• Innovating with Human Centered-AI, Wearables, Spatial Computing, & Collaborative Robotics

  • Current Research Projects

    broken image

    $1.2M NSF & NIH Smart & Connected Health Grant - An intelligent Pervasive Augmented reaLity therapy (iPAL) for Opioid Use Disorder and Recovery

    This project will develop intelligent Pervasive Augmented reaLity therapies (iPAL) - a technology-enabled OUD intervention that aims to help OUD sufferers manage their cravings to reduce their risk for relapse or overdose. iPAL integrates complementary psychotherapies (cognitive behavioral therapy and heart rate variability biofeedback) with immersive technologies (augmented and mixed reality) that will offer convenience, discretion in use, in the moment/real-time through personalized strategies

    broken image

    $1.2M National Science Foundation- Human-Centered Computing Grant - Augmenting Human Cognition with Collaborative Robots AMELIA (AugMEnted Learning InnovAtion)

    Augmenting Human Cognition with Collaborative Robots (AMELIA: AugMEnted Learning InnovAtion): Collaborative robotics is a growing application space in robot technology used in manufacturing, mining, construction, and energy industrial settings. This convergence research project will contribute new knowledge and theory of Human-Computer Interaction and Human-Robot Interaction, by augmenting human cognition for safer and more efficient collaborative robot interaction.

    broken image

    Bio-Feedback in Virtual Reality for Pain and Anxiety Management - Alternative Strategies in Addressing the Opioid Epidemic

    Collaboration with Greenville Health System & Southeastern Institute of Manufacturing and Technology. The main contribution of this project is the development of alternative treatment in the form of immersive technology for anxiety and pain that we hypothesize will ultimately lead to better health outcomes.

    broken image

    Virtual Reality for Pain and Anxiety Management in AYA Cancer Patients

    In data reviewed from our first year of clinic, over 50% of all AYA cancer patients expressed a need for counseling services. Anxiety and depression are more commonly experienced by young cancer survivors. While anti-depressants, anti-anxiolytics and pain medications certainly have a role in treating young adults with cancer, risk of side effects and potential for addiction or abuse remain. As a result, a variety of programs and interventions are being explored to treat the pain and anxiety associated with cancer treatments. One such “alternative” treatment for pain and anxiety involves the use of virtual reality (VR). We plan to achieve this goal by RELIEVE (viRtual rEaLity IntErVEntion), a virtual reality cancer care management intervention scheme.

    broken image

    STEM Outreach Events to Local Students on Collaborative Robotics, Emotional AI , & Spatial Computing in Digital Health

    Contact us to schedule a visit!

  •  

    An intelligent Pervasive Augmented reaLity therapy (iPAL) for Opioid Use Disorder and Recovery using Virtual, Mixed, and Augmented Reality

    NSF & NIH Smart & Connected Health: $1.2M Grant

     

    The Story of iPAL - Opioid use disorder and addiction are now characterized as a nationwide “opioid epidemic,” with overdoses now the leading cause of injury deaths in the United States. While opioid overdose deaths have increased greatly over the past two decades as compared to other chronic diseases (e.g., heart disease) the development of remote monitoring and management tools and techniques for opioid cravings, recovery, and relapse have not kept pace. This project will develop intelligent Pervasive Augmented reaLity therapies (iPAL) - a technology-enabled OUD intervention that aims to help OUD sufferers manage their cravings to reduce their risk for relapse or overdose. iPAL integrates complementary psychotherapies (cognitive behavioral therapy and heart rate variability biofeedback) with immersive technologies (augmented and mixed reality) that will offer convenience, discretion in use, in the moment/real-time through personalized strategies. This work is poised to revolutionize how individuals learn, discover, create, and heal in the broader context of developing treatment strategies for those with OUD.

    broken image
    broken image
    broken image
  • iPAL Technology Demonstrations

    Early Development - iPAL App

    Our 1st Phase in the development of our App and Augmented Reality for Opioid Use Disorder

    Early Development - Volumetric Video Capture in Virtual and Mixed Reality

    Our 1st Phase in the development of our App and Augmented Reality for Opioid Use Disorder

    Early Development - Delivering Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Volumetric Video Capture

    Delivering Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Mixed Reality

  • Augmenting Human Cognition with Collaborative Robots AMELIA (AugMEnted Learning InnovAtion usign Mixed Reality and AI)

    NSF Cyber-Human Systems: $1.2M Grant

     

    The Story of AMELIA (AMELIA: AugMEnted Learning InnovAtion) - Collaborative robotics is a growing application space in robot technology used in manufacturing, mining, construction, and energy industrial settings. This convergence research project will contribute new knowledge and theory of Human-Computer Interaction and Human-Robot Interaction, by augmenting human cognition for safer and more efficient collaborative robot interaction.  

     

    To meet these goals, the team of researchers plans to:

    (1) develop a novel HRI task/scenario classification scheme in collaborative robotics environments vulnerable to observable systems failures;

    (2) establish fundamental neurophysiological, cognitive, and socio-behavioral capability models (e.g., workload, cognitive load, fatigue/stress, affect, and trust) during these HRI (i.e., the mind motor machine nexus);

    (3) use these models to determine when and how a human’s cognitive, social, behavioral and environmental states require adjustment via technology to enhance HRI for efficient and safe work performance; and finally

    (4) create an innovative and transformative Work 4.0 architecture (AMELIA: AugMEnted Learning InnovAtion) that includes a layer of augmented reality for human and robots to mutually learn and communicate current states.

     

    The team proposes a novel communication scheme using artificial emotional intelligence in which robots and humans collaborate in potentially dangerous situations. The robot will detect the worker’s “cognitive state” using different machine learning techniques, and then take the appropriate action. Ultimately AMELIA seeks to empower the worker to focus on complex, cognitive problem-solving tasks, performed safely and efficiently, while ensuring that it adapts to both the worker's attitudes and cognitive states.

    broken image
    broken image

    Database Development, Code, & Non-Identifying Data

  • AMELIA Technology Demonstrations

    Using Hololens 2 to Control Co-Robot Remotely

    Interface between human and collaborative robot - early functioning interface.

    Using Mixed Reality, Machine Vision, + Voice Commands to Control Co-Robot

    Computer Vision w/Mixed Reality using Collaborative Robotics

    Collaborative Robotics + AI - Overview

  • Media 1.0

    Virtual Reality for Anxiety, Pain, and Depression During Chemotherapy

    Under a longitudinal study assessing the pain and anxiety management of cancer patients led by Dr. Stanley, associate professor and graduate coordinator, and Dr. Elizabeth Cull, a medical oncologist at Greenville Health Systems, Josh has been testing a new form of chemo patient therapy that allows patients to escape the hospital into a virtual world. We follow the effects VR therapy has on pain, anxiety, and depression

    Biofeedback and Virtual Reality for Pain and Anxiety

    Using "artificial emotional intelligence" to deliver pain and anxiety relief via virtual reality.

    Digital Health Applications

    Using "artificial emotional intelligence" to deliver Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to those with addictions.

    Mixed Reality and Collaborative Robotics

    Using "artificial emotional intelligence" for the future of work with collaborative robots.

  • TEDx Talk

    Transforming Your Mental Health Journey With Immersive Technologies

    Dr. Laura Stanley, professor of engineering, digs into the opioid epidemic and the role of prescribed narcotics in this crisis. She explores the advantages of virtual and mixed reality for anxiety and pain management while discussing the success of the implementation of this technology in treatment plans. Dr. Laura Stanley is a passionate educator and researcher and has a zest for pushing academic boundaries with her technology inspired pursuits. A professor at Montana State University where she studies human-computer interaction, e.g. projects include immersive technologies for pain and anxiety management for children with cancer and mixed reality (e.g., imagine a hologram therapist) coupled with artificial intelligence to aid those with addictions. Inspiring Dr. Stanley is the advancement of minorities in engineering and computer science; believing in the power of STEM to help others. Her research ideas often happen while fly fishing and wandering around Montana’s open spaces. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community

  • My Unsolicited Advice to Proposers as a Former Program Officer in the Human-Centered Computing Program at the National Science Foundation

    Includes thoughts from my NSF service as Program Director (CISE Directorate - Human-Centered Computing Group), as well as words from those who came before me at NSF (thank you to Dr. Jeff Trinkle, former NSF Program Director, for many of the inserts below)

    How to Become a Successful NSF PI? Some Inside Insights from Former Program Directors

     

    Is it a fundable research idea?

    Whether you have a firm idea of the research direction you want to pursue or not, following the steps below will help you home in on a competitive research direction.

    • Read program solicitations to find the ones that seem closest to your research interests and goals.
    • Think about how your research interests and goals could support the vision and goals of the solicitations. (You may have to morph your research goals a bit or take some liberties with stated program goals.)
    • For the solicitations that fit you best, read all the abstracts of projects funded over the last two years and see if you can find an important gap that your research could fill.
    • Now it is time to talk to the cognizant program directors of the programs that fit you best. If your best fit is Cyber Human Systems, talk to me or other program directors in that cluster. For other programs, you will have found the relevant program directors during the previous steps. Contact them directly. Not only will this discussion help you fine-tune your plan, but it's an important way to help research programs evolve to maintain their relevance and vitality, and thus is an important contribution to the research community.
    • In cases where the intellectual contributions of your project are significant with respect to two or more programs, you should contact program officers in both programs to discuss your project goals. If the associated program managers see the value of your project to their programs and know of the other program mangers' interests, they could agree to jointly fund a project that none of their programs would or could fund alone.

    Some keys to preparing a competitive proposal ...

    • Answer these questions clearly and concisely in the project summary and introduction: (1) What is the problem? (2) Why is it important to solve? (3) Which parts of the problem will you solve? (4) How will those problems be attacked? The second question points to potential broader impacts of the research. The third and fourth point to the core intellectual contributions, which help a program manager find the most appropriate reviewers.
    • Try to appeal to wide audience, since the breadth of topics and technical approaches appearing in a single panel can be very wide. An application with a clear positive societal impact (even if 10 years out), an insightful discussion of the most relevant previous work and on-going research projects, and a prediction of the technical impact the research could have on the field are extremely important.
    • To emphasize the importance of questions (3) and (4) above, clearly state in the proposal summary and introduction, the area in which your primary intellectual contribution will be. Some proposers write Intellectual Merit statements that are impressively broad, but obscure the area of the primary contribution, which makes it hard for program directors to identify the most appropriate reviewers.
    • Demonstrate total command of the relevant literature by citing the earliest key results, not only the most recent relevant results. Also you should avoid writing, "...to the best of my knowledge..." This just draws attention to the fact that you believe you might not be on top of all the relevant literature. If you think you can't avoid it, go back to the literature.
    • Never dispense with a large swath of the literature by simply saying, "Most research on topic A takes approach X, but I will use approach Y." What's important here is to make clear that your approach is worthy of pursuit in comparison to all other existing approaches, not just the majority (possibly, misguided) approach. If you're going to use a statement like this to give perspective, follow it up with statements that cover the minority approaches too, since they could be the current best and most similar to yours.
    • Do not simply pose research challenges in your research plan. Also offer plausible ways to tackle them.
    • If your proposal is not funded, the reviews can be very valuable in formulating a resubmission. There is often both a "consensus" panel review, and individual reviews. The individual reviews may include comments that others did not agree with, and which are not reflected in the consensus review, but the individual reviews may also have more specifics for you to consider. Your program director may be able to help you interpret the reviews.
    • One of the most valuable experiences for writing proposals is serving on a review panel with other reviewers. Tell your program director that you are interested in doing this, either in his/her program or another one.
    • Ask your senior colleagues to let you read their successful proposals, and maybe even their reviews. Also ask them to read your declined proposal and reviews to help you understand how to make it competitive.

    Some advice from others

    Preparing for a productive meeting with a Program Director:

    • To make the best use of your time and that of the program director, do your homework, that is, carry out as many of the steps for identifying a fundable research project as possible.
    • Prepare a 1-page white paper w/short answers to the following questions before talking with a program director: 

    (1) What is the problem?

    (2) Why is it important to solve?

    (3) Which parts of the problem will you solve and how?

    (4) What is the intellectual merit of your proposal?

    (5) How does this fit Cyber Human Systems (CHS) program?

     

    How to Approach your National Science Foundation Program Director ​

    1. If you don’t hear back on your first contact (phone or email), what is the best next step and where is the line between persistence and annoyance?

     

    It is generally suggested that you start with an e-mail, because many PDs are out of the office for various reasons (meetings, panels, conferences, independent research activities, etc.). PDs are very busy so give them a week to respond, many will respond within a day or two. If the PD does not respond after 2x, then try to contact another PD within that program. It is recommended that you contact one PD in the program, instead of all PDs in that program. By sending a note to all it often times because unclear who should respond, risking the chance of it falling deeper in their mailbox, resulting in no response at all.

     

    2. How much about your grant idea should you share when reaching out via email? 1 page, 2 pages? What should that info include?

     

    Because time is of essence most PDs will only want a one-page summary, definitely no more than two pages. They always work to treat everyone fairly, so what they do for they must do for everyone. This is why they cannot read an entire 15-page proposal to provide feedback, there is not enough time in doing so for everyone. In your project summary, you should strive to answer these questions clearly and concisely: (1) What is the problem? (2) Why is it important to solve? (3) Which parts of the problem will you solve? (4) How will those problems be attacked? (5) How does this fit the particular program of interest? Pertaining to question #5, this tells the PD whether you have done the homework necessary to determine the proper fit for the idea. Or it may help them in providing “fit” advice. That is many times a proposer may think their idea fits a certain program, division, or directorate but often times it doesn’t and this is where the PD can help. Work with mentors who have been successful on proposals to NSF, seek out those who will give you honest and constructive feedback, rather than those who simply say “looks great, submit”. Critical feedback from more experienced folks is critical to success at NSF!

     

    3. What are some of the best questions you have had/asked? Don’t be shy to bring forth “crazy” ideas; NSF is the place for such ideas!

     

    NSF is one of the only agencies that funds work on potentially “crazy” ideas that may lead to transformative ideas in terms of intellectual merit and broader impacts.

     

    4. Are there any questions you would recommend NOT asking?

     

    Gather what your interests and passions are and write for that. Don’t ask the PD what they would like funded and what their interests are in and write to that. PDs, for the most part, were once/are academics so they understand the granting process, funding students, publishing students, tenure process, etc. They have a very good understanding of the university system and how to navigate that path. PDs encourage communication, there will never be any negative consequences to speaking with PD, e.g. won’t hurt your chances for future funding etc. Feel comfortable asking them questions. Seek them out early in the grant writing process to ensure your idea is a good fit and if not where a good fit may be.

     

    5. What is the goal of the program officer in these conversations? What is the goal of the faculty member?

     

    The goal of the faculty member is to of course secure funding to fund your research, students, obtain tenure so forth and so on. The NSF PD knows this but what they want to hear is what it is that you are excited and passionate about in a clear and concise manner. PDs may not have expertise in your area, most likely they will not, so you will need to be generalists to some degree when conveying your idea. The PDs role is to encourage you to submit assuming it’s a good fit for their program or to help you navigate where may be the better home. As a proposer realize that you will be declined, the funding rate within my own program is from ~6% (CHS: LARGE) ~25% (CHS:CRII) depending on the solicitation. As a new faculty member write your PD and ask them if you can serve on a panel (send an e-mail with your CV attached) so that you can understand the review process. It is OK if you have never served or have not been successful via NSF funding mechanisms.

     

    (Thank you to PDs in Human-Centered Computing Program!)

  • Student Resources

    Your resource for HCI conducting research...

    broken image

    IRB Forms and Process, CITI Training, Logging your Hours Worked in MSU MyInfo

    broken image

    Volumetric Video Capture Instructions & App How To for Internal Projects

    What classes should I take for a MS or PhD in HCI (Computer Science)

    For those students coming from CS, I encourage courses in upper-level statistics, UX/User Interface, HCI, research methods/experimental design, machine learning/AI + data science, and human factors engineering.

  • Interested in working with us?

    broken image

    Email laura.stanley at montana.edu

  • Peer Reviewed Publications

    1. Kalatzis, A., Rahman, S., Stanley, L., & Wittie, M. P. Identifying Optimal Robot Speed Adaptations with Respect to Cognitive Workload Limitations Using Q-learning. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (under review).

     

    2. Kalatzis, A., Wittie, W., & Stanley, L. A Multimodal Approach to Investigate the Role of Cognitive Workload in Human-Robot Interaction. Proceedings of the 2023 ICMI Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 2023 (in press).

     

    3. Nath, N., Kalatzis, A., & Stanley, L. (2023). Measuring User Engagement of Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality Interventions for Stress Reduction. HCI International - Late Breaking Papers: 25th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, HCII 2023. Cham: Springer (in press).

     

    4. Kalatzis A. & Stanley, L. An Augmented Reality User Interface for Pick and Place Guidance in Human-Robot Interaction. 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) IEEE, 2023 (in press).

     

    5. Nath N., Kalatzis A., & Stanley L. Measuring User Engagement of Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality Interventions for Stress Reduction, HCI International 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2023 (in press).

     

    6. Kalatzis A., Prabhu V., Stanley L., Wittie, M. Effect of Augmented Reality User Interface on Task Performance, Cognitive Load, and Situational Awareness in Human-Robot Collaboration, IEEE Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2023 (in press)

     

    7. Kalatzis, A., Hopko, S., Mehta, R., Wittie, M. & Stanley, L. Sex Parity in Cognitive Fatigue Model Development for Effective Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), (pgs. 10951-10958), 2022.

     

    8. Kalatzis, A., Rahman, S., Wittie, M. & Stanley, L. A Real-time Machine Learning and Edge Computing Framework for Real-Time Cognitive Workload Detection and Co-Robot Adaptation. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 2022 (under revision).

     

    9. Kalatzis, A., Prabhu, V., Rahman, S., Wittie, M., & Stanley, L. Emotions Matter: Towards Personalizing Human-System Interactions Using a Two-layer Multimodal Approach. ACM Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, (pgs. 63-72), 2022.

     

    10. Rahman S., Kalatzis, A., Wittie, M., Millman, D. & L. Stanley, Checkpointing Time Prediction using Online Learning for C-RAN MEC-Serverless Computing IEEE International Conference on Omni-Layer Intelligent Systems, Annual Proceedings, (pgs. 1-6), 2022.

     

    11. Coziahr K., Rabideaux K., Lundberg, C., Stanley L., Perez-Litwin A., & Litwin A., Designing a Digital Mental Health App for Opioid Use Disorder Using UX Design Thinking, 11th International Conference, DUXU 2022, 24th HCI International Conference, HCII 2022, June 26–July 1, 2022, Proceedings, Part II

     

    12. Rahman, S., Wittie, M., Elmokashfi A., Stanley L., Patterson, S., & Millman, D. Short and Sweet Checkpoints for C-RAN MEC, IEEE CLOUD Summit, October, (pgs. 69-76), 2021

     

    13. Kalatzis, A., Teotia, A., Prabhu, V. G., & Stanley, L. A Database for Cognitive Workload Classification Using Electrocardiogram and Respiration Signal. Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, Proceedings of the AHFE 2021 Virtual Conferences on Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, Industrial Cognitive Ergonomics and Engineering Psychology, and Cognitive Computing and Internet of Things, July 25-29, 2021, USA (pp.509-516)

     

    14. Prabhu, V. G., Stanley, L., Morgan, R., & Shirley, B. Comparing the Efficacy of a Video and Virtual Reality Intervention to Mitigate Surgical Pain and Anxiety. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Interaction & Emerging Technologies, (pp. 1041-1048), 2021.

     

    15. Kalatzis A., Teotia A., Stanley L., & Prabhu V. Affective State Classification in Virtual Reality Environments Using Physiological Signals. IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality. (Abstract & Poster), November 2021

     

    16. Prabhu, V. G., Stanley, L., Newcomb, R., Morgan, R., & Shirley, B. Evaluating the Efficacy of Video and Virtual Reality in Mitigating Pain and Anxiety among Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients. In Proceedings of Annual American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), 2021. (Abstract & Poster)

     

    17. Wetherbee, M., & Stanley, L. Creating Contextual Awareness for Human-Robot Interaction, National Council on Undergraduate Research, (Abstract & Presentation), 2021.

     

    18. Stanley, L. & Coziahr, K., 2021 National Science Foundation: " Smart Health in the AI and COVID Era Virtual Workshop”, SCH: INT: Collaborative Research: An intelligent Pervasive Augmented reaLity therapy (iPAL) for Opioid Use Disorder and Recovery, (Poster), 2021.

     

    19. Kalatzis, A., Stanley, L., Karthikeyan, R., & Mehta, R. K. Mental Stress Classification During a Motor Task in Older Adults Using an Artificial Neural Network. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2020 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2020 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 244 248), 2020.

     

    20. Prabhu, V. , Stanley, L. C. Linder, and R. Morgan, Analyzing the Efficacy of a Restorative Virtual Reality Environment using HRV Biofeedback for Pain and Anxiety Management. In the proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems, Rome, Italy, 2020.

     

    21. Rahman, S., Wittie, M., Stanley, L., & Patterson, S. MicroLambda Packetized Computation for 5G Mobile Edge Computing. In the proceedings of USEnix, USENIX Association HotEdge 20 3rd USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Edge Computing, (Abstract), June, 2020.

     

    22. Prabhu, V., Linder, C., Stanley, L. & Morgan, R. Affective Computing in Virtual Reality Environments for Managing Surgical Pain and Anxiety. Proceedings of the International Conference on IEEE Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR), 2019.

     

    23. Deb, S., Carruth, D. Fuad, M., Stanley, L., & Frey D., Comparison of child and adult pedestrian perspectives of external features on autonomous vehicles using a virtual reality experiment. In the proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics and part of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Volume 964, Springer Nature, 2019.

     

    24. Cull E., Saha, A, Stanley L., Prabhu, V. G. and Biro, J. “Analyzing the Efficacy and Design Considerations of VR Environments to Manage Anxiety & Depression in AYA Cancer Patients,” Blood, vol. 134, no. Supplement_1, pp. 3441–3441, (Abstract & Poster) Nov. 2019. Impact Factor = 22.1

     

    25. Biro, J., Linder, C., & Stanley, L. Applications of Virtual Environments in Human Factors Research and Practice: Utilizing Virtual Reality and Biofeedback as an Adjunct Treatment in Addressing the Opioid Crisis. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society Annual Conference, (Abstract and Demo), Washington, DC., October 2019.

     

    26. Hines, A., Biro, J., & Stanley, L. Analyzing the Mood-Improvement Effects of Exposure to Virtual Reality Dogs, National Conference on Undergraduate Research, Kennesaw, Georgia, April 10-13, (Poster), 2019.

     

    27. Rickert, A., Walter, T., Linder, C., & Stanley, L. Examination of Presence in VR Through Haptically Delivered Thermal Stimuli, National Conference on Undergraduate Research, Kennesaw, Georgia, April 10-13, (Poster), 2019.

     

    28. Prabhu, V. G. & Stanley, L. Analyzing the Efficacy of VR to Mitigate Acute Pain and Anxiety in Operative Settings, Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, (Poster & Presentation) Orlando, FL, 2019.

     

    29. Barry, J., Schiff, S., Biro, J., Ghalayani, M., & Stanley, L. Personas to Improve the Development of Healthcare Focused Virtual Reality Applications, Southeastern Human Factors Applied Research Conference, (Poster), 2018.

     

    30. Prabhu, V. G., Shvorin, D., Stanley, L., & Pirrallo, R. A Comparative Study Between Resident and Attending Physicians in the Emergency Department to Analyze Stress and Burnout, Southeastern Human Factors Applied Research Conference (Poster), 2018.

     

    31. Prabhu, V. G., Shvorin, D., Stanley, L., & Coldebella, R. Physician Distraction in the Emergency Department, Southeastern Human Factors Applied Research Conference, (Poster), 2018.

     

    32. Biro, J.& Stanley, L. Evaluating the Efficacy of VR for Managing the Pain and Anxiety of AYA Cancer Patients, Southeastern Human Factors Applied Research Conference, (Poster), 2018.

     

    33. Ghalayani, M., Schiff, S. & Stanley, L. The Use of VR for Acute Pain Management in Operative Care Environments, Southeastern Human Factors Applied Research Conference, (Poster), 2018.

     

    34. Mears, L., Niaki, F., Muth, R., & Stanley, L. Personalized Manufacturing: Sociology and Psychology as Fundamental Design Elements for Future Advanced Production Systems. David Dornfeld Manufacturing Vision Award and Blue Sky Competition (NSF sponsored), (Abstract), 2018.

     

    35. Stanley, L. Fatigue Monitoring and Management across Different Industries: Fatigue Monitoring Technologies for Detecting Driver Drowsiness. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society Annual Conference, (Abstract and Panel Presentation), Washington, DC., September, 2016.

     

    36. Mueller, J., & Stanley, L. Multivariate Analysis of Driver Responses in Simulator and On-Road, Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, (Poster), Anaheim, CA, 2016.

     

    37. Young, K., & Stanley, L. Teen Driving Attitudinal and Behavioral Differences Across Two States, Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference Proceedings, (Poster), Anaheim, CA, 2016.

     

    38. Imtiaz, A., & Stanley, L. On-Road Study Assessing the Effect of Age and Experience on Hazard Perception, Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, (Poster), Anaheim, CA, 2016.

     

    39. Stanley, L & Young, K. Validity Assessment of Virtual Reality through Geo-Specific Scenarios. Applied Ergonomics Conference, (Poster), March 21-24, 2016.

     

    40. Stanley, L. Addressing the Need for Effective Communications across the Engineering Curricula- Distinguished Speakers Series at the International Conference on Operations Excellence & Service Engineering, (Abstract and Presentation), Orlando, FL, September 10-11, 2015.

     

    41. Stanley, L. A Peer-to-Peer Public Health Intervention-A Case Study in Transportation Safety. International Conference on Operations Excellence & Service Engineering, (Abstract and Presentation), Orlando, FL, September 10-11, 2015.

     

    42. Young, K. & Stanley, L., Human Factors Design of a Low-Cost Adjustable Wheel Locking System for a Child’s Wheelchair, 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, (Poster), Las Vegas, USA July 26-30, 2015.

     

    43. Mueller, J., Young, K., & Stanley, L. Validating a Driving Simulator: Effect of Increased Mental Effort While Driving on Real Roads and in Simulators. Transportation Research Board 2015 Annual Meeting. Transportation Research Board: (Abstract and Poster), Washington, D.C., January 2015.

     

    44. Mueller, J., Young, K., & Stanley, L. Driver Characteristics: Simulated and On-Road Driver Stopping Behaviors. Transportation Research Board 2015 Annual Meeting. Transportation Research Board: (Abstract and Poster), Washington, D.C., January 2015.

     

    45. Imtiaz, A. & Stanley, L. Characterizing Eye Movement Behavior of Teen Drivers while Following a Left Turning Truck at Stop Controlled Intersection. 12th Annual Regional National Occupational Research Agenda Symposium Proceedings. (Abstract and Presentation), Salt Lake City, UT. April 2014.

     

    46. Stanley, L., Manlove K., Peck, A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Occupant Protection Programs. Conference on Statistical Practice Proceedings, (Abstract & Presentation), Tampa, FL. February 20-22, 2014.

     

    47. Stanley, L. Complexity of Instrumentation in Assessing Virtual vs Real World Hazard Perception Environments. Proceedings 1st Annual International Conference on Industrial & Systems Engineering, (Abstract and Presentation), Athens, Greece, June 24-27, 2013.

     

    48. Ward, N., Durkee, S., & Stanley, L. An Objective Evaluation of an Education-Based Distracted and Drowsy Driving Intervention for Rural Teen Drivers. 5th International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology, (Abstract), Groningen, The Netherlands, August 29 – 31, 2012.

     

    49. Young, K., & Stanley, L. Voice Activated Texting-Is It Safer than Conventional Texting While Driving? National Council for Undergraduate Research Annual Conference Proceedings, Ogden, (Abstract and Presentation), Utah 2012.

     

    50. Stanley, L., Angell, L., Perez, M., Deering, R., Llaneras, R, & Green, C. Modeling/Analysis of Pedestrian Back-Over Crashes from NHTSA’s SCI Database. Society of Automotive Engineers International Proceedings (Abstract and Presentation).

     

    51. Hoyt, T., Stanley, L., & Sanddal, N. Rural EMS Worker Restraint Usage and Feasibility in Emergency Response Vehicles, Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine, (Poster), 2010.

     

    52. Atkins, P. & Stanley, L. Design and Evaluation of a Collision Avoidance System for Cyclists. The IMAGE Society Annual Conference Proceedings, (Poster and Presentation), June 2009.

     

    53. Antin, J. F., Lockhart, T., Shi, W., Stanley, L., Haynes, C., Parajit, P., & Guo, F. Why do older drivers give up their keys? The role of functional impairment. International Conference on Traffic & Transport Psychology, Washington, D.C. (Abstract and Presentation), 2008.

     

    54. Stanley, L., Hardy, A., & Lassacher, S. Enhanced Wildlife Warnings as a Potential Means of Reducing Wildlife-Vehicle Collision. National Rural ITS Conference Proceedings, (Abstract and Presentation), August 2006.

     

    55. Stanley, L. & Philip, D. Development of a Web-Based Household Travel Survey. Institute of Transportation Engineers District 6 Meeting Proceedings, (Presentation), July 2005.

     

    56. Stanley, L. & Sherick, H., Assessing Opinions, Experiences, and Perspectives of Female Engineers Nationwide Via a Web-Based Questionnaire. Women in Engineering Programs & Advocates Networks (WEPAN) Conference, (Abstract), June 2004.

     

    57. Stanley, L., Carson, J., & Marley, R. Accommodating Older Drivers. Institute of Transportation Engineers Intermountain Meeting Proceedings, (Abstract), May 2004.

     

    58. Imtiaz, A., & Stanley, L. Hazard Perception Differences Between Experienced and Less Experienced Drivers. Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference Proceedings, Nashville, TN, 2015.

     

    59. Schell, B., Claudio, D., Sobek, D., Stanley, L., & Ward, N. Introducing Flexibility in an Engineering Curriculum Through Student Designed Elective Programs. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, (pgs. 24.808.1 - 24.808.8) June 2014.

     

    60. Mueller, J., Gallagher, C., Martin, T. & Stanley, L. Driving Simulator and Scenario Effects on Driver Response. Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference Proceedings. Montreal, Canada, May 2014.

     

    61. Imtiaz, A., Mueller, J. & Stanley, L. Driving Behavior Differences among Early Licensed Teens, Novice Teens, and Experienced Drivers in Simulator and Real World Hazards. Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference Proceedings. Montreal, CAN, May 2014.

     

    62. Mueller, J. & Stanley, L. Emergency Medical Services: A Naturalistic Posture Evaluation While Providing Patient Care during Patient Transport. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Diego, CA, October 2013.

     

    63. Mueller, J., Hoyt, T. & Stanley, L. Improving Restraint Feasibility through Ambulance Layout Redesign. 7th Annual Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design Proceedings, Bolton Landing, NY, June 17-20, 2013.

     

    64. Mueller, J., Stanley, L., Azamian, T. & Mercer, D. Assessing Physiological Response Validity in Simulated and Real Driving Environments. Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference Proceedings. San Juan, PR, May 2013.

     

    65. Young, K. & Stanley, L. Driver’s Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Voice Activated Texting Technology and Distracted Driving. Proceedings of the Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference Proceedings, Puerto Rico, 2013.

     

    66. Mueller, J., Marley, R. & Stanley, L. Whole-Body Vibration in Emergency Medical Transportation, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)’s National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) Proceedings, (Abstract), April 2013.

     

    67. Page, L., Stanley, L., & Sharma, J. Teen drivers’ hazard perception – are we using crash-representative testing scenarios? Proceedings of the Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL, 2012.

     

    68. Stanley, L. & Hoyt, T. A Service Learning Case Study for the Ergonomics Classroom. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference Proceedings, September 2011. Vol. 55 no. 1525-1529.

     

    69. Stanley, L., Page, L., & Plumb, C. Designing for the Disabled in the Engineering Classroom, Frontiers in Education Conference/American Society of Engineering Education Proceedings, October, 2010. 978-1-4244-6262-9/10.

     

    70. Mueller, J. & Stanley, L. Differences in Self-Reported versus Department of Motor Vehicle in Citation History for Teen Drivers, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)’s National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) Proceedings, April 2009.

     

    71. Stanley, L. & Mueller, J. Effectiveness of a Multistage Driver Education Program for Novice Drivers. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, October 2009 vol. 53 no. 181348-1352.

     

    72. Marley, R., Stanley, L. & Muthumani, A. Recent evolutions in the curricula of leading industrial engineering programs within the United States. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Industrial Engineering—Theory, Applications and Practice, Las Vegas, NV, 2008, pp 330-334.

     

    73. Stanley, L. & Kelly, M. Validating Transportation Safety Deployments and Highway Design Elements in Simulated Environments. Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference Proceedings, June 2008.

     

    74. Stanley, L. Human Factors in Transportation Safety. National Science Foundation Women in IE Academia Workshop, poster, U.S., Turkey, and the Middle East, July 2008.

     

    75. Stanley, L., Marley, Robert, J. & Kelly, M. Design of Interfaces for Advanced Crash Avoidance Systems. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Industrial Engineering—Theory, Applications and Practice, November 2007, pp. 767-773.

     

    76. Kelly, M., Lassacher, S., & Stanley, L. Formative Evaluation of Engineering Designs using Driver Performance in an Immersive Driving Simulator. Fourth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment Training and Vehicle Design Proceedings, July 2007, pgs. 431- 437.

     

    77. Stanley, L ., Marley, R., & Kelly, M. Haptic and Auditory Cues for Roadway Departure Warnings. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, October 2006, vol. 50 no. 222405-2408.

     

    78. Stanley, L., Kelly, M., & Lassacher, Suzanne. Driver Performance While Interacting with the 511 Travel Information System in Urban and Rural Traffic. Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment Training and Vehicle Design Proceedings, June 2005, pages 486-492.

     

    79. Stanley, L., Carson, Jodi L., & Marley, R. Shifting the Design Paradigm to Accommodate Older Drivers at Intersections & Work Zones. Annual Regional National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) Symposium Proceedings, April 2004.

     

    Journals and Book Chapter

     

    1. V. G. Prabhu, Stanley L., Morgan R., and Shirley, B. Designing and developing a nature-based virtual reality with heart rate variability biofeedback for surgical anxiety and pain management: evidence from total knee arthroplasty patients, Aging & Mental Health, 2023, Impact Factor = 3.8

     

    2. V. G. Prabhu, Stanley L., and Morgan R., A Biofeedback Enhanced Adaptive Virtual Reality Environment for Managing Surgical Pain and Anxiety. In International Journal of Semantic Computing Vol. 14, No. 03, pp. 375-393, 2020. Impact Factor = 1.65

     

    3. Agnisarman, S., Madathil, K., & Stanley, L., A Survey of Empirical Studies on Persuasive Technologies to Promote Sustainable Living. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems Journal, 2018. Impact Factor = 4.02

     

    4. Manlove, K., Stanley, L., and Peck, A. A quantitative approach to assessing the efficacy of occupant protection programs: A case study from Montana, Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, October, 2015. Impact Factor = 4.99

     

    5. Page, L. & Stanley, L. Ergonomics Service Learning Project: Implementing an Alternative Educational Method in an Industrial Engineering Undergraduate Ergonomics Course. Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 00 (0) 1–13 (2014). 2014. Impact Factor = 1.27

     

    6. Mueller, J. & Stanley, L. Contributors toward Ambulance Use of Lights and Sirens from Patient Records. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology, Vol 3., No. 3, 2013, pp 63-68. Impact Factor = 1.30

     

    7. Antin, J., Lockhart, T., Stanley, L. & Guo, F. Comparing the Impairment Profiles of Older Drivers and Non-Drivers. Journal of Safety Science, Volume 50, Issue 2, February 2012, pp 333-341. Impact Factor = 4.87

     

    8. Mueller, J., L. Stanley and Manlove, K. “Multi-Stage Novice Defensive Driver Training Program: Does It Create Overconfidence?,” Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2012, pp. 133-139. Doi: 10.4236/ojsst.2012.24017. Impact Factor = 1.30

     

    9. McGowen, P., & Stanley, L. An Alternative Methodology for Determining Gap Acceptance, Journal of Transportation Engineering, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000358. 2011. Impact Factor = 1.60

     

    10. Stanley, L., Angell, L., Perez, M., Deering, R., Llaneras, R, and Green, C. Modeling/Analysis of Pedestrian Back-Over Crashes from NHTSA’s SCI Database. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars– Mechanical Systems, Volume 4, pgs 562-571, 2011. Impact Factor = 1.10

     

    11. Sanddal T., Sanddal N., Ward N. & Stanley L. Ambulance Crash Characteristics in the U.S. Defined by the Popular Press: A Retrospective Analysis. Emergency Medicine International, vol. 2010, Article ID 525979, 7 pages, 2010.

     

    12. Stanley, L. and Ward, N. An Evaluation of Cooperative Avoidance Warning System. International Journal of Vehicle Safety, Volume 5, Number 1, 2010, pages 86-99. Impact Factor = .83

     

    13. Antin, J., Stanley, L., and Cicaro, K. Conventional vs. Moving-Map Navigation Methods: Efficiency and Safety Evaluation. Transportation Research Record, No 2138, 34-41, 2009. Impact Factor = 1.03

     

    14. Stanley, L., Hardy, A., and Lassacher S. Driver Responses to Enhanced Wildlife Advisories in a Simulated Environment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2006, No. 1980, pp 126-133. Impact Factor = 3.69

     

    15. Stanley, L., Marley, R. Whole Body Vibrations on the Low Back Using a Suspension Versus Non-Suspension Seat Post During Off-Road Cycling. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Journal, Volume 38(5), May 2006. Impact Factor = 5.41