince You To Be A Psychology Major.” I clicked, despite my oath not to read articles that have either numbers in the title or include the word “actually.”

Turns out… three (edit: FOUR) of the eight jobs are held by human factors psychologists.* Of course, if you want any of these jobs you’ll need a Ph.D, not just a psych major.

Get your graduate applications ready for next year, folks. (And use our handy guide to give yourself a leg up).

*One is officially I/O, but I think HF can claim him since he’s been President of HFES, an HFES Fellow, and Editor of the journal Human Factors.

Potpourri–Lazy Summer Edition

It’s summer and we (along with some of you) are taking a break.  But here’s a list of interesting usability/HF-related things that have crossed my path:

  • After much complaining, Ford is bringing back physical knobs in their MyTouch in-car controls.  Anne and I worked on some research (PDF) in our past lives as graduate students that directly compared touch-only interfaces to knob-based interfaces so it’s nice to see it is still a major issue; if only Ford read our 9 year old paper 🙂
  • Trucks driving under very low bridges is such a large problem in Australia that they are deploying a really novel and clever warning system.  A waterfall that projects a sign that’s hard to miss!
  • tags_finderApple will introduce their next version of OSX in the fall. One of the features i’m most excited about is system-level tag support.  Tags allow users to organize their files regardless of location or type.  I’m particularly interested in personal, single-user-generated tagging (compared to collaborative tagging like that used in flickr) as it appears to benefit older adults information organization and retrieval (PDF).  This pleases me.

Usability of a Glass Dashboard?

0-IlNLQ5pqXUI5Emfk

I had heard that the Tesla Model S (the luxury electric car) had a giant touch screen as one of the main interfaces for secondary car functions and always wondered what that might be like from a human factors/usability perspective. Physical knobs and switches, unlike interface widgets, give a tactile sensation and do not change location on the dashboard.

This post is an interesting examination of the unique dashboard:

Think about a car’s dashboard for a second. It’s populated with analog controls: dials, knobs, and levers, all of which control some car subsystem such as temperature, audio, or navigation. These analog dials, while old, have two features: tactility and physical analogy. Respectively, this means you can feel for a control, and you have an intuition for how the control’s mechanical action affects your car (eg: counterclockwise on AC increases temperature). These small functions provide a very, very important feature: they allow the driver to keep his or her eyes on the road.

Except for a the privileged few that have extraordinary kinesthetic sense of where our hands are, the Model S’s control scheme is an accident waiting to happen. Hell, most of us can barely type with two hands on an iPhone. Now a Model S driver has to manage all car subsystems on a touchscreen with one hand while driving.

The solution, however, is may not be heads-up displays or augmented reality, as the author suggests (citing the HUD in the BMW).

0-nbDjWV_lIC2DOUnC

While those displays allow the eye to remain on the road it’s always in the way–a persistent distraction. Also, paying attention to the HUD means your attention will not be on the road–and what doesn’t get paid attention to doesn’t exist:

What Apple Maps “PR Disaster” Says about Human-Automation Interaction

With the release of Apple’s in-house developed mapping solution for the new iPhone 5 (and all iOS 6 devices) there has been a major outcry among some users bordering on ridiculous, frothing, outrage1.  

Personally, the maps for my area are pretty good and the route guidance worked well even with no network signal.

However, some of the public reaction to the new mapping program is an excellent example of too much reliance on automation that is usually very reliable but falible (we’ve written about here, and here.).

It is very hard to discern what too much reliance looks like until the automation fails.  Too much reliance means that you do not double-check the route guidance information, or you ignore other external information (e.g., the bridge is out).

I’ve had my own too-much-reliance experience with mobile Google Maps (documented on the blog).  My reaction after failure was to be less trusting which led to decreased reliance (and increased “double checking”).  Apple’s “PR disaster” is a good wake up call about users unreasonably high trust in very reliable automation that can (and will) fail.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it will impact user’s perception that all technology, while seemingly reliable, should not be blindly trusted.

Some human factors lessons here (and interesting research questions for the future) are:

  • How do we tell the user that they need to double check? (aside from a warning)
  • How should the system convey it’s confidence?  (if it is unsure, how do you tell the user so they adjust their unreasonably high expectations)

[NPR]

1I say “outrage” because those users who most needed phone-based voice navigation probably had to own third party apps for it (I used the Garmin app).  The old Google Maps for iPhone never had that functionality.  So the scale of the outrage seems partially media-generated.

Automakers: Don’t skimp on the interface!

A very angry but insightful comment about the vehicle electronic interface of the 2011 Buick Regal from an automotive journalist:

Non touchscreen touchscreen: The GM navigation system and the graphics for it are designed with a touchscreen in mind — when entering in a destination, there is a recreation of a keyboard that allows you to punch in your letters and numbers. But, you can’t do that in the Regal.

So, Option 1: Use the clickable iDrive knob that falls more readily at hand. You can click the individual letter icons, but going through them takes FOREVER because you’re scanning one letter at a time across a keyboard icon. Audi and BMW both display the alphabet around a circle, which makes it quicker to program and easier to decipher.

Or, Option 2: Use the dash knob: This allows you to either rotate through the keyboard or move around it up, down and laterally using the multi-directional pad. Better than option 1, but the knob’s placement is less convenient.

Or, Option 3: Forget the knobs altogether and use the voice controls. This works, though it takes a very long time (the playback prompts don’t help) and for some reason, when I tried to use them, it didn’t ask me for an address number. Instead, I only had the option of going to some indiscriminate point on Flamingo Road.

He ends with this scathing comment:

Compared to our Acura TSX Wagon or departed Cadillac CTS, the Regal’s electronics interface seems like someone just didn’t try. When a brand is trying to convince people it deserves to be considered amongst luxury brands, it’s details like these that make a car stand above. The Genesis and Equus seem like (and are) luxury cars because Hyundai went all in.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-buick-regal-nonsensical-electronics-controls.html

Honesty Hurts (especially when design is poor)

I enjoy the mix of economics and psychology, which is why I am a faithful reader of the Freakanomics blog. Their recent podcast on “pain” started off with a good human-factors-related tale of the problematic design of a subway alarm system. I have included a link below to the podcast, but the quick overview is that there is an ear piercing alarm that is triggered by using the “emergency” exit, which is invariably used every day by someone wanting to get out faster than turnstiles permit.

The person breaking the rules has to hear the alarm for the shortest period of time and face no repercussions. The law abiding citizens waiting in line to exit get to listen to the alarm the longest.

Link to the podcast

Photo Credit Wavebreaker @ Flickr

Blogging APA Division 21: “One Thing at a Time” (but over a really long time)

I held off for a while writing this post because I wanted to make sure I could include media Dr. John Senders included in his talk. I think you’ll agree it was worth the wait!

At the 2010 APA convention, John W. Senders, Ph.D. presented “One Thing at a Time: From Eye Fixations (1951), to Sampling (1954), to Information Theory (1955), to Workload (1959), to Queuing Theory (1964), to Attentional Demand (1966), Followed by a Lapse of 40 Years.” Video of the talk will eventually be posted on the Division 21 website.

Dr. Senders mentioned an eye tracking experiment from the 1950s, before any “eye trackers” existed. The method was to film the eyes of pilots as they scanned each instrument in a cockpit according to instruction. The position of the pilots eyes were coded in the close-up video. For example, a pilot might be told to “look at the altimeter,” and then the exact position of the pilot’s eyes was coded as “looking at altimeter.” Then, when the pilots were using their instruments naturally, a video of this use could be coded by eye position to know exactly when and where they were looking at any moment.

In another ingenious methodological development, Senders created a vision sampling device. The video below illustrates how it worked – a mechanical visor rose and fell in front of the driver’s eyes.

Dr. Senders came up with this idea of sampling while driving through a heavy rainstorm at different speeds, while the speed of the windshield wipers stayed the same. The visor in the video does the same — the rate of viewing can be controlled and the attentional demands of the driving task measured.

For more information, see the CogWorks website.

I’ve already covered these techniques in my classes as they are great demonstrations of creativity in research methods. If one has a well defined purpose and goal, a tool can often be created from surprising materials. Another example I often cite is the actual picture of Thorndike’s puzzle box — a splintered and rickety contraption that bears little resemblance to the finely drawn illustrations in intro psychology textbooks.

11 feet 8 inches

A train trestle in Durham, NC has a clearance of 11’8″.

The typical height of a large rental truck ranges from 11’6″ (don’t bounce!) to 13’6″.

How often do you think about clearance when driving? Do you think you could adjust to thinking about it 100% of the time in your rental truck?

I’ve seen parking garages that have a hanging bar well before the low ceiling to notify drivers that they are not going to make it. The bar, on chains, will bang the front of the truck but not peel the top off as the bridge does. The trucks in this video are going to quickly, this warning would have to come well before they crossed the intersection. This solution probably has problems too. I’m sure there would be drivers who were planning to turn before the bridge that get mad that a bar hit their truck. Also, getting someone to pay for and maintain the bar might be difficult as the trestle owners want to blame the drivers (and so do other drivers, if you read the comments on the video.)

More video and information is availible at 11foot8.com. Videos copyright Jürgen Henn – 11foot8.com.