How does the tuning of the LoHS/SoHF and HSC torque fraction affect the acceptance or feel of the driver?
In a haptic shared control situation, human and automation collaborate in a control task by both exerting forces on a control device. A primary issue in haptic shared control is the tuning of the strength of the haptic feedback. In most cases, this tuning represents a compromise between performance, safety, and operator acceptance. Recently a new design philosophy for a haptic shared control system was presented in . This new design philosophy decouples (human compatible) reference trajectory from a shared controller, thereby allowing for easy adaptation to different references (trajectories). The shared controller has a feedforward and feedback loop, producing two distinctly different torques, which are also perceived (felt) differently by the human, analogous to a teacher who corrects each small mistake you make (feedback) and one who ‘shows you the way’ (feedforward). Recent experiments  with the new architecture shown in the diagram above found that the new feedforward (LoHS) component was a dominant factor in reducing conflicts between haptic support and operator, resulting in a different ‘feel’ to the haptic shared controller, and increased acceptance.
By removing the feedforward components, the architecture can be made to mimic conventional single-path haptic support systems. In this project, we seek to further explore the role of the feedforward component, by systematically varying the LoHS in an experiment.
- For each chosen setting to be tested in the experiment, the other parts of the architecture are tuned for optimal performance, so that the tested setting can effectively drive a reference trajectory without human intervention. This needs offline Matlab simulation and programming in DUECA.
- You should find that automatically driving the reference trajectory can be done through multiple different haptic feedback and feedforward settings.
- For a chosen set of two or three LoHS/SoHF settings, choose different TDCA torque fractions (at 100% the TDCA torque follows the reference exactly, at a less percentage the human has to contribute as well), for an empirical experiment to test how humans perceive this guidance. Essentially investigating how different shared control settings affect human-automation conflicts and acceptance
|Workgroup||Human-Machine Interaction/Cognitive Robotics 3me|
|Mentors||ir. S. Barendswaard, dr. ir. M.M. van Paassen, dr.ir.Daan Pool, Prof David Abbink, Prof Max Mulder|
|Begin date||Mar-Jun 2018|
Keywords: Haptic Shared Control design, acceptance, conflicts.
References M. M. Van Paassen, R. Boink, D. A. Abbink, M. Mulder, and M. Mulder, “Four design choices for haptic shared control,” Adv. Aviat.
Psychol., pp. 237 – 254, 2017.
 W. Scholtens, S. Barendswaard, D.A. Abbink, D.M.Pool, M.M. Van Paassen, ‘A New Haptic Shared Controller Reducing Steering
Conflicts’ IEEE SMC, 2018, to be published.