The Human Operator Revisited Derek J. Smith, CEng, CITP Chief Designer, High Tower Consultants...

The Human OperatorRevisited

Derek J. Smith, CEng, CITP

Chief Designer, High Tower Consultants Limited

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk

[email protected]

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/

mailto:[email protected]?subject=ESAC10%20Follow-Up

As presented to the

International Control Room Design Conference

at

Eurosites République

Monday 25th October 2010

Downloadable for private study from …..http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/PPTs/ICOCO10-paris.ppt

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

• During the 1980s Derek Smith worked for British Telecom, Cardiff, where he specialised in the design and operation of very large CA-IDMS "semantic network" databases. In 1991 he moved to Cardiff School of Speech and Language Therapy, where he taught psycholinguistics and neuropsychology until going freelance earlier this year.

• Derek is currently working in association with International Software Products, Toronto, on "Konrad”, an artificial intelligence project implemented on a CA-IDMS platform.

SECTION 1

THE NATURE OF HIERARCHICAL COGNITIVE

CONTROL

DESCARTES ON THE NERVOUS SYSTEM

This image is from René Descartes' Treatise of Man (1662), and speculates as to how biological information processing might be vertically differentiated.

NOTE THE PRIMITIVE

BIOLOGICAL REAL-TIME CONTROL

HIERARCHY.

THE VERTEBRATE REAL-TIME CONTROL SYSTEM IN GREATER DETAIL

HigherCognitiveFunctions

InstinctsAnd

Habits

Brainstemand SpinalReflexes

THE SAME THING, SCHEMATICALLY

• Schematic diagrams are generally easier to work with than anatomically accurate ones. Here are some typical hierarchically structured cognitive models. NOTE THE UNDERLYING A-SHAPE.

1878

1885 1902

19901890

KENNETH J.W. CRAIK(ABBREVIATED FROM WIKIPEDIA)

• Kenneth James Williams Craik (1914-1945) studied philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and received his doctorate from Cambridge University in 1940.

• In 1943 he wrote The Nature of Explanation. In this book he laid the foundation for the concept of mental models, that the mind forms models of reality and uses them to predict similar future events. He was one of the earliest practitioners of cognitive science. He was killed at the age of 31 in a bicycle accident.

• In 1947, the two-part paper "Theory of Human Operators in Control Systems" was published posthumously by the British Journal of Psychology; this paper introduced the concept of intermittent control in the context of human control systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intermittent_control&action=edit&redlink=1

CRAIK’S "DISCONTINUOUS HUMAN OPERATOR"

• During the 1930s, the experimental psychology laboratories at Cambridge carried out research on behalf of the RAF, studying amongst other things ways of reducing air accidents by better selection and training procedures.

• Craik joined Bartlett's laboratories in 1936 as a doctoral student, and when war came played an important part in the development of the "Cambridge Cockpit", a testbed for practical improvements to aircraft controls and instrumentation.

• His collected research papers were published in Sherwood (1966).

• Craik liked to switch between two distinct perspectives on the mind, treating it on some occasions as a black box - the "human operator" as an abstraction - and on others as an internally heterogenous set of processors. His key observations were .....

• (a) That the capacity of the cognitive system was routinely severely limited [especially when sub-dividing its attentional resources].

• (b) That what we now know as "executive processing" was somehow cyclical [Craik used the term "discontinuous"] at around 150msec.


• Craik’s black box perspective allowed the human operator's position in a control loop to be analysed.

• Here's an early flight simulator. If you don't get the hand-eye coordination right, out you go!


• Craik’s internally modular perspective helped him construct his own compact yet powerful model of cognition. This model fits perfectly into the A-Shaped tradition, which itself fits with what is known about vertebrate neuroanatomy.

• Specifically, a perceptual hierarchy feeds upwards into a higher processing module, and a motor hierarchy feeds downwards to the muscles as soon as that higher processing module has decided on an appropriate response.

• This is what Craik drew .....


• Click for additional explanation

InstinctsAnd

Habits

Brainstemand SpinalReflexes

HigherCognitiveFunctions


“Mental Model”up here

OPERATE

GETFEEDBACK

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/PSYcraik1945.html



• ANSWER• Because high-level mental modelling

is the sine qua non of effective Situational Awareness. If a controller uses a defective mental model then defective expectations of system status or capability may result.

QUESTION – SO WHY DOES THE CONTROL HIERARCHY MATTER?

HABSHEIM AIR SHOWDISASTER, 1988

[SEE IT ON YOU TUBE ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFv4ADUuwhw

SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

Autonomy: "Liberty to follow one's will" (O.E.D.).

Volition: "A decision or choice made after due consideration or deliberation" (O.E.D.).

Will: "That faculty or function which is directed to consciousness and intentional action" (O.E.D.).

Praxis: Willed behaviour (as opposed to reflexes or overlearned motor skills, which are involuntary).

TODAY’S FOCAL PROBLEM

..... although the ControlledSystem's higher functions willbe rudimentary compared withthose of the Controller above.

• With controlled semi-autonomous systems, both the Controller and the Controlled System will have control hierarchies .....

TODAY’S FOCAL PROBLEM

The Controller has to model the Controlled System.

But the Controlled Systemalso needs to model its

Controller! It needs to knowwhat is expected of it at any

one moment in time.

• In the resulting "hierarchy of hierarchies", both elements need mental models .....

TODAY’S MISSION

(1) To install some sort of "tracking" device into a computer simulation of a semi-autonomous machine mind .....

(2) So that we can study its workings in slow motion after the event .....

..... LIKE A FLIGHT DATA RECORDER FOR THE MIND.

(3) To do this while that machine mind is engaged in modelling what its Controller might be thinking.

TODAY’S MISSION

• In Section 2 we look at what mental modelling is ultimately about.

• In Section 3 we preview the simulation platform.

• In Section 4 we present the simulation data.

SECTION 2

THEORY OF MIND(ToM)

THEORY OF MIND (ToM)

• One of the problems with complex thought comes from the philosophical notion of "orders of representation", the idea …..

• (a) that each of us maintains within our mind a mental model of the world, complete with representations of all the objects and people within it, including oneself …..

• (b) that part of this representational structure has to do with what we/they are all thinking, and …..

• (c) that this representation of mental state has degrees of complexity - "orders" - to it.

• Thus if one of my "first-order beliefs" is that <snow is white> , then a "second-order belief" might be that <Tom believes that snow is white>, a "third-order belief" might be that <Tom wishes that Jim believed that snow is white>, and so on.

• Here, from the lyric of a 1976 pop song entitled "Little Does She Know", is an example of a fourth-order belief .....


"Little does she know that I know that she knows that I know she’s two-timing me ….." (Birch, Douglas, and Shuttleworth, 1976). [Download]

• In fact third-order representations are about as far as most of us can readily cope with in everyday language …..

http://www.play.com/Music/MP3-Download-Track/4-/7147467/Little-Does-She-Know/Product.html

MORE IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

Anything which helps us understand cognitive state is known as a "metacognitive" skill.

Words such as "remember", "think", "believe", etc., which define particular cognitive states, are known as "mental verbs" .

The ability of one being to see the world from another being’s point of view is known as having a "Theory of Mind", or "ToM" for short.

ToM REQUIRES SECOND-ORDER REPRESENTATION, OR BETTER.


• Wimmer and Perner (1983) used "false belief“ scenarios to test the ToM ability of human children. Here is one such scenario .....

• “A story character, Maxi, puts chocolate into a cupboard x. In his absence his mother displaces the chocolate from x into cupboard y. Subjects have to indicate the box where Maxi will look for the chocolate when he returns" (p106).

• This is a powerful research technique, so let’s see how it works .....


• Maxi puts chocolate into a cupboard x .....

x y


• In his absence his mother moves the chocolate into cupboard y .....

x y


• Where will Maxi will look for the chocolate when he returns?

x y


• The child being tested only gives the right answer if s/he knows that Maxi doesn’t know where the chocolate really is!

x y A second-order belief


• Wimmer and Perner tested 36 children, 12 each at ages 4-5, 6-7, and 8-9 years, and found that performance improved dramatically in the two older groups. They concluded that ToM skills have to be learned as part of growing up, and that it takes 5 years or so to acquire them effectively.

• And if they are never effectively acquired, the child in question will never interact effectively with other people.

• Baron-Cohen, Leslie, and Frith (1985) explored this latter possibility. They suggested that a crucial component in the social impairment characteristic of autistic children might be a "cognitive deficit" in ToM skills.


• Baron-Cohen (1989) compared performance on false-belief tests between normally developing children, special needs children, and autistic children (10 of each, all broadly matched for mental age).

• Nine normal children successfully coped with the false belief question, six Down's Syndrome children did likewise, but not one of the autistic children.


• Baron-Cohen interpreted these data as indicating a specific difficulty in autistics processing "second-order beliefs". THEY DON'T KNOW THAT OTHERS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW!

Normal90%

SpecialNeeds60%

Autistic0%

QUESTION - WHY DOES SECOND-ORDER REPRESENTATION MATTER TO CONTROL ROOM

DESIGNERS?

• ANSWER• Because in many important respects

control systems are just like autistic children! They don't know what's expected of them.

• A machine which is to any extent autonomous is going to need second-order representation in order to have a theory of its Controller's mind.

• Or else .....

SECTION 3

INTRODUCING PROJECT KONRAD


• Konrad is a machine intelligence project. It models the end-to-end flow of biological cognition, with especial emphasis on the semantic network nature of the mind's long-term memory system.

• The application platform is the CA-IDMS network database [visit manufacturer's website].

• Like the biological mind, network databases store each content item individually, with addressing pointers to and between each fragment. For more on the explanatory potential of network databases as models of cognition, see Smith (2005a; 2005b).

http://www.ca.com/us/products/product.aspx?id=1006


• The Processing Module (FDPX) and Long-Term Memory (LTM) records set up the basic cognitive architecture.

• 21 "occurrences" of the FDPX-REC are identified, containing between them a total of 36 functionally different types of LTM-REC. Ten of these modules have so far been simulated .....


• Here are the ten LTM-within-FDPX building blocks of cognition so far simulated, laid out as a cognitive processing hierarchy. It retains Craik’s basic A-Shape, albeit it uses more higher cognition modules.

• A fully captioned copy of this diagram is provided in the Conference Pack (or can be downloaded from http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/ICOCO10/ CRAIKIAN.ppt).

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/IEHF10/Cartesian.ppt




Neurotransmission takes place

as pulsed short-term events

[STM, pink arrows].

Each module [FDPX, grey boxes]

manages its own long-term

storage [LTM, blue boxes].


• BASIC DESIGN PRESUMPTION• Konrad presumes that biological LTM

exists primarily to store associations, and simulates this by storing two keys on every LTM record.

• The A-Key is received from a precursor STM pulse and identifies the LTM record itself. The B-Key is copied from the LTM record onto an output STM pulse so that the process can be repeated in the next module .

THE BASIC PROCESSING CYCLES

INPUT

• The main processing routes are now shown.

• The four blue arrows show feedforward processing; the two red arrows show re-entrant - or "feedback" - processing.

THE BASIC PROCESSING CYCLES

INPUT

• These four modules are all "higher functions" modules, and have been designed to cope with both first- and second-order cognitions.

INTRODUCING PROJECT KONRADTHE PRINT OUT

• Every database read or write operation is logged to a Print Out, complete with keying and timestamp data.

• The report as a whole thus provides a permanent millisecond-by-millisecond record of an act of machine cognition which actually lasted several seconds. COGNITION THUS BECOMES VISIBLE IN SLOW MOTION AFTER THE EVENT, AS PROMISED.

• The Print Out from the trial here reported is available for download and inspection from http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/ICOCO10/PRTFILE.pdf

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/ICOCO10/PRTFILE.pdf

SECTION 4

SECOND-ORDERREPRESENTATION IN A

SEMI-AUTONOMOUS MACHINE

"THE INATTENTIVE CONTROLLER"

THE THEORETICAL QUESTION

Under what Rules of Engagement is a controlled system allowed to become its own controller?

THE PRACTICAL TASK

CAN WE GET A MACHINE TO KNOW SOMETHING THAT ITS CONTROLLER DOESN’T, AND TO ACT ACCORDINGLY?

Our all-important second order belief again

• Since the Controller is by definition asleep in this scenario, we only need to consider processing within the controlled system.

• This processing is organised into four distinct phases, as now presented.

• You may monitor progress on the Craikian diagram included in the Conference Pack. Note the constant conversion of A-Keys into B-Keys.

THE LOGIC OF THE SIMULATION

PROCESSING PHASE 0

THE MEMORY PRE-LOAD

PROCESSING PHASE 0THE MEMORY PRE-LOAD PHASE

• During the preload phase, Konrad’s initially empty mind is loaded (a) with its FDPX modular architecture, and (b) with the LTM appropriate to the substantive task which will follow.

• This pre-load is shown on the opening pages of the Print Out.

PROCESSING PHASE 1

DETECTING THE CONTROL ANOMALY

PROCESSING PHASE 1DETECTING THE CONTROL ANOMALY

• As in biological systems, sensory information is twice transcribed subcortically [once in the brain-stem (shown as TSP1) and again in the thalamus (shown as TSP2)].

• Input is then “recognised” in PEMM, the Perceptual Memory Module, and conceptually cross-referenced in CONM, the Conceptual Memory Module.

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

[DANGER]


• Each object’s coordinates and movement vectors are also noted by TTRK, the Tactical Tracking Module.

• TTRK maintains a military style “big board” tactical display on which threats can be tracked and evaluated in real-time.

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK

[DANGER]

• TTRK also decides whether long- or short-loop processing is warranted for a given input - compare the two blue lines. On this occasion it selects the long loop.


• The machine becomes "phenomenally aware" of a sensation at about this level.

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK

[DANGER]

• Each new input helps DRAN, the Dramatic Analysis Module, interpret what is going on.

• DRAN is assisted by PPAN, the Propositional Analysis Module. PPAN’s first task is to note simple EXISTENTIAL PROPOSITIONS, in this case <DANGER> [EXISTS].

• NB: The word <DANGER> is encoded <66101> at many points in the Print Out.

DRAN

PPAN

[DANGER]

<DANGER>[EXISTS]

DRAN

PPAN

[DANGER]

<DANGER>[EXISTS]

• The machine becomes "propositionally aware" that it is phenomenally aware at about this level.

• PPAN replies <DANGER>[NOTED].

• This reply includes pre-coded instructions (a) to enforce a 5-second period of grace for the Controller to act, followed by (b) covert (that is to say, unspoken) speech production.

DRAN

"Inner Speech"

[DANGER]

<DANGER>[EXISTS]

<DANGER>[NOTED]

• By design, no Controller input is received on this occasion within the 5-second delay. Whereupon .....

• DRAN converts PPAN’s A-Key input into the following B-Key for onward transmission 

DRAN

[DANGER]

DRAN


• Philosophically speaking, Konrad has just simulated the generation of a “speech act” .

• Speech acts are an important stage in human thought because they address Wittgenstein’s (1921) primary philosophical unknown, namely how to interface propositionality with behaviour.

DRAN

[DANGER]


PROCESSING PHASE 2

DECIDING TO ACT AUTONOMOUSLY

• TTAC, the Tactical Action Module, now uses as the A-Key to locate a 9-deep stack of action components.

• The name commonly given to a single time-INextensive memory record capable of generating a time-extensive behavioural read-out is "motor schema".

PROCESSING PHASE 2DECIDING TO ACT AUTONOMOUSLY

DRAN

TTAC BREL

[DANGER]

TIMES9

• When extracted one by one, these 9 components make up the words in the sentence .....

I

DOUBT

MY

CONTROLLER

IS

AWARE

OF

THIS

DANGER


DRAN

TTAC BREL

[DANGER]

TIMES9

...<MY><DOUBT>

• BREL, the Behavioural Release Module, approves each action component selected by TTAC.

• This simulates the sort of anti-impulsivity processing carried out by the Anterior Cingulate structures of the human Frontal Lobes [more on this].


DRAN

TTAC BREL

[DANGER]

TIMES9

...<MY><DOUBT>

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/frontal-lobe-syndrome.html

• For each word released by BREL, MOT1, the Upper Motor Neuron Module, now locates an n-deep stack of motor components [n being different for each word].

• Each motor component specifies one of the phonemes (discrete sounds) needed to speak the word out loud.


DRAN

TTAC BREL

MOT1

[DANGER]AudibleSpeech

TIMES9

TIMESn

...<MY><DOUBT>

• Konrad uses either the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) [show IPA alphabet] or its "Kirshenbaum simplification" [details] to show the individual sounds making up each word.

• Thus .....

I >>>>> /aɪ/

DOUBT >>>>> /doʊt/

MY >>>>> /maɪ/

etc.


DRAN

TTAC BREL

MOT1

I DOUBT MY etc.

/aɪ doʊt maɪ etc./

[DANGER]SPEECH

/aɪ/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf

• Note the rapid hierarchical explosion of motor system detail .....


DRAN

TTAC BREL

MOT1

I DOUBT MY etc.

/aɪ doʊt maɪ etc./9 words

35 phonemes

[DANGER]SPEECH

1 speech act

/aɪ/


• But remember that on this occasion the output sentence has been authorised for covert production, not overt.

• Speech is virtual, not audible.

• However, because the machine doesn't yet understand what it has just thought, the stream of input phonemes has to be recycled as virtual input within the perceptual hierarchy.


DRAN

TTAC BREL

MOT1


[DANGER]

INNERSPEECH


• This allows the system to ‘listen to itself thinking’, in the same way that humans often rely on inner speech.

• Firstly the phonemes are reassembled into words .....

• Click here to hear the result.

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK


I DOUBT MY etc.

[DANGER]

TIMES35


• Then the words are reassembled into their grammatical components .....

• PROPOSITION #2• I DOUBT (P2 SUBJECT, P2 MENTAL

VERB)

• PROPOSITION #1• MY CONTROLLER (P1 SUBJECT)• IS AWARE (P1 MENTAL VERB)• OF THIS DANGER (P1 OBJECT)

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK

[DANGER]

I DOUBT MY etc.


DRAN

• These separate A-Keys then convert to the component B-Keys .....

I

BELIEVE

C

UNAWARE

D• Which can be concatenated as


• PUTTING US IS BACK WHERE WE STARTED

PPAN

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK


[DANGER]

• can now be propositionally analysed by PPAN.

• PPAN returns the B-Key <C UNAWARE>[NOTED], which DRAN converts to the B-Key <TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION>, pre-coded for immediate overt action .....

PPAN

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK

[DANGER]

<TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION>

<C UNAWARE>[NOTED]

[DANGER]

• Philosophically speaking, Konrad has just simulated the generation of a willed psychological act.

• This has only been possible because the system went round the cognitive cycle twice, once for the original <SENSOR UNSAFE> signal, and then again to check its appraisal of its Controller's status.

• It only remains now to turn that psychological act into a physical one.

DRAN

PPAN

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK

PROCESSING PHASE 3

MACHINE AUTONOMY

PROCESSING PHASE 3MACHINE AUTONOMY

• The <TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION> instruction is then passed to TTAC, which uses it as the A-Key to locate a 1-deep stack of action components. The B-Key on this record is <EXECUTE AUTONOMOUS ACTION>

DRAN

TTAC BREL

[DANGER]

TIMES1


<EXECUTE AUTONOMOUS

ACTION>

• BREL “ticks this out” safely.


[DANGER]

DRAN

TTAC BREL

TIMES1 <EXECUTE

AUTONOMOUS ACTION>

• And MOT1 uses it as the A-Key to locate a single motor component. The B-Key on this motor component record is <PUSH 'OFF' BUTTON>.


MOT1

[DANGER]Final

Response

PUSH'OFF'

BUTTON

<PUSH 'OFF' BUTTON>

TIMES1

TO SUMMARISE .....

• Sure, it's complicated, but that's roughly how it's done biologically!

• This constant re-cycling of cognition, most of which is done for internal verification purposes, explains why humans measure their simple reaction times in milliseconds but their problem solving times in seconds (or worse).


MOT1

[DANGER]

PUSH'OFF'

BUTTON

<PUSH 'OFF' BUTTON>

DRAN

PPAN

CONM

TSP2

TSP1

PEMM

TTRK

DRAN

TTAC BREL

MOT1

[DANGER]

INNERSPEECH

• Konrad configurations can be built to order, pre-loaded with controlled past experience. There are no practice or fatigue effects unless so required, allowing “impossible research” to be conducted. Konrads can also be deliberately “brain damaged” , "drunk", inadequately "trained", etc., without ethical consequence, allowing them to act as their own control in intact-versus-impaired group comparison designs.

• One source of "impossible" data would be to listen in to the machine's silent thought processes at the inner phonation stage - click here to hear Konrad's inner speech on this occasion. This data stream is simply not available with research on humans.

CALL FOR COLLABORATION

• ICOCO colleagues with “impossible research” issues of their own may be interested in research collaborations. Konrad will be pleased to cooperate if it can. The necessary contact details are in your Conference Pack.

CALL FOR COLLABORATION

THE END

ANY QUESTIONS?

THE KONRAD2 DATABASE

KONRAD2MAIN

COMMANDSFILE

(Input H01234TVSAM Dataset)

LOG A/B/C/[D/E]

CONSOLECOMMAND

JCLCOMMAND

RUN NOLANGUAGE TO RESPOND IN

USED FOR EXCEPTIONHANDLING ONLY

COMMANDS PRINTLOG

SELECTIVELY MASKED OUT BY SUBSCHEMASOTHER THAN <UNMASKED>

PC DISPLAY

SEMIOTICS

KINESICS

SEMIOTICSGUIFILE

FROM MAINFRAMEDOWNLINELINGUISTICINTERFACE

PC DISPLAYKINESICSGUIFILE

FROM MAINFRAMEDOWNLINEROBOTIC

INTERFACE

TEXT-TO-SPEECH

SERVO VECTORS

ADDITIONAL READING

• Baron-Cohen, S. Leslie, A.M., and Frith U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a 'Theory of Mind'? Cognition, 21:37-46.

• Baron-Cohen, S. (1989). The autistic child's Theory of Mind: A case of specific developmental delay. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30(2):285-297.

• Sherwood, S.L. (ed.), 1966. The Nature of Psychology: A Selection of Papers, Essays and Other Writings by Kenneth J.W. Craik (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

• Smith, D.J. (2005a). On database keys, with an application to the Praxisproblem. In Callaos, N., Lesso, W., and Palesi, M. (Eds.), The 9th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, (Volume IV). Orlando, FL: IIIS. [PLAY POWERPOINT]

• Smith, D.J. (2005b). The problem of context in sentence production - Surely a case to re-convene the Data Base Task Group? In Chu, H.-W., Savoie, M.J., Sanchez, B., and Hong, S.-M. (Eds.), The 3rd International Conference on Computing, Communications, and Control Technologies, (Volume III). Orlando, FL: IIIS. [PLAY POWERPOINT]

• Wimmer, H. and Perner, J., 1983. Beliefs about beliefs. Cognition, 13, 103-128.

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/confs/WMSCI05/PPT.ppt

http://www.smithsrisca.co.uk/confs/CCCT05/PPT.ppt

Copyright Notice: This material was written and published in Wales by Derek J. Smith (Chartered Engineer), Chief Designer, High Tower Consultants Limited. It forms part of a multifile e-learning resource, and subject only to acknowledging Derek J. Smith's rights under international copyright law to be identified as author may be freely downloaded and printed off in single complete copies solely for the purposes of private study and/or review. Commercial exploitation rights are reserved. The remote hyperlinks have been selected for the academic appropriacy of their contents; they were free of offensive and litigious content when selected, and will be periodically checked to have remained so. Copyright © 2010, High Tower Consultants Limited.

Publication was by PowerPoint presentation on 25th October 2010. This online version, complete with activated hyperlinks, comes to you for follow-up private study.

The Human Operator Revisited Derek J. Smith, CEng, CITP Chief Designer, High Tower Consultants...

Documents

Transcript of The Human Operator Revisited Derek J. Smith, CEng, CITP Chief Designer, High Tower Consultants...