Welcome to Today’s T3e Webinar
Modeling Dispatchers Managing Intelligent Transportation Systems
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018Time: 12:00pm EST
If audio cannot be heard 5 minutes prior to the start of this webinar, please dial into the webinar using the teleconference number provided onscreen.
T3 Webinars are sponsored by ITS Professional Capacity Building Program, ITS Joint Program Office, U.S. Department of Transportation
Listen through your speakers/VoIP
Modeling Dispatchers Managing Intelligent Transportation Systems
Mary (Missy) Cummings, Ph.D., Director of Duke Robotics and Humans & Autonomy Lab Professor of Engineering, Computer Science, and Brain Sciences
Victoria Chibuogu Nneji, Ph.D. Candidate in Duke Robotics, Researcher in the Humans & Autonomy Lab
neurosurgical robotics
human and computer decision-making,
sociotechnical systems
motion planning and control, robotic systems
networked and distributed control
Speaker: Victoria Chibuogu NnejiPh.D. Candidate in Duke Robotics, Humans & Autonomy Lab
Host: Professor Missy Cummings, Ph.D.Director of Duke Robotics and Humans & Autonomy Lab
Modeling Dispatchers Managing Intelligent Transportation Systems
Victoria Chibuogu NnejiPh.D. Candidate, Duke Robotics
Volpe National Transportation Systems CenterJuly 18, 2018
Host: Professor Mary (Missy) Cummings, Ph.D.Director of Duke Robotics
Outline
1. What is a remote operations center (ROC)?2. Why do we need ROCs for intelligent transportation systems?3. How could heterogeneous levels of vehicle autonomy influence ROC
requirements?4. What should we consider when staffing and designing ROCs for ITS?5. Where do we need to focus ROC efforts for future ITS concepts to
become operational?
5
What is a remote operations center (ROC)?
6
ROC
Vehicles•Pilot•Passenger
Ports•Customer Service•Maintenance Personnel•Safety/Security Agent
Environment•Traffic Controller•Local Weather Tracker•Regional Network Managers
1 2 3 4 5
Nneji, V. C., Cummings, M. L., Stimpson, A. J., & Goodrich, K. H. (2018). Functional Requirements for Remotely Managing Fleets of On-Demand Passenger Aircraft. In 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (p. 2007).
7
Why do we need ROCs for intelligent transportation systems?
1 2 3 4 5
8
Why do we need ROCs for intelligent transportation systems?
1 2 3 4 5
9
Vehicle concept by Aurora (2017)
Vehicle concept by Vahana (2016)
Vehicle and vertiport concept by Lilium (2017)
ROC concept by Ehang (2016)ROC concept by Ehang (2016)
Why do we need ROCs for intelligent transportation systems?
Nneji, Stimpson, Cummings, & Goodrich (2017). Exploring Concepts of Operations for On-Demand Passenger Air Transportation. In 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (p. 3085).
1 2 3 4 5
10
• Dispatch operations center/call center/supervisory control center• Energy requirements• Passenger requirements• Contingency requirements
Why do we need ROCs for intelligent transportation systems?
1 2 3 4 5
How could heterogeneous levels of vehicle autonomy influence ROC requirements?
11
Maintain Vehicle SafetyMaintain Safe Separation• From other Participating
Vehicles• From Fixed and Dynamic
Hazards
Maintain Vehicle Control• Nominal and Contingency
Limits• Physical and Cyber
Security
Maintain Sufficient Conditions to Complete Trip• Ride Quality• Energy• Vehicle Performance• Navigation Accuracy
1 2 3 4 5
A Concept of Operations for On-Demand Passenger Aircraft
12
1. Passenger requests flight
2. Passenger and pilot arrive to port
3. Pilot completes pre-takeoff checks
4. Pilot maneuvers aircraft for takeoff
5. Enroute
6. Pilot communicates with dispatch for clear landing port
7. Pilot lands aircraft
8. Aircraft is serviced
Nneji, Stimpson, Cummings, & Goodrich (2017). Exploring Concepts of Operations for On-Demand Passenger Air Transportation. In 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (p. 3085).
1 2 3 4 5
1. Passenger requests flight
2. Passenger arrives to port
3. System completes pre-takeoff checks
4. Aircraft maneuvers for takeoff
5. Enroute
6. Aircraft communicates with dispatch for clear landing port
7. Aircraft lands
8. Aircraft is serviced13
1. Passenger requests flight
2. Passenger and pilot arrive to port
3. Pilot completes pre-takeoff checks
4. Pilot maneuvers aircraft for takeoff
5. Enroute
6. Pilot communicates with dispatch for clear landing port
7. Pilot lands aircraft
8. Aircraft is serviced
ConventionalVehicle Autonomy Revolutionary Evolutionary*
7. Aircraft lands
1. Passenger requests flight
2. Passenger and pilot arrive to port
3. Pilot completes pre-takeoff checks
4. Pilot supervises aircraft takeoff
5. Enroute
6. Pilot communicates with dispatch for clear landing port
7. Pilot supervises aircraft landing
8. Aircraft is serviced
Nneji, Stimpson, Cummings, & Goodrich (2017). Exploring Concepts of Operations for On-Demand Passenger Air Transportation. In 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (p. 3085).
1 2 3 4 5
How could heterogeneous levels of vehicle autonomy influence ROC requirements?
14
Function to Maintain: Remote Operations Center TasksConventional Revolutionary Vehicle Autonomy Evolutionary* Vehicle Autonomy
Safe Separation from traffic
Plan flights within air traffic control (ATC) restrictions
Monitor airspace status, command aircraft to unmanned aircraft system
traffic management (UTM)
Monitor airspace, communicate with pilots if adjusting separation
Safe separation from hazards
Plan flights to avoid obstructions
Calibrate fleet maps with local infrastructure data streams
Share new information w/ & between PIC to avoid hazards
Vehicle control Communicate with pilot-in-command (PIC) if rerouting
Monitor A/C (aircraft) sensor-actuatorstatus, use artificially intelligent decision aids (AIDA) if rerouting
Monitor fleet, use AIDA if rerouting & communicate w/ PIC
Physical and cybersecurity
Verify PIC, monitor Monitor fleet network status, maintain command authority
Verify PIC, communicate & maintain alertness
Energy management Compute flight energy
Compute feasibility to land, ensure sufficient between re-charges
Monitor fleet, provide PIC safe landing alternatives if low energy
Navigation Follow flights Verify navigation of A/Cs on approach Verify navigation w/ PICRide quality Communicate with
PIC if disturbanceMonitor A/C sensors, communicate pertinent new info with passengers
Monitor & provide update information for passenger comfort
Systems management Communicate withPIC in contingency
Monitor network, supervisory control if A/C fails, redirect resources w/ AIDA
Monitor subsystem health, communicate w/ PIC if A/C fails
1 2 3 4 5
15
Function to Maintain: Remote Operations Center TasksConventional Revolutionary Vehicle Autonomy Evolutionary* Vehicle Autonomy
Safe Separation from traffic
Plan flights within air traffic control (ATC) restrictions
Monitor airspace status, command aircraft to unmanned aircraft system
traffic management (UTM)
Monitor airspace, communicate with pilots if adjusting separation
Safe separation from hazards
Plan flights to avoid obstructions
Calibrate fleet maps with local infrastructure data streams
Share new information w/ & between PIC to avoid hazards
Vehicle control Communicate with pilot-in-command (PIC) if rerouting
Monitor A/C (aircraft) sensor-actuatorstatus, use artificially intelligent decision aids (AIDA) if rerouting
Monitor fleet, use AIDA if rerouting & communicate w/ PIC
Physical and cybersecurity
Verify PIC, monitor Monitor fleet network status, maintain command authority
Verify PIC, communicate & maintain alertness
Energy management Compute flight energy
Compute feasibility to land, ensure sufficient between re-charges
Monitor fleet, provide PIC safe landing alternatives if low energy
Navigation Follow flights Verify navigation of A/Cs on approach Verify navigation w/ PICRide quality Communicate with
PIC if disturbanceMonitor A/C sensors, communicate pertinent new info with passengers
Monitor & provide update information for passenger comfort
Systems management Communicate withPIC in contingency
Monitor network, supervisory control if A/C fails, redirect resources w/ AIDA
Monitor subsystem health, communicate w/ PIC if A/C fails
How could heterogeneous levels of vehicle autonomy influence ROC requirements?
1 2 3 4 5
16
Function to Maintain: Remote Operations Center TasksConventional Revolutionary Vehicle Autonomy Evolutionary* Vehicle Autonomy
Safe Separation from traffic
Plan flights within air traffic control (ATC) restrictions
Monitor airspace status, command aircraft to unmanned aircraft system
traffic management (UTM)
Monitor airspace, communicate with pilots if adjusting separation
Safe separation from hazards
Plan flights to avoid obstructions
Calibrate fleet maps with local infrastructure data streams
Share new information w/ & between PIC to avoid hazards
Vehicle control Communicate with pilot-in-command (PIC) if rerouting
Monitor A/C (aircraft) sensor-actuatorstatus, use artificially intelligent decision aids (AIDA) if rerouting
Monitor fleet, use AIDA if rerouting & communicate w/ PIC
Physical and cybersecurity
Verify PIC, monitor Monitor fleet network status, maintain command authority
Verify PIC, communicate & maintain alertness
Energy management Compute flight energy
Compute feasibility to land, ensure sufficient between re-charges
Monitor fleet, provide PIC safe landing alternatives if low energy
Navigation Follow flights Verify navigation of A/Cs on approach Verify navigation w/ PICRide quality Communicate with
PIC if disturbanceMonitor A/C sensors, communicate pertinent new info with passengers
Monitor & provide update information for passenger comfort
Systems management Communicate withPIC in contingency
Monitor network, supervisory control if A/C fails, redirect resources w/ AIDA
Monitor subsystem health, communicate w/ PIC if A/C fails
How could heterogeneous levels of vehicle autonomy influence ROC requirements?
1 2 3 4 5
What should we consider when staffing and designing ROCs for ITS?
• Customer service• Port service• Resource scheduling• Vehicle command authority
• Teams of human and AI agents• Path planning• Scheduling• Resource allocation
• Remote operator tactical interface
• Monitor• Command
• Scaling up to network-level• Exception management• Emergent behavior identification
17
1 2 3 4 5
Where do we need to focus ROC efforts for future ITS concepts to become operational?
• Metrics for ROC operator performance, system safety and efficiency
• How many more or less ROC operators should be staffed to manage vehicles with revolutionary autonomy?
• Which types of artificial intelligence decision aids should be designed for ROC operators?
• How many vehicles can be managed at a time with heterogenous levels of network autonomy?
18
As vehicles and ports are being designed, ROC concepts must also be investigated to support equivalent or better levels of performance on functional requirements.
1 2 3 4 5
19
How will remote operations centers need to innovate to support new ITS
demands?
1 2 3 4 5
20
Dispatcher
Dispatcher
Task Assignment
Service Process
ShiftTeam SizeAI Support
Team Coordination
Attention Allocation
Team Expertise
Attention Allocation
Environment
Fleet SizeFleet HeterogeneityFleet Autonomy
Arrival Process 𝜆𝜆
Model Input Parameters Data Recorded from Case StudyService time of dispatchers Duration of task performanceArrival process of fleet condition-and team coordination-generated and events
Arrival times of planning, calls, and issue resolutions tasks during shift
Multinomial distribution event type
Count of each type of task arriving during shift
Collective Case Study
Model Output Measures
Human Workload
System Delays
System Throughput
Human Errors
Discrete Event Simulation
1 2 3 4 5
21
1 2 3 4 5
22
Workload Delays Throughput
1 2 3 4 5
Acknowledgements
• American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Forward Air, Horizon Air, Rio Grande Pacific Company, Southwest Airlines, UPS
• Airbus A3, Ehang, FAA, Gryphon Sensors, Kairos, Lilium Aviation, Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky, NASA Ames, NUAIR, Uber
• Federal Railroad Administration, US Department of Transportation• National Institute of Aerospace and NASA Langley Research Center• Missy Cummings, Alfredo Garcia, Jeffrey Glass, Michael Zavlanos• Comrades in Duke Robotics and AIAA• Talking Technology and Transportation (T3e) Webinar organizers!
23
References
• [1] D. J. Garland, C. M. Mitchell, S. Caisse, L. Sandusky, and P. J. Smith, “Air Traffic Management: The View from the Ground,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting, 1999, pp. 204–208.
• [2] E. M. Roth, N. Malsch, and J. Multer, “Understanding How Train Dispatchers Manage and Control Trains: Results of a Cognitive Task Analysis,” Washington, D.C., 2001.
• [3] M. S. Young and N. A. Stanton, “Mental Workload,” in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, CRC Press LLC, 2005, pp. 391–399.
• [4] C. A. Bowers and F. Jentsch, “Team Workload,” in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, CRC Press LLC, 2005, pp. 571–573.
• [5] W. W. Wierwille and F. T. Eggemeier, “Recommendations for Mental Workload Measurement in a Test and Evaluation Environment,” Hum. Factors, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 263–281, 1993.
• [6] D. K. Schmidt, “A queuing analysis of the air traffic controller’s work load,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 8, no. 6. pp. 492–498, 1978.
• [7] W. B. Rouse, Systems engineering models of human-machine interaction, vol. 6. North-Holland, 1980.
• [8] M. L. Cummings and S. Guerlain, “Developing operator capacity estimates for supervisory control of autonomous vehicles.,” Hum. Factors, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2007.
• [9] Office of Railroad Safety, Collaborative Incident Analysis and Human Performance Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Administration, 2014.
• [10] V. C. Nneji, A. Stimpson, M. (Missy) Cummings, and K. H. Goodrich, “Exploring Concepts of Operations for On-Demand Passenger Air Transportation,” in 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2017, pp. 1–12.
• [11] J. A. Davies, “The use of autonomous systems in emergency medical services: bridging human intelligence and technology,” Naval Postgraduate School, 2015.
• [12] Arup Group, “Future of Rail 2050,” London, 2015.
• [13] M. Alonso Raposo, B. Ciuffo, M. Makridis, and C. Thiel, “The r-evolution of driving: from Connected Vehicles to Coordinated Automated Road Transport (C-ART) Part I: Framework for a safe & efficient Coordinated Automated Road Transport (C-ART) system,” EUR 28575 EN, 2017.
• [14] P. Green, “Driver distraction, telematics design, and workload managers: safety issues and solutions,” Ann Arbor, MI, 2004.
• [15] W. Whitt, “Dynamic staffing in a telephone call center aiming to immediately answer all calls,” Oper. Res. Lett., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 205–212, 1999.
• [16] A. K. Thorsen, E. Saeverhagen, and J.-O. Dagestad, “Remote Operations Center - An Efficient And Highly Competent Environment To Optimize Operational Performance And Reduce Risk,” in Society of Petroleum Engineers/IADC Drilling Conference, 2013.
• [17] J. Booth, “Real-Time Drilling Operations Centers: A History of Functionality and Organizational Purpose - The Second Generation,” Soc. Pet. Eng., vol. 26, no. 2, 2011.
• [18] A. Carrel, R. G. Mishalani, N. H. M. Wilson, and J. P. Attanucci, “A framework for evaluating operations control on a metro line: Integrating multiple perspectives and automatically collected train and passenger movement data,” Public Transp., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 149–176, 2013.
• [19] Union Pacific, “Harriman Dispatching Center.” [Online]. Available: https://up.jobs/harriman-dispatch-center.html. [Accessed: 23-Jul-2017].
• [20] Airline Dispatchers Federation, “Aircraft Dispatcher Job Description,” Airline Dispatchers Federation, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.dispatcher.org/dispatcher/job-description. [Accessed: 16-May-2017].
25
References
• [21] K. A. Berry and J. J. Pace, “Examining the Actors and Functions of an Airline Operations Center,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting, 2011, pp. 1412–1416.
• [22] J. B. de Guzman, C. C. de Ritz, and R. G. Ado, “Mobile Emergency Response Application Using Geolocation for Command Centers,” Int. J. Comput. Commun. Eng., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 235–238, 2014.
• [23] S. Alarie and M. Gamache, “Overview of Solution Strategies Used in Truck Dispatching Systems for Open Pit Mines,” Int. J. Surf. Mining, Reclam. Environ., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 59–76, 2002.
• [24] Akamai Technologies, Network Operations Command Center. USA, 2017.
• [25] R. Hackett, “Inside AT&T’s Global Network Operations Center,” Fortune, Bedminster, NJ, Apr-2016.
• [26] M. L. Cummings and C. E. Nehme, “Modeling the impact of workload in network centric supervisory control settings,” Neurocognitive Physiol. factors Dur. high-tempo Oper., pp. 23–40, 2010.
• [27] M. Sivak and B. Schoettle, “Report No. SWT-2017-8: A Survey of Public Opinion About Flying Cars,” University of Michigan, Sustainable Worldwide Transportation, 2017.
• [28] S. Burgstaller, D. Flowers, D. Tamberrino, H. P. Terry, and Y. Yang, “Rethinking Mobility,” 2017.
• [29] B. M. Joerss, F. Neuhaus, and J. Schroder, “How customer demands are reshaping last-mile delivery,” 2016.
• [30] AT&T Intellectual Property, “History of Network Management,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.corp.att.com/history/nethistory/management.html. [Accessed: 29-Jul-2017].
• [31] Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “National Transportation Statistics,” U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/. [Accessed: 26-Jul-2017].
• [32] J. Bierstedt, A. Gooze, C. Gray, J. Peterman, L. Raykin, and J. Walters, “Effects of Next-Generation Vehicles on Travel Demand & Highway Capacity,” 2014.
• [33] International Association of Public Transport, “World Report on Metro Automation,” 2016.
• [34] B. Vlasic, “G.M. Wants to Drive the Future of Cars That Drive Themselves,” The New York Times, Detroit, MI, 04-Jun-2017.
• [35] National Science and Technology Council, “Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence,” Washington, D.C., 2016.
• [36] US Department of Transportation, “Secretary Foxx Unveils President Obama’s FY17 Budget Proposal of Nearly $4 Billion for Automated Vehicles and Announces DOT Initiatives to Accelerate Vehicle Safety Innovations.” Washington, D.C., 2016.
• [37] M. Sivak and B. Schoettle, “Road Safety with Self-Driving Vehicles: General Limitations and Road Sharing with Conventional Vehicles,” Ann Arbor, MI, 2015.
• [38] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications. U.S.A.: Department of Transportation (DOT), 2016, pp. 1–392.
• [39] D. Pomerantz, “Brains For Trains: How Software Is Making Trains Smarter,” GE Reports, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.ge.com/reports/brains-for-trains-how-software-is-making-trains-smarter/. [Accessed: 08-Aug-2017].
• [40] International Transport Forum / OECD, “Automated and Autonomous Driving. Regulation under uncertainty,” Interational Transp. Forum, pp. 1–32, 2015.
26
References
• [41] M.-V. Florin, “Risk and Opportunity Governance of Autonomous Cars,” Zürich, Switzerland, 2016.
• [42] A. Blandford and B. L. W. Wong, “Situation Awareness in Emergency Medical Dispatch,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 421–452, 2004.
• [43] D. Van Der Linden, M. Frese, and T. F. Meijman, “Mental Fatigue and Cognitive Control,” Acta Psychol. (Amst)., pp. 1–38, 2006.
• [44] G. D. Roach, A. Fletcher, and D. Dawson, “A Model to Predict work-related fatigue based on hours of work,” Aviat. Sp. Environ. Med., vol. 75, no. SUPPL.1, pp. 61–69, 2004.
• [45] J. Dorrian, G. D. Roach, A. Fletcher, and D. Dawson, “Simulated train driving: Fatigue, self-awareness and cognitive disengagement,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 155–166, 2007.
• [46] M. R. Endsley, “Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems,” Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 32–64, 1995.
• [47] C. E. Nehme, “Modeling human supervisory control in heterogeneous unmanned vehicle systems,” MIT, 2009.
• [48] R. M. Yerkes and J. D. Dodson, “The Relation of Strength of Stimulus to Rapidity of Habit-Formation,” J. Comp. Neurol. Psychol., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 459–482, 1908.
• [49] J. D. Sterman, Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, vol. 6, no. 1. 2000.
• [50] J. Coyle, J. Holt, and D. Exelby, “System Dynamics in defence analysis: some case studies,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 372–382, 1999.
• [51] J. C. Ryan and M. L. Cummings, “A Systems Analysis of the Introduction of Unmanned Aircraft into Aircraft Carrier Operations,” IEEE Trans. Human-Machine Syst., vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2014.
• [52] A. R. Pritchett, S. Y. Kim, and K. M. Feigh, “Modeling Human-Automation Function Allocation (Requirements),” J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 33–51, 2014.
• [53] M. C. Aubert, W. Ross, S. Mazzari, A. Stimpson, and M. L. Cummings, “Interaction Design Considerations for an Aircraft Carrier Deck Agent-based Simulation,” in IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2016.
• [54] B. Donmez, C. Nehme, and M. L. Cummings, “Modeling Workload Impact in Multiple Unmanned Vehicle Supervisory Control,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1180–1190, 2010.
• [55] C. Nehme, B. Mekdeci, J. Crandall, and M. Cummings, “The Impact of Heterogeneity on Operator Performance in Future Unmanned Vehicle Systems,” Int. C2 J., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–30, 2009.
• [56] T. A. Mazzuchi and R. B. Wallace, “Analyzing skill-based routing call centers using discrete-event simulation and design experiment,” in 36th Conference on Winter Simulation, 2004, pp. 1812–1820.
• [57] K. Lam and R. S. M. Lau, “A simulation approach to restructuring call centers,” Bus. Process Manag. J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 481–494, 2004.
• [58] F. Gao and M. Cummings, “Using Discrete Event Simulation to Model Multi-Robot Multi-Operator Teamwork,” Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., vol. 56, pp. 2093–2097, 2012.
• [59] Nneji, V. C., Stimpson, A., & Cummings, M. L. (2017). Predicting Locomotive Crew Performance in Rail Operations with Onboard Human and Automated Assistance, IEEE Transactions on Human Machine Systems, in review
• [60] V. L. Stouffer and K. H. Goodrich, “State of the Art of Autonomous Platforms and Human-Machine Systems: Only a Fool Would Stand In the Way of Progress,” 15th AIAA Aviat. Technol. Integr. Oper. Conf., no. June, pp. 1–15, 2015.
27
References
• [61] B. Mekdeci and M. L. Cummings, “Modeling multiple human operators in the supervisory control of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles,” Proc. 9th Work. Perform. Metrics Intell. Syst., pp. 1–8, 2009.
• [62] S.-Y. Chien, M. Lewis, S. Mehrotra, N. Brooks, and K. Sycara, “Scheduling Operator Attention for Multi-Robot Control.”
• [63] F. Sasangohar, S. D. Scott, and M. L. Cummings, “Supervisory-level interruption recovery in time-critical control tasks,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1148–1156, Jul. 2014.
• [64] M. L. Cummings, “Operator Interaction with Centralized Versus Decentralized UAV Architectures,” pp. 1–14.
• [65] J. R. Peters, “Coordination Strategies for Human Supervisory Control of Robotic Teams by,” no. June 2017.
• [66] V. C. Nneji, M. Cummings, A. Stimpson, and K. H. Goodrich, “Functional Requirements for Remotely Managing Fleets of Personal On-Demand Aircraft,” in 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Science and Technology Forum.
• [67] A. Davies, “Nissan’s Path to Self-Driving Cars? Humans in Call Centers,” WIRED, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/nissans-self-driving-teleoperation/. [Accessed: 08-Aug-2017].
• [68] Nissan Motor Corporation, “Putting lessons from Mars to work on Earth – insights on autonomous vehicle research from Nissan’s Dr. Maarten Sierhuis.” pp. 1–5, 2017.
• [69] I. Rust and GM Global Technology Operations LLC, “Expert Mode for Vehicles.” US Patent and Trademark Office, Detroit, MI, pp. 1–20, 2017.
• [70] F. Gao, M. L. Cummings, and E. T. Solovey, “Modeling Teamwork in Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots.”
• [71] M. L. Cummings, “Human Supervisory Control of Swarming Networks,” Cambridge, MA, 2004.
28
Questions and AnswersPlease Type your questions in the Q & A pod and we will answer as time allows.
Contacts:
Mary (Missy) Cummings, Ph.D., Director of Duke Robotics and Humans & Autonomy Lab Professor of Engineering, Computer Science, and Brain Sciences
Victoria Chibuogu Nneji, Ph.D. Candidate in Duke Robotics, Researcher in the Humans & Autonomy Lab
Feedback
• A feedback form will emailed to all participants following the webinar. Please take a few minutes to fill it out – we value your input. The form contains information for those requesting Professional Development Hours (PDHs).
• To receive notifications of upcoming T3s, send an email to [email protected] with “Add to mailing list” in the subject line.
Thank you!