Abstract
Coactive Design is a new approach to address the increasingly sophisticated roles that people and robots play as the use of robots expands into new, complex domains. The approach is motivated by the desire for robots to perform less like teleoperated tools or independent automatons and more like interdependent teammates. In this article, we describe what it means to be interdependent, why this is important, and the design implications that follow from this perspective. We argue for a human-robot system model that supports interdependence through careful attention to requirements for observability, predictability, and directability. We present a Coactive Design method and show how it can be a useful approach for developers trying to understand how to translate high-level teamwork concepts into reusable control algorithms, interface elements, and behaviors that enable robots to fulfill their envisioned role as teammates. As an example of the coactive design approach, we present our results from the DARPA Virtual Robotics Challenge, a competition designed to spur development of advanced robots that can assist humans in recovering from natural and man-made disasters. Twenty-six teams from eight countries competed in three different tasks providing an excellent evaluation of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to human-machine system design.
- Allen, J. E., Guinn, C. I., & Horvitz, E. (1999). Mixed-initiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(5), 14--23.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Annett, J. (2003). Hierarchical task analysis. In Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 17--35). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Bradshaw, J. M., Feltovich, P. J., & Johnson, M. (2011). Human-agent interaction. In G. Boy (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction (pp. 293--302). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Bradshaw, J. M., Feltovich, P. J., Jung, H., Kulkarni, S., Taysom, W., & Uszok, A. (2004). Dimensions of adjustable autonomy and mixed-initiative interaction. In M. Klusch & G. Weiss (Eds.), Agents and Computational Autonomy (Vol. 2969, pp. 17--39). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bradshaw, J. M., Jung, H., Kulkarni, S., Johnson, M., Feltovich, P., Allen, J., ... Uszok, A. (2005). KAA: Policy-based explorations of a richer model for adjustable autonomy. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. The Netherlands: ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bradshaw, J. M., Jung, H., Kulkarni, S., Johnson, M., Feltovich, P., Allen, J., ... Uszok, A. (2008). Toward trustworthy adjustable autonomy and mixed-initiative interaction in KAoS. Springer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary10.1.1.108.1619Google Scholar
- Bradshaw, J. M., Sierhuis, M., Acquisti, A., Feltovich, P., Hoffman, R., Jeffers, R., ... Van Hoof, R. (2003). Adjustable autonomy and human-agent teamwork in practice: An interim report on space applications. In H. Hexmoor, R. Falcone, & C. Castelfranchi (Eds.), Agent Aunomy (pp. 243--280). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy036/2003040054.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Bradshaw, J. M., Dignum, V., Jonker, C. M., & Sierhuis, M. (2012). Introduction to special issue on human-agent-robot teamwork. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27, 8--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christoffersen, K., & Woods, D. D. (2002). How to make automated systems team players. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, 2, 1--12. Elsevier Science Ltd.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clark, H H, & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (127--149). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Clark, Herbert H. (1996). Using language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam023/95038401.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Crandall, B., & Klein, G. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Endsley, M. R., Bolté, B., & Jones, D. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Feltovich, P. J., Bradshaw, J. M., Clancey, W. J., & Johnson, M. (2007). Toward an ontology of regulation: Socially-based support for coordination in human and machine joint activity. In G. O'Hare, M. O'Grady, A. Ricci, & O. Dikenelli (Eds.), Engineering Societies in the Agents World VII (Vol. Lecture No, pp. 175--192). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fong, T. W. (2001). Collaborative control: A robot-centric model for vehicle teleoperation. Pittsburgh, PA: Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, R. R., & Deal, S. V. (2008). Influencing versus informing design, part 1: A gap analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(5), 78--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoffman, R. R., Hayes, P., Ford, K. M., & Bradshaw, J. M. (Eds.). (2012). Collected Essays on Human-Centered Computing, 2001--2011. New York, NY: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
- Jennings, N. R. (1996). Coordination techniques for distributed artificial intelligence. In G. M. P. O'Hare & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence (pp. 187--210). New York, NY: Wiley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J., Feltovich, P., Jonker, C., van Riemsdijk, B., & Sierhuis, M. (2011). The fundamental principle of coactive design: Interdependence must shape autonomy. In M. De Vos, N. Fornara, J. Pitt, & G. Vouros (Eds.), Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI (Vol. 6541, pp. 172--191). Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Feltovich, P. J., Jonker, C. M., van Riemsdijk, B., & Sierhuis, M. (2012). Analyzing autonomy and its relation to interdependence in human-machine systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(2), 43--51. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Klein, G., Feltovich, P. J., Bradshaw, J. M., & Woods, D. D. (2005). Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In W. B. Rouse & K. R. Boff (Eds.), Organizational Simulation (pp. 139--184). Retrieved fromGoogle Scholar
- Klein, G., Woods, D. D., Bradshaw, J. M., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. J. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a "team player" in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(6), 91--95. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Koenig, N., & Howard, A. (2004). Design and use paradigms for Gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). (Vol. 3, pp. 2149--2154).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right, what can go wrong. Sage Series in Interpersonal Communication, 10, 150. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- March, J. G., Simon, H. A., & Guetzkow, H. S. (1993). Organizations (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Murphy, R. R., & Burke, J. L. (2008). From remote tool to shared roles. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 15(4), 39--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T., & Wickens, C. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, 30(3), 286--297. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (2009). Cognitive task analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sierhuis, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Acquisti, R., Hoof, R. Van, & Jeffers, R. (2003). Human-agent teamwork and adjustable autonomy in practice. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (i-SAIRAS). Nara, Japan.Google Scholar
- Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In J. B. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training(271--297). Washington D.C., American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Sycara, K. (2002). Integrating agents into human teams. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 46, pp. 413--417).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sycara, K., & Sukthankar, G. (2006, November). Literature Review of Teamwork Models. Pittsburgh, PA: Tech. Report CMU-RI-TR-06-50, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action; social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Wyrobek, K. A., Berger, E. H., Van der Loos, H. F. M., & Salisbury, J. K. (2008). Towards a personal robotics development platform: Rationale and design of an intrinsically safe personal robot. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Automation (ICRA).Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Human-Agent-Robot Teamwork
Researchers and developers are pursuing increasingly sophisticated roles for autonomous systems. Whether working within networked systems as software agents or embedded in robots and unmanned vehicles, what makes these systems valuable is their ...
The fundamental principle of coactive design: interdependence must shape autonomy
COIN@AAMAS'10: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systemsThis article presents the fundamental principle of Coactive Design, a new approach being developed to address the increasingly sophisticated roles for both people and agents in mixed human-agent systems. The fundamental principle of Coactive Design is ...
Collaborative visualization: definition, challenges, and research agenda
Special issue on State of the Field and New Research DirectionsThe conflux of two growing areas of technology - collaboration and visualization - into a new research direction, coLLaborative visualization, provides new research chaLLenges. TechnoLogy now aLLows us to easily connect and collaborate with one another - ...
Comments