Shared control is an increasingly popular approach to facilitate control and communication between humans and intelligent machines. However, there is little consensus in guidelines for design and evaluation of shared control, or even in a definition of what constitutes shared control. This lack of consensus complicates cross fertilization of shared control research between different application domains. This paper provides a definition for shared control in context with previous definitions, and a set of general axioms for design and evaluation of shared control solutions. The utility of the definition and axioms are demonstrated by applying them to four application domains: automotive, robot-assisted surgery, brain–machine interfaces, and learning. Literature is discussed for each of these four domains in light of the proposed definition and axioms. Finally, to facilitate design choices for other applications, we propose a hierarchical framework for shared control that links the shared control literature with traded control, co-operative control, and other human–automation interaction methods. Future work should reveal the generalizability and utility of the proposed shared control framework in designing useful, safe, and comfortable interaction between humans and intelligent machines.

@en

Biodynamic feedthrough (BDFT) refers to the feedthrough of vehicle accelerations through the human body, leading to involuntary control device inputs. BDFT impairs control performance in a large range of vehicles under various circumstances. Research shows that BDFT strongly depends on adaptations in the neuromuscular admittance dynamics of the human body. This paper proposes a model-based approach of BDFT mitigation that accounts for these neuromuscular adaptations. The method was tested, as proof-of-concept, in an experiment where participants inside a motion simulator controlled a simulated vehicle through a virtual tunnel. Through evaluating tracking performance and control effort with and without motion disturbance active and with and without cancellation active, the effectiveness of the cancellation was evaluated. Results show that the cancellation approach is successful: the detrimental effects of BDFT were largely removed.@en

Over many years the current state-of-the-art of passive suspension systems have greatly improved driver and passenger ride-comfort. With the advent of active suspension systems, the possibilities for even more fine-tuned ride comfort have increased significantly. Pushing the performance of the active suspension systems beyond the existing ride comfort, however, requires a deeper understanding of how humans physically react to vehicle perturbations. We conducted a perturbation experiment to determine how vibration perturbation characteristics in the sagittal plane - that is, the longitudinal, vertical and pitch directions - were related to subjectively perceived levels of discomfort. We expected that there would be a combination of amplitude and frequency at which maximal discomfort (inverted ’U-shape’) is experienced. The results of the experiment confirmed our hypothesis. More specifically, discomfort increased with increasing amplitude of the vibration perturbation and with increased bandwidth of the vibration perturbation. Furthermore, we found that there is a strong interaction effect between bandwidth and amplitude. Hence, for large amplitude vibrations it is important to limit the bandwidth of the frequency content, while for high bandwidth vibrations it is important to limit the amplitude.@en

A large number of haptic driver support systems have been described in the scientific literature. However, there is little consensus regarding the design, evaluation methods, and effectiveness of these systems. This literature survey aimed to investigate: (1) what haptic systems (in terms of function, haptic signal, channel, and supported task) have been experimentally tested, (2) how these haptic systems have been evaluated, and (3) their reported effects on driver performance and behaviour. We reviewed empirical research in which participants had to drive a vehicle in a real or simulated environment, were able to control the heading and/or speed of the vehicle, and a haptic signal was provided to them. The results indicated that a clear distinction can be made between warning systems (using vibrations) and guidance systems (using continuous forces). Studies typically used reaction time measures for evaluating warning systems and vehicle-centred performance measures for evaluating guidance systems. In general, haptic warning systems reduced the reaction time of a driver compared to no warnings, although these systems may cause annoyance. Guidance systems generally improved the performance of drivers compared to non-aided driving, but these systems may suffer from after-effects. Longitudinal research is needed to investigate the transfer and retention of effects caused by haptic support systems.@en