Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

On human–machine relations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to human–machine interactions based on the concept of teamwork and the psychological theory of object relations. We envision the human and the machine in a close relationship that has many aspects of human-to-human relations. Not only does the machine have to relate to and accommodate human wants and needs, but also, to some extent, the human is called to reciprocate. We propose a framework consisting of eleven attributes that describe generic processes in teamwork: commitment, goal definition, common ground, belief, planning, transparency, sensitivity, caring, responsibility, trust, and reflection. Using an automotive climate control system as an example, we show how some of these attributes can be used to evaluate user interactions and point to new design opportunities. Based on results from a pilot study of driver interaction with the climate control system, we operationalized sensitivity and caring for other team members, encapsulated them in a computational architecture, and implemented a control interface. The evaluation of the control interface during a driving experiment suggests that it is markedly better than a regular interface and is almost as good as a human expert who interacts with the climate control system in response to the driver’s needs and wants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Aaron J, Simmons JA, Wood D (2008) Kierkegaard and levinas: ethics, politics, and religion. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Amon N (1998) The book of Tao. Even Hoshen, Raanana. (Translation from Hebrew is available online in PDF format)

  • Asimov I (1950) I Robot. Gnome Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Azaria A, Rabinovich Z, Kraus S, Goldman CV, Gal Y (2012) Strategic advice provision in repeated human-agent interactions. In: Proceedings of the 26th national conference on AI (AAAI 2012), Toronto, Canada

  • Azaria A, Gal Y, Kraus S, Goldman CV (2015) Strategic advice provision in repeated human-agent interactions. J Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 30:4–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin I, Schultz J (1983) Rapid changes in tree leaf chemistry induced by damage: evidence for communication between plants. Science 15(221):277–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I (2001) the “reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 42(2):241–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barshi I, Mauro R, Degani A, Loukopoulou L (2016) Designing flightdeck procedures. NASA Technical Memorandum #219421. Ames Research Center, Mountain View

  • Belbin RM (1981) Management teams: why they succeed or fail. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin RM (1993) Team roles at work. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bion WR (1959) Attacks on linking. Int J Psychoanal 40:308–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Bion WR (1961) Experiences in groups and other papers. Tavistock, London, pp 139–189

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers M (1966) The will to manage. Corporate success through programmed management. Mcgraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman ME (1992) Shared cooperative activity. Philos Rev 101(2):327–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw JM, Hoffman RR, Johnson M, Woods DD (2013) The seven deadly myths of ‘autonomous systems’. IEEE Intell Syst 28(3):54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown D, Zinkin L (1994) The psyche and the social world. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse SA (1990) Cognitive psychology and team training: shared mental models in complex systems. Hum Fact Bull 33:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli A, Jones CD, Binyamin G (2016) The power of caring and generativity in building strategic adaptability. J Occup Organ Psychol 89(1):46–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casner SM, Geven RW, Williams KT (2013) The effectiveness of airline pilot training for abnormal events. Hum Fact 55(3):477–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casner SM, Hutchins EL, Norman D (2016) The challenges of partially automated driving. Commun ACM 59(5):70–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Chen X, Portnoy R (2009) Reciprocating positive and negative inequitable offers: culture, emotion, and reciprocity. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoffersen K, Woods DD (2002) How to make automated systems team players. Adv Hum Perform Cognit Res 2:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis J, Millburn P, Murphy T, Woodhouse M (1992) Successful team building: how to create teams that really work. Kogan Page, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Deer L, Erodes R (1994) Lame deer, seeker of visions. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Degani A (2004) Taming HAL: designing interfaces beyond 2001. Palgrave-MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Degani A, Heymann M, Shafto M (2013a) Modeling and formal analysis of human–machine interaction. In: Kirlik A, Lee J (eds) The Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Degani A, Heymann M, Shafto M (2013b) Modeling and formal analysis of human-machine interaction. In: Kirlik A, Lee J (eds) The Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • de Saint-Exupéry A (1943/2000). The little prince (Richard Howard, translator). Mariner Books, New York

  • Farid S (2005) Respect. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/respect/?nid=6573. May 3rd 2017

  • Federal Aviation Administration (2004) Advisory Circular 120-51E: Crew resource management training. Initiated by FAA office AFS-210 on 1/22/04

  • Foulkes SH (1964) Therapeutic group analysis. George Allen & Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Foulkes SH (1990) Selected Papers of S.H. Foulkes: psychoanalysis and group analysis. In: Foulkes E (ed). Karnac Books

  • Foushee HC (1984) Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: factors affecting group process and aircrew performance. Am Psychol 39:885–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fromm E (1956) The art of loving. Harper & Row Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal Y, Kraus S, Gelfand M, Khashan H, Salmon E (2011) Negotiating with people across cultures using an adaptive agent. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 3(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman C, Degani A (2012) A team-oriented approach for automation aids in cars. In: Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society, Boston

  • Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics volume 3: speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz B, Kraus S (1996) Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artif Intell J 86(2):269–357

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guntrip H (1969) Schizoid phenomena, object relations and the self. International Universities Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MH (1992) The ancient Greek city-state. In: Symposium on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters (July, 1–4)

  • Harari YN (2015) Sapiens: a brief history of humankind. Vintage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel D (1987) Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci Comput Progr 8(1):231–274

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Harel D (2009) Statecharts in the making: a personal account. Commun ACM 52(3):67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel D, Pnueli A (1985) On the development of reactive systems. In: Apt KR (ed) Logics and models of concurrent systems, NATO ASI Series, vol F-13. Springer, New York, pp 477–498

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harel D, Politi M (1998) Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: The STATEMATE approach. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload: advances in psychology. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 139–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heymann M, Degani A (2013) Automated driving aids: modeling, analysis, and interface design considerations. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AU2013), Eindhoven, The Netherlands

  • Horvitz E (1999) Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. Proc ACM CHI 1999:159–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M (1932) The psycho-analysis of children. Hogarth, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein G, Woods DD, Bradshaw JM, Hoffman RR, Feltovich PJ (2004) Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intell Syst 19(6):91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koller D, Friedman N (2009) Probabilistic graphical models. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1939) Field theory and experiment in social psychology: concepts and methods. Am J Sociol 44(6):868–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Corvo R (2002) The dictionary of the work of W.R. Bion. Karnac Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadzean E (2002) Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1—a conceptual model. Manag Decis 40(5/6):463–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2011)

  • National Transportation Safety Board (1996) American eagle flight 4184, Roselawn Indiana, October 31, 1994. Report number NTSB/AAR-96/01. Washington, DC

  • National Transportation Safety Board (2014) Asiana flight 214, San Francisco, California July 6, 2013. NTSB/AAR-14/01. Washington, DC

  • NASA (1996) NASA task load index (TLX) v.1.0 manual. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden TH (2004) On holding and containing, being and dreaming. Int J Psychoanal 85(6):1349–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris CR, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis. Ergonomics 43(8):1052–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnas D (1969) On the use of transition diagrams in the design of a user interface for an interactive computer system. In: Proceeding of the 24th annual ACM conference, pp 379–385

  • Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation. Cambridge Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich C, Sidner CL, Lesh N (2001) Collagen: applying collaborative discourse theory to human-computer interaction. AI Mag 22(4):15–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld A, Zuckerman I, Azaria A, Krasu S (2012) Combining psychological models with machine learning to better predict people’s decisions. Syntheses 189(Supplement 1):81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushby J (2001) Analyzing cockpit interfaces using formal methods. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 43:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell S, Norvig P (2009) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ruszczynski S (1993) Thinking about and working with couples. In: Ruszczynski S (ed) Psychotherapy with couples: theory and practice at the Tavistock institute of marital studies. Karnac Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Dickenson TL, Converse SA, Tannenbaum SI (1992) Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: Swezey RJ, Salas E (eds) Teams: their training and performance. Ablex, Norwood, pp 3–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS (2005) Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res 36:555–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasou K, Reason J (1999) Team errors: definition and taxonomy. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 65(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS/STAT (2008). User’s guide introduction to Statistical Modeling with SAS/STAT Software® 9.2., SAS institute incorporated. NC, Cary

  • Schelling TC (1984) Choice and consequences. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (1985) Enforcing rules on oneself. J Law Econ Organ 1(2):357–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3):417–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon RC (1993) The passions emotions and the meaning of life. Hackett Publishing Company, Cambridge

  • Solomon RC (2007) The little philosophy book. Oxford University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout RJ, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Milanovich DM (1999) Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established. Hum Fact 41(1):61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch J, Welch S (2011) How to build a winning team. Newsweek Magazine

  • Wiener EL, Kanki BG, Helmreich RL (1993) Cockpit resource management. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott DW (1955) The depressive position in normal emotional development. Br J Med Psychol 9(28):89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott DW (1958/1945) Primitive emotional development. In: Winnicott DW (ed) Through pediatrics to psychoanalysis. Basic Books, New York, pp 145–156

  • Woolley AW, Chabris FC, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Hila Degani for the idea to consider the psychoanalytical theory of object relations as a way to view human–autonomy relations; Inbar Sela for transcribing the data from the logbooks and videos and maintaining the dataset and all related experimental forms; Amit Edelstein for helping us to apply, in the technological sense, some of the psychoanalytical concepts; and Esther Singer for her review of the paper and links to related work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Motors, Herzliya, Israel

    Asaf Degani, Claudia V. Goldman, Omer Deutsch & Omer Tsimhoni

Authors
  1. Asaf Degani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia V. Goldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omer Deutsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Omer Tsimhoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asaf Degani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Degani, A., Goldman, C.V., Deutsch, O. et al. On human–machine relations. Cogn Tech Work 19, 211–231 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0417-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0417-3

Keywords