Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10661689

Control error statistics.

J R Buck·S M Zellers·M E Opar
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Control in general, and manual control in particular, are traditional topics in ergonomics. Numerous studies on these topics have focused on vehicular control or tracking, as experimenters have attempted to describe control performance in terms of control errors, typically using the 'root-mean-square' (RMS) error. The authors of this study believe that this and related statistics are not well understood by the ergonomics community and that additional or alternative performance measurements would be more appropriate as measurements of the particular criteria of concern. Accordingly, this paper shows some background of the RMS and similar statistics of control error, some new statistics, and their interrelationships. This development is intended as a guide to selection of criteria for use in tracking and manual control and their measurement.

Explore related subjects

Automobile DrivingErgonomicsHumansStatistics as TopicJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J R Buck, S M Zellers, M E Opar. 2000. Control error statistics.. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300184620

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

[Eye injuries].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Automobile Driving↗
PubMed2000

The statistical variability of blood alcohol concentration measurements in drink-driving cases.

Like many other places in the world, Hong Kong has drink-driving legislation which prohibits a driver from having in his blood alcohol exceeding a prescribed limit while in control of a motor vehicle. The accuracy of measuring this alcohol concentration is obviously of prime concern as an erroneous result can avert the administration of justice. The common practice is to deduct all errors from the measured value and compare the deducted value with the prescribed limit, so that the benefit of all errors of the measurement is given to the driver. It is therefore important for any laboratory responsible for measuring blood alcohol concentrations to identify and quantify all errors associated with the measurement. The present study examined 900 blood alcohol determinations carried out by the Hong Kong Government Laboratory (HKGL) on cases of suspected drink driving. The determinations were performed by 5 different analysts with two different sets of instruments during 1995-1997. Statistical analysis indicated that the instruments had no bearing on the random error or variability and that even though analyst was a significant factor on variability, the deviation from the mean so caused was only 0.3% and of no practical significance. When the systematic error introduced by the tolerance limits of the certified alcohol standards (purchased from the Laboratory of Government Chemists, UK) was taken into account, the total uncertainty (random plus systematic errors) of an alcohol determination at 99.5% confidence level was found to be 4%. It is recommended that laboratories engaged in blood alcohol determination should adopt similar statistical treatment of their analytical results to find out the error and to ensure that the results are independent of analyst and instrument used.

Automobile Driving↗