Not very many posts in 2019 but this does not mean that we have not conducted some really interesting research in our lab. On the contrary
So, over the next few weeks I will begin posting some of our most recent accomplishments.
Here is just one:
Closing the feedback loop – the relationship between input and output modalities in HRI, presentation at the Human Friendly Robotics workshop in Rome 2019
At last its out in the public. This study co-authored by Jen Thropp, James Szalma and PA Hancock investigates how and if LOA (level of automation) should be calibrated in individuals’ traits (specifically here, attentional control).
Towards a Taxonomy of Vibro-Tactile Cues for Operational Missions, a poster presented by Nuphar Katzman
Abstract. The present study is aimed to serve as a preliminary stage in the examination and implementation of a taxonomy of vibro-tactile cues for operational missions. Previous researches showed that using the tactile modality can help increase soldiers’ performance in terms of response time, accuracy in navigation and communication under busy conditions and/or high workload. The experimental pilot reported here focuses on how users (infantry soldiers) perceive tactile cues in terms of implication and urgency during such missions. Fifteen reserve soldiers completed a navigation mission in a virtual environment. During the navigation they received random tactile cues and were asked to assess the suitability of each cue to a specific context. At the end of the session, participants filled a subjective questionnaire about their experience with the tactile cues. Results revealed three (out of five) superior cues, in terms of accurate identification and consistent association. This work provides the foundation to further develop a taxonomy of tactile cues for information types in operational missions. Future work should examine the identification of cues and their associated meanings when the relevant events occur in the simulation and outside in field tests.
Here is a new publication from our lab. This is a literature review that is focused on person-following in robotics from the perspective of the user. Published in IEEE THMS.
I began working as a lecturer (academic tenure-track position) at BGU in 2006. When I arrived, there was a researcher website that new faculty were required to complete. I was relatively young at the time, and new to the system, but I remembered a tip given to me by my advisor and mentor, the distinguished P.A. Hancock. Long time before the “me too” campaign, Peter pointed out that in order to counter prejudice and bias of reviewers towards females, female researchers should avoid writing their full names on grant and article submissions and use initials instead (e.g., Jennifer is better off signing J.). Since my name is Tal (morning dew in Hebrew), and Tal is a common name for both genders in Israel, I could still use my name without hesitation.
Back to the story, the BGU website (Researcher profile) required filling the date of birth and place of birth. With Peter’s tip in mind and some notion of privacy, I decided not to fill my year of birth (I did not want anyone to think that I was too young :) or place. It so happened that since I did not fill this information, the default was filled instead. And so I found that in 2006, I was born in Uganda in 1921!!! Why Uganda? My guess is that it is because Uganda in Hebrew begins with an Aleph (the first alphabetical letter in Hebrew) so probably it was the first country on the list. Why 1921? probably the eldest faculty member in the BGU system at the time?!
This research profile seemed to have a life of its own, at some point, it was not possible to edit the system anymore, it became outdated and was replaced by another Profiler. But somehow, it still seemed to draw some information from the BGU system: note that at some point my year of birth changed to 1926, somewhere in 2013, when I was promoted to Associate professor, this information was updated as well, and in 2015 when I became the department Chair, that also was included in my academic position list. What did not change? everything else, my research interests, my research projects because I no longer had access to the system.
Not long after I arrived at BGU, researchers were asked to fill information on another researcher profile. I do not recall exactly when, but the picture tells that it was quite close to the time I arrived (2006). A close look at this profile, which I can no longer update either, shows again the confusion: I am a professor and a senior lecturer at the same time :), I am also the head of the department (since 2015), but nothing else seems right. And why would anyone care that 15 years ago, in 2003, I finished my PhD under the supervision of David Shinar? Is this really the most important information on a researcher’s website?
Recently (2017), I was invited to give a lecture somewhere. My host introduced me as Prof. Oron-Gilad and then someone from the crowd said: why are you calling yourself a professor, you are only a senior lecturer, I saw it on your website.
Lastly, to end the story with some optimism, by the end of 2017, BGU has launched a new research profiling system. So far it is current and can be updated by the researchers (Yeah!). But, its hard to find the profiles because they were not indexed yet or linked to the BGU website. At least here everything is up to date, for now.
Take home message: Not everything you see is true.
|A new publication co-authored by Dr. Hagai Tapiro and Prof. Yisrael Parmet.
So often are we reminded about distraction from devices, cell phones or earphones. Yet, the environment we walk in can also have a detrimental effect on our road crossing safety. In this study we show that:
Abstract: Pedestrians are subject to an increasing number of stimuli and distractions derived from the roadside environment. Although the effect of distractions on child road crossing ability was recognized, there has been no systematic exploration of the effects of roadside distractions on child road crossing behavior. This work was aimed at studying the effect of roadside distractions on pedestrian road crossing behavior, focusing on elementary school-aged children, who are less capable of making a safe road crossing decision and are more vulnerable to the effect of distractions. Three types of audio distractions (a. sudden, momentary, and prominent noise, b. multiplicity of auditory elements, and c. continuous loud noise) and similar three types of visual distractions were pre-defined. Fifty-two children (aged 7–13) and adults arrived at the dome virtual reality laboratory and viewed 20 simulated crossing scenarios, embedded with visual and auditory distractions, and decided on the appropriate time to start crossing the virtual road. The results demonstrate that when exposed to environmental distractions, participants chose smaller crossing gaps, took more time to make crossing decisions, were slower to respond to the crossing opportunity, and allocated less visual attention to the peripheral regions of the road. Those effects were age related, and affected younger participants more significantly. Furthermore, visual distractions affected pedestrian behavior more than auditory type distractions. This study highlights an issue not yet adequately addressed, and the results should be considered by transportation professionals, and road safety educators, so better road safety programs to educate children can be created.