Vol.2 No.2 2009

39/98

Research paper : A secure and reliable next generation mobility (Y. Satoh et al.)−119−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.2 No.2 (2009) 2 Diagram on research topic settingQuestion and Comment (Motoyuki Akamatsu)You take the approach of Type 2 Basic Research, where you take the upward spiral research strategy, and engage in the process of prototype creation and evaluation as you set and integrate the elemental technologies. Although the specific contents are well described in the text, please show the process of setting the research topics in a diagram, so readers can understand your research process. For example, which elemental technologies did you think were necessary in the initial phase, and what problems could be solved by these elemental technologies? Also, what were the technological issues clarified through the processes of manufacturing and evaluating the prototype, and what were the perspectives of those issues (for example, durability, lack of accuracy, newly found user demand, actual use in real environment, etc.)? Please consider using something such as a block diagram to show this. Also, in the summary, please add a discussion (good points and points that must be improved) for taking the upward spiral method.Question and Comment (Koh Naito)The research style is described as a continuous evolution of research results by making the results visible through prototype development and efficient introduction of external knowledge. You demonstrated yourself that the various basic scientific researches (Type 1 Basic Research) were driven from the researches for application (Type 2 Basic Research). This is an important find in terms of research management, and in chapter 3, you can clarify the flow by structuring the description of each elemental technology to show what kind of Type 1 Basic Research was driven based on what findings. Please reconstruct the descriptions and organize them as a table at the end of chapter 3.Answer (Yutaka Satoh)We added Fig. 10 that summarizes the specific processes of the research. Also, we added the explanation of this diagram in section 4.1. While the specific explanations are as in section 4.1, “the cycle to enhance values” is realized when Type 2 Basic Research becomes an engine to actively produce Type 1 Basic Research, and Type 1 Basic Research creates or increases the performance or value of the elemental technology, and higher level Type 2 Basic Research is conducted using the newly created or enhanced elemental technologies. Moreover, the elemental technologies studied in Type 1 Basic Research are immediately needed and the result desired is clear, and therefore the evaluation standard of performance (whether it can solve the immediate problem) is clear. I think the balance and efficiency of the research was very good. We added a description on this point in chapter 6.Initially, we thought the feedback from the evaluation phase would be indirect and abstract, and the content and direction of the research will only be slightly adjusted. Actually, the users’ evaluations directly generated the elemental technologies. This was a new finding for us, and we described that process in Fig. 10. The engine for Type 2 Basic Research included the users and services that were ordinarily ignored in the research approach starting from Type 1 Basic Research. We believe that the structure in which the power to directly generate elemental technologies that will then propagate Type 1 Basic Research may be one form of Full Research.3 Realized functionsQuestion and Comment (Motoyuki Akamatsu)You introduced five main realized functions: obstacle detection, downhill slope detection, abnormal position detection, gesture detection, and automatic tracking and automatic route selection. However, you didn’t provide a clear description about the situation when these functions could be useful. I think you should provide an explanation of goal setting for R&D. Are you assuming that the user may not be paying attention to his/her course of travel, are these functions set to match the level of the handicap, or are they based on the analysis of wheelchair accidents?Answer (Yutaka Satoh)As you indicated, the objectives and reasons for selecting each function were not clear, so we added descriptions in chapters 1, 2, beginning of 3, Fig. 2, and section 4.2. The assumed users are all people including non-physically disabled people. In considering safe runs in an environment shared with pedestrians, we thought “accurate and quick sensing of the surrounding environment and accurate detection of the risk from information obtained” were mandatory, and implemented obstacle and level difference detection as a priority item.When we gathered information from the elderly and the physically disabled, we found there was a demand for gesture recognition, and implemented this function in the process of an upward spiral cycle (this is described in section 3.6). The functions of automatic tracking and automatic route selection were studied as additional efforts for future mobility. They were described in the paper since they demonstrated the sensing capacity of the prototype in a readily understandable manner. Yet their positioning was unclear, so we added an explanation in section 5.1.4 Relationship to other automation technologiesQuestion and Comment (Motoyuki Akamatsu)At the end of section 5.1, there is a discussion on safety and freedom. About 10 years ago in the field of automobile ITS, much were discussed about test runs on actual roads for automatic driving. In case of automobiles, the potential for damage was high, and the point of discussion was who would be responsible in case an accident occurred. After all, if an accident occurred under complete automatic drive, the manufacturer would likely be held liable, so the direction shifted to driving support technology where the driver will be in control. The strategy is to maintain a situation where the driver is always involved, and the technology will be introduced to society as an assistance technology for actions initiated by the driver. In the process of diffusion of assistance technology, the reliability of the system and the performance may increase, and society may become more willing to accept the automation system. As a driving support system centering on sensing technology, the collision warning system is starting to diffuse into the market. Here, we are discussing the design of user interface (how to communicate the detected situation to the user accurately and quickly) and the overconfidence in a warning system (such as distraction because the user depends on the warning system). In the ITS field, the problem of safety and freedom are discussed in terms of role division of the system and the user for control, and overconfidence and user interface design for sensing.This R&D is based on sensing technology, and I think the point of introduction to society is how to balance the control by user him/herself and the control by the system, as mentioned above. Please include your comment on this point.Answer (Yutaka Satoh)This is a complicated issue, but I think the case of ITS which you described presents the situation accurately. We shall aim for a society where automation is accepted, by increasing the reliability and performance of the system. Although we do not have a specific plan yet, we believe it is necessary to actively build a framework for evaluating safety in collaboration with the fields of automobiles and home support robots that have similar issues. We added an explanation in the latter half of section 5.1.5 Technology for accurately detecting risk

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です