Jean-Michel Hoc’s research while affiliated with Institut de Recherche en Communications et Cybernétique de Nantes and other places

This chapter recalls the major points of a minimal cooperation model to highlight the creation of human-machine cooperation, which is approached in a functional manner. This is an important initiative for the furthering of human-machine cooperation. First, the chapter explains definition of cooperation by placing it in the context of related concepts and by introducing the notions on which it relies. Subsequently, it outlines the cooperative activities according to three levels of abstraction, corresponding to three time spans, and derives a few implications regarding the conception of cooperation. Cooperative activities can be defined at three levels of a hierarchy of abstraction and time span of the control: cooperation in actions, cooperation in planning and meta-cooperation. Cooperation in actions includes cooperative actions that aim to manage interferences with a minimal level of abstraction in the short term.

Today, there is no consensus, either in engineering sciences or in ergonomics, on the best way of introducing ergonomics-taking into consideration the human operator-into the design cycle of human-machine systems. Several authors agree in saying that the analysis and the design of complex, modern systems require an update of the methodological tools in relation to: the notions of "system" and "complexity" and the effects of automation on the supervision of installations by the human operator. This chapter supports this notion. After presenting classic design approaches, the chapter looks at two methods that seek to integrate the different components of the system during design: the method by Long, Dowell and Timmer, which aims to define the performance criteria of the system that could orient the design choices, and the method developed by Rasmussen, then by Rasmussen, Pejtersen and Goodstein and by Vicente in a didactical form.

This study investigated human-machine cooperation when driving with different degrees of a shared control system. By means of a direct intervention on the steering wheel, shared control systems partially correct the vehicle's trajectory and, at the same time, provide continuous haptic guidance to the driver. A crucial point is to determine the optimal level of steering assistance for effective cooperation between the two agents. Five system settings were compared with a condition in which no assistance was present. In addition, road visibility was manipulated by means of additional fog or self-controlled visual occlusions. Several performance indicators and subjective assessments were analyzed. The results show that the best repartition of control in terms of cooperation between human and machine can be identified through an analysis of the steering wheel reversal rate, the steering effort and the mean lateral position of the vehicle. The best cooperation was achieved with systems of relatively low-level haptic authority, although more intervention may be preferable in poor visibility conditions. Increasing haptic authority did not yield higher benefits in terms of steering behavior, visual demand or subjective feeling.

This study aims to gain greater insight into scheduling expertise by comparing the work of experts and novices when designing a university timetable. We assumed that the scheduling activity would take place within two dual spaces: the constraints space (CS) and the objects space (OS). Constraints are defined in the strictest sense as relations between variables that cannot be represented in the solution (timetable), whereas objects are constraint satisfactions that can be thus represented. The study shows that experts were more likely than novices to use external representations as activity support. They satisfied many constraints with partially defined objects. On the contrary, novices devoted a long time to managing constraints in their heads before defining only fully specified objects (concrete objects). The objects space could be a suitable activity support for experts. Novices, on the other hand, could benefit from support in managing constraints and translating constraints into objects. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cognitive engineering is an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis, modeling, and design of engineered systems or workplaces in which humans and technologies jointly operate to achieve system goals. As individuals, teams, and organizations become increasingly reliant on information technology and automation, it is more important than ever for system and workplace design to be maximally informed by state-of-the-art cognitive engineering research. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Engineering is the first authoritative handbook to cover this recent and rapidly growing field. This volume collects and organizes contemporary cognitive engineering research, drawing on the original research of more than 60 contributing experts. Coverage of human factors, human-computer interaction, and the conceptual foundations of cognitive engineering is extensive, addressing not only cognitive engineering in broader organizations and communities, but also focusing on individual cognition, addressing topics of attention, decision making, and multitasking. This thorough approach speaks to the broad scope of cognitive engineering, spanning the individual operator to teams and organizations, with a focus on how systems of people and technology, often in the form of automation, influence performance. By collecting the best of cognitive engineering research in one volume, this book serves as both a convenient reference guide and as a useful entry point to the large and diverse research literature. As such, this handbook will be a valuable resource for researchers, students, and practitioners in cognitive engineering and a variety of related fields in need of guidance for how to put their products, systems, and services into the hands of human users, performers, and customers.

This handbook collects and organizes contemporary cognitive engineering research, drawing on the original research of more than 60 contributing experts. Coverage of human factors, human-computer interaction, and the conceptual foundations of cognitive engineering is extensive, addressing not only cognitive engineering in broader organizations and communities, but also focusing on individual cognition, addressing topics of attention, decision making, and multi-tasking. This thorough approach speaks to the broad scope of cognitive engineering, spanning the individual operator to teams and organizations, with a focus on how systems of people and technology, often in the form of automation, influences performance. This handbook serves as both a convenient reference guide and as a useful entry point to the large and diverse research literature. As such, this handbook is a valuable resource for researchers, students, and practitioners in cognitive engineering and a variety of related fields in need of guidance for how to put their products, systems, and services into the hands of human users, performers, and customers.

The present study compared two distinct approaches to designing driving assistance devices. These devices aim to facilitate steering responses by delivering directional pulses on the steering wheel when lane departure is imminent. In one case, the aim is to prime the corrective gesture through a haptic cue in the direction of the lane centre (motor priming). The other approach consists of eliciting a compensatory reflex reaction by means of a jerk of the steering wheel in the opposite direction. Central to this investigation are the safety benefits of the devices and the ability of drivers to remain in full control of their steering responses. The steering behaviour of 18 participants during near lane departure in bends and in straight lines was analysed. The strength and direction of haptic cueing was manipulated. The results show that drivers were always able to control the direction of the steer- ing response when the haptic cue was delivered. No reflex counteraction was observed, whatever the strength or the direction of the stimulus. The fastest responses were observed when the cue was directed toward lane departure, especially when cueing was strong. However, these did not necessarily lead to the fastest returns to a safe position in the lane when compared with motor priming toward the lane centre. The latter yielded improved manoeuvre execution as soon as the steering movement was initiated. These results are discussed in relation to the sensorimotor and cognitive processes involved in steering behaviour. Their implications for the design of haptic-based lane departure warning systems are considered.

This paper focuses on industrial scheduling expertise from a cognitive and ergonomic perspective. In line with the authors’ previous study of timetabling, it considers both a higher level of abstraction in the cognitive control of symbolic processing during scheduling, defined by strategic processes, and a lower level, specified by tactical processes. Within the tactical level of control, two dual problem spaces can be defined: the Constraints Space (CS) and the Objects Space (OS). The constraints adopted in this paper are considered as relations between variables that cannot be represented in the solution (a Gantt chart). Objects, on the other hand, are constraint satisfactions and can be represented in the solution. This study compared twelve novices and six experts as they scheduled and then rescheduled manufacturing orders with the use of a Gantt chart. Actions on the interface and concurrent verbal reports were collected. As was the case for the scheduling of timetables, experts used a higher level of abstraction than novices in the control of processing. This was particularly evident for generic procedures, which are found less often in timetabling. Experts were more likely than novices to use external representations (objects) as activity support, whilst novices managed more constraints in their heads. Finally, in comparison with object management, constraint management is proportionally more important in timetabling than in industrial scheduling.