Mind the Gap: A Theory Is Needed to Bridge the Gap Between the Human Skills and Self-driving Cars

In designing robots for safe and ethically acceptable interaction with humans, engineers need to understand human behaviour control including social interaction skills. Automated systems with the option of mixed control constitute an important subclass of these design problems. These designs imply basic interaction skills because an automatic controller should be similar to human-like controller; otherwise, the human and artificial agent (controller) could not understand/interpret each other in their interaction. A popular research area for mixed control is to develop self-driving cars that are able to safely participate in normal traffic. Vehicular control should be ethical, that is human-like to avoid confusing pedestrians, passengers or other human drivers. The present paper provides insights into the difficulties of designing autonomous and mixed vehicle control by analysing drivers’ performance in curve negotiation. To demonstrate the discrepancy between human and automated control systems, biological and artificial design principles are contrasted. The paper discusses the theoretical and ethical consequences of our limited understanding of human performance by highlighting the gap between the design principles of biological and artificial/robotic performance. Nevertheless, we can conclude with a positive note by emphasizing the benefits of the robustness of human driving skills in developing mixed control systems.

[1]  J. Wann,et al.  Steering with or without the flow: is the retrieval of heading necessary? , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Robert E. Shaw,et al.  Dimensionless invariants for intentional systems: Measuring the fit of vehicular activities to environmental layout. , 1995 .

[3]  M T Turvey,et al.  Perceiving circular heading in noncanonical flow fields. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Ralph M. Siegel,et al.  Optic Flow Selectivity in the Anterior Superior Temporal Polysensory Area, STPa, of the Behaving Monkey , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[5]  Bert H. Hodges Values Define Fields: The Intentional Dynamics of Driving, Carrying, Leading, Negotiating, and Conversing , 2007 .

[6]  M. Graziano,et al.  Tuning of MST neurons to spiral motions , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[7]  David N. Lee,et al.  Where we look when we steer , 1994, Nature.

[8]  Ann West,et al.  Psychology on the Road , 2008 .

[9]  Rob Gray,et al.  A Two-Point Visual Control Model of Steering , 2004, Perception.

[10]  M K Kaiser,et al.  Optical specification of time-to-passage: observers' sensitivity to global tau. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  Ecological Robotics , 1998, Adapt. Behav..

[12]  J. Gibson The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems , 1967 .

[13]  Michael T. Turvey,et al.  Eye Movements and a Rule for Perceiving Direction of Heading , 1999 .

[14]  R. M. Siegel,et al.  Analysis of optic flow in the monkey parietal area 7a. , 1997, Cerebral cortex.

[15]  R. A. Brooks,et al.  Intelligence without Representation , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Springer Handbook of Robotics , 2007, Springer Handbooks.

[17]  A. Costall,et al.  Drivers' Gaze Patterns in Braking From Three Different Approaches to a Crash Barrier , 2005 .

[18]  J. Effken,et al.  Paintings as Architectural Space: “Guided Tours” by Cézanne and Hokusai , 2008 .

[19]  R. Wurtz,et al.  Response of monkey MST neurons to optic flow stimuli with shifted centers of motion , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[20]  John P. Wann,et al.  Why you should look where you are going , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  D. Shinar,et al.  Eye Movements in Curve Negotiation , 1977, Human factors.

[22]  A. Duchon,et al.  A Visual Equalization Strategy for Locomotor Control: Of Honeybees, Robots, and Humans , 2002, Psychological science.

[23]  S. Runeson,et al.  Constant velocity — Not perceived as such , 1974, Psychological research.

[24]  Edmund Donges,et al.  A Two-Level Model of Driver Steering Behavior , 1978 .

[25]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[26]  A. Costall,et al.  Gaze Patterns in the Visual Control of Straight-Road Driving and Braking as a Function of Speed and Expertise , 2005 .