This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Beyond Cooperative Robotics: The Central Role of Interdependence in Coactive Design
May/June 2011 (vol. 26 no. 3)
pp. 81-88
Matthew Johnson, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Paul J. Feltovich, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Robert R. Hoffman, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Catholijn Jonker, Delft University of Technology
Birna van Riemsdijk, Delft University of Technology
Maarten Sierhuis, Xerox PARC

As automation becomes more sophisticated, the nature of its interaction with people will need to change in profound ways. Many approaches to designing more team-like cooperation between humans and machines have been proposed—most recently regrouped under the rubric of cooperative robotics. All these approaches rely on the concept of levels of autonomy as the benchmark for machine performance and the criterion for decisions about human-machine task allocation and the supervisory control regimen. This article argues that the levels of autonomy concept is incomplete and insufficient as a model for designing complex human-machine teams, largely because it does not sufficiently account for interdependence among their members. Building on a theory of joint activity, the authors introduce the notion of coactive design, an approach to human-machine interaction that takes interdependence as the central organizing principle among people and agents working together as a team.

1. J.M. Bradshaw, P.J. Feltovich, and M. Johnson, "Human-Agent Interaction," Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction, G. Boy et al., eds., Ashgate, 2011, pp. 283–302.
2. C. Breazeal et al., "Social Robots: Beyond Tools to Partners," , Proc. 13th IEEE Workshop Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE Press, 2004, pp. 551–556.
3. T.W. Fong, Collaborative Control: A Robot-Centric Model for Vehicle Teleoperation, tech. report, Robotics Inst., Carnegie Mellon Univ., 2001.
4. G. Klein et al., "Common Ground and Coordination in Joint Activity," Organizational Simulation, W.B. Rouse, and K.R. Boff eds., John Wiley, 2004, pp, 139–184.
5. G. Klein et al., "Ten Challenges for Making Automation a 'Team Player' in Joint Human-Agent Activity," IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2004, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 91–95.
6. M. Johnson et al., "Coactive Design," to be publishing in , Coordination, Organisation, Institutions and Norms 2010, M.D. Vos et al., eds., Springer, 2012.
7. J.M. Bradshaw et al., , "Dimensions of Adjustable Autonomy and Mixed-Initiative Interaction," Agents and Computational Autonomy, M. Klusch, G. Weiss, and M. Rovatsos eds., Springer, 2004, pp. 17–39.
8. T.B. Sheridan, and W. Verplank, Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators, tech. report, Man-Machine Systems Lab., Dept. of Mechanical Eng., Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 1978.
9. M.A. Goodrich and A.C. Schultz, "Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey," Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no. 3, 2007, pp. 203–275.
10. P.A. Hancock and S.F. Scallen, "Allocating Functions in Human-Machine Systems," Viewing Psychology as a Whole, R.R. Hoffman, M.F. Sherrick, and J.S. Warm eds., Am. Psychological Assoc., 1998, pp. 509–539.
11. R. Parasuraman, Y. Sheridan, and C. Wickens, "A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation," IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, vol. 30, no. 3, 2000, pp. 286–297.
12. J.F. Allen, "Mixed-Initiative Interaction," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 14, no. 5, 1999, pp. 14–16.
13. K. Christoffersen and D.D. Woods, "How to Make Automated Systems Team Players," Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, vol. 2, E. Salas, ed., Elsevier Science, 2002, pp. 1–12.
14. T.B. Sheridan, "Function Allocation: Algorithm, Alchemy or Apostasy?" Int'l J. Human-Computer Studies, vol. 52, no. 2, 2000, pp. 203–216.
15. P.J. Feltovich, R.R. Hoffman, and D.D. Woods, "Keeping it Too Simple: How the Reductive Tendency Affects Cognitive Engineering," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 19, no. 3, 2004, pp. 90–95.
16. P.J. Feltovich et al., "Progress Appraisal as a Challenging Element of Coordination in Human and Machine Joint Activity," Engineering Societies for the Agents World VIII, A. Artikis et al., eds., Springer, 2007, pp. 124–141.
17. E. Salas, N.J. Cooke, and M.A. Rosen, "On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments," Human Factors, vol. 50, no. 3, 2008, pp. 540–547.
18. P.M. Fitts et al., Human Engineering for an Effective Air-Navigation and Traffic-Control System, Committee on Aviation Psychology, Nat'l Research Council, 1951.
19. R.R. Hoffman et al., "A Rose by Any Other Name … Would Probably Be Given an Acronym," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 17, no. 4, 2002, pp. 72–80.
20. D.D. Woods, "Steering the Reverberations of Technology Change on Fields of Practice: Laws that Govern Cognitive Work," Proc. 24th Ann. Meeting of the Cognitive Science Soc., Erlbaum, 2002, pp. 14–16.
21. R.R. Hoffman, "Influencing versus Informing Design, Part 2: Macrcognitive Modeling," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 23, no. 6, 2008, pp. 86–89.
22. P. Feltovich et al., "Social Order and Adaptability in Animal and Human Cultures as an Analogue for Agent Communities: Toward a Policy-Based Approach," Engineering Societies in the Agents World IV, LNAI 3071, Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 21–48.
23. S.R. Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Free Press, 1989.
24. "Unmanned Systems Roadmap: 2007–2032," memo, US Office of the Secretary of Defense, 10 Dec. 2007.

Index Terms:
intelligent systems, human-computer interaction, levels of autonomy, human-machine task allocation, robotics, coactive design
Citation:
Matthew Johnson, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Paul J. Feltovich, Robert R. Hoffman, Catholijn Jonker, Birna van Riemsdijk, Maarten Sierhuis, "Beyond Cooperative Robotics: The Central Role of Interdependence in Coactive Design," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 81-88, May-June 2011, doi:10.1109/MIS.2011.47
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.