Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formal analysis of human operator behavioural patterns in interactive surveillance systems

  • Special Section Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An important area of Human Reliability Assessment in interactive systems is the ability to understand the causes of human error and to model their occurrence. This paper investigates a new approach to analysis of task failures based on patterns of operator behaviour, in contrast with more traditional event-based approaches. It considers, as a case study, a formal model of an Air Traffic Control system operator’s task which incorporates a simple model of the high-level cognitive processes involved. The cognitive model is formalised in the CSP process algebra. Various patterns of behaviour that could lead to task failure are described using temporal logic. Then a model-checking technique is used to verify whether the set of selected behavioural patterns is sound and complete with respect to the definition of task failure. The decomposition is shown to be incomplete and a new behavioural pattern is identified, which appears to have been overlooked in the informal analysis of the problem. This illustrates how formal analysis of operator models can yield fresh insights into how failures may arise in interactive systems.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boyd, J.: A discourse on winning and losing. In unpublished briefing slides: Air University Library, Maxwell AFB. (1987) URL:http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm

  2. Butler, R.W., Miller, S.P., Potts, J.N., Carreno, V.A.: A formal methods approach to the analysis of mode confusion. In: Proceedings of the 17th Digital Avionics Systems Conference. Washington (1998)

  3. Butterworth R., Blandford A.E. and Duke D. (2000). Demonstrating the cognitive plausability of interactive systems. Formal Aspects Comput 12: 237–259

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Cerone, A., Lindsay, P., Connelly, S.: Formal analysis of human-computer interaction using model-checking. In: Aichernig, B., Beckert, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 352–361. IEEE Comp. Soc., New York (2005)

  5. Clarke E., Grumberg O. and Peled D. (1999). Model Checking. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cleaveland, R., Li, T., Sims, S.: The concurrency workbench of the new century. User’s manual, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brooke (2000). URL:http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~cwb

  7. Corker, K.: Cognitive engineering in the aviation domain, chap. Cognitive models and control: Human and system dynamics in advanced airspace operations, pp. 13–42. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc., Mahwah (2000)

  8. Corker, K.: Cognitive Task Design, chap. A cognitive framework for operation of advanced aerospace technologies, pp. 417–446. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc., Mahwah (2003)

  9. Curzon P. and Blandford A.E. (2004). Formally justifying user-centred design rules: a case study on post-completion errors. In: Boiten, E., Derrick, J. and Smith, G. (eds) Integrated Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2999, pp 461–480. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dix A.J. (1991). Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Grant, T., Kooter, B.: Comparing OODA and other models as operational view C2 architecture. In: 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS) (2005)

  12. Hoare C. (1985). Communicating Sequential Processes. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hollnagel E. (1991). The Phenotype of Erroneous Actions: Implications for HCI Design. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson C. (1997). Reasoning about human error and system failure for accident analysis. In: Howard, S., Hammond, J. and Lindgaard, G. (eds) Human–Computer Interaction INTERACT ’97, pp 331–338. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kallus, K., van Damme, D., Dittmann, A.: Integrated task and job analysis of air traffic controllers—phase 2: task analysis of en-route controllers. Tech. Rep. HUM.ET1.ST01.1000-REP-04, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) (1999)

  16. Kirwan, B.: Human reliability assessment. In: Evaluation of Human Work, Chap. 28. Taylor and Francis, London (1990)

  17. Kirwan B. (1992). Human error identification in human reliability assessment. part 1: Overview of approaches. Appl. Ergon. 25(5): 299–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leveson N.G. (1995). Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leveson et al, N.: Final report: Safety analysis of air traffic control upgrades. NASA technical report (1997). URL:http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/dfw2.pdf

  20. Lindsay P. and Connelly S. (2002). Modelling erroneous operator behaviours for an air-traffic control task. In: Grundy, J. and Calder, P. (eds) Third Australasian User Interfaces Conference (AUIC2002), Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, vol. 7, pp 43–54. Australian Computer Society, Inc, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  21. Manna Z. and Pnueli A. (1992). The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems—specification. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ness, S.: Feasibility study on implementing the SafeHCI model in microsaint. Tech. Rep. ACCS-TR-04-01, ARC Centre for Complex Systems (2004). http://www.accs.uq.edu.au

  23. Palanque P., Bastide R. and Paterno F. (1997). Formal specification as a tool for objective assessment of safety-critical interactive systems. In: Howard, S., Hammond, J., and Lindgaard, G. (eds) Human–Computer Interaction INTERACT ’97, pp 323–330. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rasmussen J. (1983). Skills, rules, knowledge: Signals, signs and symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 13(3): 257–267

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reason J. (1987). Generic error-modelling system (GEMS): A cognitive framework for locating common human error forms. In: Rasmussen, J., Duncan, K. and Leplat, J. (eds) New Technology and Human Error, Chap. 7, pp 63–83. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rouse, W.: Designing for human error: concepts for error tolerant systems. In: MANPRINT—An Approach to Systems Integration, pp. 237–255. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1990)

  27. Rushby J. (2002). Using model-checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation surprises. Reliability Eng. Syst. Safety 75(2): 167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Svenson O. (1989). On expert judgements in safety analysis in the process industries. Reliability Eng. Syst. Safety 25: 219–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wicks, J., Connelly, S., Lindsay, P., Neal, A., Wang, J., Chitoni, R.: Simulation of air traffic controllers’ behaviour using the operator choice model. In: MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Proceedings of MODSIM05, vol. 2005, pp. 3023–3029. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand (2005)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute for Software Technology, United Nations University, Macau SAR, China

    Antonio Cerone

  2. ARC Centre for Complex Systems, School of ITEE, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Simon Connelly & Peter Lindsay

Authors
  1. Antonio Cerone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Connelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Lindsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Cerone.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Bernhard Beckert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cerone, A., Connelly, S. & Lindsay, P. Formal analysis of human operator behavioural patterns in interactive surveillance systems. Softw Syst Model 7, 273–286 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-007-0072-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-007-0072-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation