A Topology of Shared Control Systems—Finding Common Ground in Diversity

Abstract

Shared control is an increasingly popular approach to facilitate control and communication between humans and intelligent machines. However, there is little consensus in guidelines for design and evaluation of shared control, or even in a definition of what constitutes shared control. This lack of consensus complicates cross fertilization of shared control research between different application domains. This paper provides a definition for shared control in context with previous definitions, and a set of general axioms for design and evaluation of shared control solutions. The utility of the definition and axioms are demonstrated by applying them to four application domains: automotive, robot-assisted surgery, brain-machine interfaces, and learning. Literature is discussed for each of these four domains in light of the proposed definition and axioms. Finally, to facilitate design choices for other applications, we propose a hierarchical framework for shared control that links the shared control literature with traded control, cooperative control, and other human-automation interaction methods. Future work should reveal the generalizability and utility of the proposed shared control framework in designing useful, safe, and comfortable interaction between humans and intelligent machines.

Joining the blunt and the pointy end of the spear: towards a common framework of joint action, human–machine cooperation, cooperative guidance and control, shared, traded and supervisory control

“…However, in the technical world, shared control is mainly understood as a physical control, e.g., haptic with a control device. To avoid confusion, an extension of shared control beyond haptic contact, e.g., also including voice communication, should be explicitly explained as an extension of the shared control concept (Abbink et al 2018).…”

“…Also captured in Fig. 4 is the position of Abbink et al (2018) that the shared control paradigm can also be expanded on the tactical and strategic layer, e.g., when human and machine work together simultaneously on the guidance or on the navigation (light orange area). An important contrast noted in the paper is between shared control, where human and machine work together simultaneously, and traded control, where human and machine take turns in controlling the task.…”

“…When control is not traded, but haptically shared , such delays can be minimized because the driver is then physically linked to the automation's actions in the environment. Haptic shared control thereby fosters engagement, situation and mode awareness and allows drivers to make use of fast reflexive contributions to control (Abbink et al , 2018. Another example for the application of this model highlights the impact of experience and expertise human and machine may have in cooperating together (in reference to Rasmussen's model).…”

“…There is quite some overlap between these concepts and approaches, and the field Fig. 1 The ultimate weapon of Homo sapiens was not the spear, but cooperation (Marean/Scientific American 2015) suffers from a lack of consensus and definition (Abbink et al 2018).…”

“…The authors of this paper have been particularly involved in automation, "shared control" and "human-machine cooperation" (sometimes also termed "human-machine collaboration"). Shared control stresses the fact that human and machine share control over a system together, (e.g., Griffiths and Gillespie 2004;Abbink 2006;Flemisch et al 2010;Abbink et al 2018) whereas human-machine cooperation stresses the fact that humans and machines share the same tasks and control a situation cooperatively (e.g., Hoc and Lemoine 1998;Hoc 2000;Biester 2008;Pacaux-Lemoine 2014;Flemisch et al 2003Johnson et al 2014).…”