Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cooperation and learning to increase the autonomy of ADAS

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

Abstract

This paper discusses on the cooperation and the learning processes to increase the autonomy of a human–machine system or an artificial or human agent. The autonomy is defined as the capacity for a system or an agent to fend alone. It is described in terms of competences and the limits of these competences. Cooperation and learning aim then at increasing the competences or managing the system limits. The management of the autonomy is detailed through different structures of cooperation. It concerns the sharing control between systems or between agents in order to recover their limits. Different classes of learning processes are proposed: the mimicry-based approaches, the dysfunction-based ones, and the wait-and-see-based ones. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are usually designed integrating cooperation characteristics. Two case studies about the use of cooperative ADAS are then proposed. They are hypothetical scenarios that are discussed to introduce possible future ADAS perspective implementing competences such as learning or cooperative learning.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aïmeur E (1998) Application and assessment of cognitive dissonance—theory in the learning process. J Univers Comput Sci 4(3):216–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentivegna DC, Atkeson CG, Chenga G (2004) Learning tasks from observation and practice. Rob Auton Syst 47:163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carabelea C, Boissier O (2006) Coordinating agents in organisations using social commitments. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 150:73–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chella A, Dindo H, Infantino I (2006) A cognitive framework for imitation learning. Rob Auton Syst 54:403–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chignell M, Hancock P (1985) Knowledge-based load levelling and task allocation in human–machine systems. In: Proceeding of annual conference on manual control, vol 21, pp 9.1–9.11

  • Chu H-C, Chen T-Y, Lin C-J, Liao M-J, Chen Y-M (2009) Development of an adaptive learning case recommendation approach for problem-based e-learning on mathematics teaching for students with mild disabilities. Expert Syst Appl 36:5456–5468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway CM, Christiansen MH (2001) Sequential learning in non-human primates. Trends Cogn Sci 5(12):539–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Waard D (1996) The measurement of drivers’ mental workload. PhD thesis, University of Groningen. Haren, The Netherlands: University of Groningen, Traffic Research Centre

  • Demazeau Y (1995) From interactions to collective behaviour in agent-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on cognitive science, Saint-Malo, France, pp 117–132

  • Inagaki T (2010) Traffic systems as joint cognitive systems: issues to be solved for realizing human-technology co-agency. Cogn Technol Work 12:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jouglet D, Piechowiak S, Vanderhaegen F (2003) A shared workspace to support man-machine reasoning: application to cooperative distant diagnosis. Cogn Technol Work 5:127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millot P, Hoc J-M (1997) Human–machine cooperation: metaphore or possible reality? In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on cognitive science, Manchester, UK, April 9–11, pp 165–174

  • Ouedraogo A, Enjalbert S, Vanderhaegen F (2010) How to learn from the Resilience of human–machine systems? In: Proceedings of the 11th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA symposium on analysis, design and evaluation of human–machine systems, Valenciennes, France, August–September 2010

  • Parmentier FBR, Muaybery MT, Huitson M, Jones DM (2008) The perceptual determinants of repetition learning in auditory space. J Mem Lang 58:978–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Millot P (2009) Human behaviour analysis of barrier deviation using the benefit-cost-deficit model. In: Advances in human–computer interaction. Available on http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahci/2009/642929/

  • Rajaonah B, Tricot N, Anceaux F, Millot P (2008) Role of intervening variables in driver-ACC cooperation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 66:185–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte A, Meitinger C, Onken R (2009) Human factors in the guidance of uninhabited vehicles: oxymoron or tautology? The potential of cognitive and co-operative automation. Cogn Technol Work 11:71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seery MD (2011) Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulnerability to potential stress in humans. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35:1603–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan TB (2000) Function allocation algorithm, alchemy or apostasy. Int J Human Mach Stud 52:203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tošić PT, Vilalta R (2010) A unified framework for reinforcement learning, co-learning and meta-learning how to coordinate in collaborative multi-agent systems. Procedia Comput Sci 1:2217–2226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tricot N, Rajaonah B, Popieul J-C, Millot P (2006) Design and evaluation of an advanced driver assistance system: the case of an auto adaptive cruise control. Trav Hum 69:129–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (1997) Multilevel organization design: the case of the air traffic control. Control Eng Pract 5(3):391–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (1999a) Cooperative system organisation and task allocation: illustration of task allocation in air traffic control. Trav Hum 63(3):197–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (1999b) Multilevel allocation modes—allocator control policies to share tasks between human and computer. Syst Analy Modelling Simul 35:191–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (1999c) Toward a model of unreliability to study error prevention supports. Interact Comput 11:575–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2010a) Human-error-based design of barriers and analysis of their uses. Cogn Technol Work 12:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2010b) Autonomy control of human–machine systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA symposium on analysis, design and evaluation of human–machine systems, Valenciennes, France, August–September 2010

  • Vanderhaegen F, Jouglet D, Piechowiak S (2004) Human-reliability analysis of diagnosis support cooperative redundancy. IEEE Trans Reliab 53(4):458–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Chalmé S, Anceaux F, Millot P (2006) Principles of cooperation and competition—application to car driver behavior analysis. Cogn Technol Work 8(3):183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Zieba S, Polet P (2009) A reinforced iterative formalism to learn from human errors and uncertainty. Eng Appl Artif Intell 22:654–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Zieba S, Enjalbert S, Polet P (2011) A Benefit/Cost/Deficit (BCD) model for learning from human errors. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 96(7):757–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiabo Z, Ohno K (2000) Properties of a sequencing problem for a mixed model assembly line with conveyor stoppage. Eur J Oper Res 124:560–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young HP (2009) Learning by trial and error. Games Econ Behav 65(2):626–643

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Millot P (2004) Artificial neural network for violation analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 84(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zieba S, Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Debernard S (2009) Resilience of a human–robot system using adjustable autonomy and human–robot collaborative control. Int J Adapt Innov Syst 1(1):13–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zieba S, Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Debernard S (2010) Principles of adjustable autonomy: a framework for resilient human machine cooperation. Cogn Technol Work 12(3):193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zieba S, Polet P, Vanderhaegen F (2011) Using adjustable autonomy and human–machine cooperation to make a human–machine system resilient—application to a ground robotic system. Inform Sci 181(3):379–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research work has been supported by the International Campus on Safety and Intermodality in Transportation the European Community, the Délégation Régionale à la Recherche et à la Technologie, the Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, the Région Nord Pas de Calais and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the Scientific Research Group on Supervisory, Safety and Security of Complex Systems, the European Research Group on Human–Machine Systems in Transportation and Industry: the authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these institutions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Univ Lille Nord de France, 59000, Lille, France

    F. Vanderhaegen

  2. UVHC, LAMIH, 59313, Valenciennes, France

    F. Vanderhaegen

  3. CNRS, UMR 8530, 59313, Valenciennes, France

    F. Vanderhaegen

Authors
  1. F. Vanderhaegen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Vanderhaegen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vanderhaegen, F. Cooperation and learning to increase the autonomy of ADAS. Cogn Tech Work 14, 61–69 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0196-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0196-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation