The effects of road environment complexity and age on pedestrian’s visual attention and crossing behavior
Posted by Tal Oron-Gilad in children, News, pedestrians on January 25, 2020
Work on pedestrian distraction co-authored with Hagai Tapiro and Yisrael Parmet
Abstract
Introduction: Little is known how the characteristics of the environment affect pedestrians’ road crossing behavior. Method: In this work, the effect of typical urban visual clutter created by objects and elements in the road proximity (e.g., billboards) on adults and children (aged 9–13) road crossing behavior was examined in a controlled laboratory environment, utilizing virtual reality scenarios projected on a large dome screen. Results: Divided into three levels of visual load, results showed that high visual load affected children’s and adults’ road crossing behavior and visual attention. The main effect on participants’ crossing decisions was seen in missed crossing opportunities. Children and adults missed more opportunities to cross the road when exposed to more cluttered road environments. An interaction with age was found in the dispersion of the visual attention measure. Children, 9–10 and 11–13 years old, had a wider spread of gazes across the scene when the environment was highly loaded—an effect not seen with adults. However, unexpectedly, no other indication of the deterring effect was found in the current study. Still, according to the results, it is reasonable to assume that busier road environments can be more hazardous to adult and child pedestrians. Practical Applications: In that context, it is important to further investigate the possible distracting effect of causal objects in the road environment on pedestrians, and especially children. This knowledge can help to create better safety guidelines for children and assist urban planners in creating safer urban environments.
I have been busy
Posted by Tal Oron-Gilad in Human-Robot Interaction, News on November 17, 2019
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
ABC student poster- Tamara Markovich and Shanee Honig
Calibrating Adaptable Automation to Individuals
Posted by Tal Oron-Gilad in Affective Design, human factors engineering, levels of automation, News, shared control on June 28, 2018
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).
to read more click on this link
Abstract:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8396314/
Eurohaptics 2018 – Katzman & Oron-Gilad
Posted by Tal Oron-Gilad in News, Tactile & Multimodal displays on June 17, 2018
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.
Katzman and Oron-Gilad Eurohaptics 2018
Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction
Posted by Tal Oron-Gilad in HRI, Human-Robot Interaction, News, robotics on June 2, 2018
Shanee Honig and I have just finished a literature review on resolving failures in HRI. The Full publication can be found in Frontiers .
We mapped a taxonomy of failures, separating technical failures from interaction failures [see 1].
A human-robot failure taxonomy
After reviewing the cognitive considerations that influence people’s ability to detect and solve robot failures, as well as the literature in failure handling in human-robot interactions, we developed an information processing model called the Robot Failure Human Information Processing (RF-HIP) Model, modeled after Wogalter’s C-HIP (an elaboration of Shannon & Weavers 1948 model of communication), to describe the way people perceive, process, and act on failures in human robot interactions.
- RF-HIP can be used as a tool to systematize the assessment process involved in determining why a particular approach to handling failure is successful or unsuccessful in order to facilitate better design.
The RF-HIP (robotic failure – human information processing) Model
abstract
While substantial effort has been invested in making robots more reliable, experience demonstrates that robots operating in unstructured environments are often challenged by frequent failures. Despite this, robots have not yet reached a level of design that allows effective management of faulty or unexpected behavior by untrained users. To understand why this may be the case, an in-depth literature review was done to explore when people perceive and resolve robot failures, how robots communicate failure, how failures influence people’s perceptions and feelings towards robots, and how these effects can be mitigated. 52 studies were identified relating to communicating failures and their causes, the influence of failures on human-robot interaction, and mitigating failures. Since little research has been done on these topics within the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) community, insights from the fields of human computer interaction (HCI), human factors engineering, cognitive engineering and experimental psychology are presented and discussed. Based on the literature, we developed a model of information processing for robotic failures (Robot Failure Human Information Processing (RF-HIP)), that guides the discussion of our findings. The model describes the way people perceive, process, and act on failures in human robot interaction. The model includes three main parts: (1) communicating failures, (2) perception and comprehension of failures, and (3) solving failures. Each part contains several stages, all influenced by contextual considerations and mitigation strategies. Several gaps in the literature have become evident as a result of this evaluation. More focus has been given to technical failures than interaction failures. Few studies focused on human errors, on communicating failures, or the cognitive, psychological, and social determinants that impact the design of mitigation strategies. By providing the stages of human information processing, RF-HIP can be used as a tool to promote the development of user-centered failure-handling strategies for human-robot interactions.
Towards Socially Aware Person-Following Robots
Posted by Tal Oron-Gilad in HRI, Human-Robot Interaction, News, robotics on May 29, 2018
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.
Abstract:
Old web pages that simply won’t disappear
Posted by Tal Oron-Gilad in about Tal, News on April 3, 2018
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?!
My BGU Researcher Profile from 2006. Note my age and place of birth.
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?
BGU’s current research profile system
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.
