Abstract-Manual control cybernetics aims to understand and describe how humans control vehicles and devices using mathematical models of human control dynamics. This 'cybernetic approach' enables objective and quantitative comparisons of human behavior, and allows a systematic optimization of human control interfaces and training associated with manual control. Current cybernetics theory is primarily based on technology and analysis methods formalized in the 1960s and has shown to be limited in its capability to capture the full breadth of human cognition and control. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art in our knowledge of human manual control, points out the main fundamental limitations in cybernetics, and proposes a possible roadmap to advance the theory and its applications. Central in this roadmap will be a shift from the current linear time-invariant modeling approach that is only truly valid for human behavior under tightly controlled and stationary conditions, to methods that facilitate the analysis of adaptive, and possibly time-varying, human behavior in realistic control tasks. Examples of key current developments in the field of cybernetics -human use of preview, predictable discrete maneuvering, skill acquisition and training, time-varying human modeling, and neuromuscular system modeling -that contribute to this shift are presented in this paper. The new foundations for cybernetics that will emerge from these efforts will impact all domains that involve humans in manual and semi-automatic control.

In the manual control of a dynamic system, the human controller (HC) often follows a visible and predictable reference path. Compared with a purely feedback control strategy, performance can be improved by making use of this knowledge of the reference. The operator could effectively introduce feedforward control in conjunction with a feedback path to compensate for errors, as hypothesized in literature. However, feedforward behavior has never been identified from experimental data, nor have the hypothesized models been validated. This paper investigates human control behavior in pursuit tracking of a predictable reference signal while being perturbed by a quasi-random multisine disturbance signal. An experiment was done in which the relative strength of the target and disturbance signals were systematically varied. The anticipated changes in control behavior were studied by means of an ARX model analysis and by fitting three parametric HC models: two different feedback models and a combined feedforward and feedback model. The ARX analysis shows that the experiment participants employed control action on both the error and the target signal. The control action on the target was similar to the inverse of the system dynamics. Model fits show that this behavior can be modeled best by the combined feedforward and feedback model.

Abstract-Realistic manual control tasks typically involve predictable target signals and random disturbances. The human controller (HC) is hypothesized to use a feedforward control strategy for target-following, in addition to feedback control for disturbance-rejection. Little is known about human feedforward control, partly because common system identification methods have difficulty in identifying whether, and (if so) how, the HC applies a feedforward strategy. In this paper an identification procedure is presented that aims at an objective model selection for identifying the human feedforward response, using linear time-invariant ARX models. A new model selection criterion is proposed to decide on the model order (number of parameters) and the presence of feedforward in addition to feedback. For a range of typical control tasks, it is shown by means of Monte Carlo computer simulations that the classical Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) leads to selecting models that contain a feedforward path from data generated by a pure feedback model: 'false-positive' feedforward detection. To eliminate these false-positives, the modified BIC includes an additional penalty on model complexity. The appropriate weighting is found through computer simulations with a hypothesized HC model prior to performing a tracking experiment. Experimental human-in-theloop data will be considered in future work. With appropriate weighting, the method correctly identifies the HC dynamics in a wide range of control tasks, without false-positive results.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The human controller (HC) can greatly improve target-tracking performance by utilizing a feedforward operation on the target signal, in addition to a feedback response. System identification methods are used to determine the correct HC model structure: purely feedback or a combined feedforward/feedback model. In this paper, we investigate three central issues that complicate this objective. First, the identification method should not require prior assumptions regarding the dynamics of the feedforward and feedback components. Second, severe biases might be introduced by high levels of noise in the data measured under closed-loop conditions. To address the first two issues, we will consider two identification methods that make use of linear ARX models: the classic direct method and the two-stage indirect method of van den Hof and Schrama (1993). Third, model complexity should be considered in the selection of the 'best' ARX model to prevent 'false-positive' feedforward identification. Various model selection criteria, that make an explicit trade-off between model quality and model complexity, are considered. Based on computer simulations with a HC model, we conclude that 1) the direct method provides more accurate estimates in the frequency range of interest, and 2) existing model selection criteria do not prevent false-positive feedforward identification.

The human in manual control of a dynamical system can use both feedback and feedforward control strategies and will select a strategy based on performance and required effort. Literature has shown that feedforward control is used during tracking tasks in response to predictable targets. The influence of an external disturbance signal on the utilization of a feedforward control strategy has never been investigated, however. We hypothesized that the human will use a combined feedforward and feedback control strategy whenever the predictable target signal is sufficiently strong, and a predominantly feedback strategy whenever the random disturbance signal is dominant. From the data of a human-in-the-loop experiment we conclude that feedforward control is used in all the considered experimental conditions, including those where the disturbance signal is dominant and feedforward control does not deliver a marked performance advantage.