Jessie Y.C. Chen
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the performance and workload of the combined position of gunner and robotics operator in a simulated military multitasking environment. Specifically, we investigated how aided target recognition (AiTR) capabilities for the gunnery task with imperfect reliability (false-alarm-prone vs. miss-prone) might affect the concurrent robotics and communication tasks. Additionally, we examined whether performance was affected by individual differences in spatial ability and attentional control. Results showed that when the robotics task was simply monitoring the video, participants had the best performance in their gunnery and communication tasks and the lowest perceived workload, compared with the other robotics tasking conditions. There was a strong interaction between the type of AiTR unreliability and participants' perceived attentional control. Overall, for participants with higher perceived attentional control, false-alarm-prone alerts were more detrimental; for low attentional control participants, conversely, miss-prone automation was more harmful. Low spatial ability participants preferred visual cueing, and high spatial ability participants favored tactile cueing. Potential applications of the findings include personnel selection for robotics operation, robotics user interface designs, and training development.
- Chen, J.Y.C., Haas, E., and Barnes, M. 2007 Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. C, Appl. Rev., 37, 6 (Nov. 2007), 1231--1245. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Barnes, M., Chen, J.Y.C., Jentsch, F., and Haas, E. 2006. Soldier interactions with aerial and ground robotic systems in future military environments. In Proc. NATO Conf. Human Factors of Uninhabited Military Systems (Biarritz, France, Oct. 10-12, 2006). NATO.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, D. 2005. Soldier workload analysis of the mounted combat system (MCS) platoon's use of unmanned assets. Tech Report, ARL-TR-3476, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD.Google Scholar
- Chen, J.Y.C. and Joyner, C. "Concurrent performance of gunner's and robotic operator's tasks in a multi-tasking environment", Military Psych., in press.Google Scholar
- Chen, J.Y.C. and Barnes, M. 2008. Robotics operator performance in a military multi-tasking environment. In Proc. HRI'08 (Amsterdam, Mar. 12-15, 2008). ACM Press, New York, 279--286. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meyer, J. 2004. Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46 (Sum. 2004), 196--204.Google Scholar
- Wickens, C., Dixon, S., Goh, J., and Hammer, B. 2005. Pilot dependence on imperfect diagnostic automation in simulated UAV flights: An attentional visual scanning analysis. Tech Report: AHFD-05-02/MAAD-05-02, U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
- Dixon, S. and Wickens, C. 2006. Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48 (Fall 2006), 474--486.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dixon, S., Wickens, C., and McCarley, J. 2007. On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors, 49 (Aug. 2007), 564--572Google Scholar
- Wickens, C., Dixon, S., and Johnson N. 2005. UAV automation: Influence of task priorities and automation imperfection in a difficult surveillance task. Tech Report: AHFD-05-20/MAAD-05-6, U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
- Lathan, C. and Tracey, M. 2002. The effects of operator spatial perception and sensory feedback on human-robot teleoperation performance. Presence, 11 (Aug. 2002), 368--377. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chen, J.Y.C., Durlach, P., Sloan, J., and Bowens, L. 2008. Human robot interaction in the context of simulated route reconnaissance missions. Military Psych., 20 (July 2008), 135--149.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D., and Evans, J., 2001. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J. Exp. Psych.: Human Perception and Performance, 27 (Aug. 2001), 763--797.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Derryberry, D. and Reed, M. 2002. Anxiety-related Attentional Biases and Their Regulation by Attentional Control. J. Abnormal Psych., 111 (May 2002), 225--236.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ekstrom, R., French J., and Harman, H. 1976. Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. ETS, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- Gugerty, L. and Brooks, J. 2004. Reference-frame misalignment and cardinal direction judgments: Group differences and strategies. J. Exp. Psych.: Applied, 10 (Mar. 2004), 75--88.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hart, S. and Staveland, L. 1988. Development of NASA TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Human Mental Workload, P. Hancock & N. Meshkati, Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 139--183.Google Scholar
- Jian, J., Bisantz, A., and Drury, C. 2000. Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int. J. Cognitive Ergonomics, 4 (Jan. 2000), 53--71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas, L. and Wickens, C. 2004. Eye-tracking and individual differences in off-normal event detection when flying with a synthetic vision system display. In Proc. HFES Mtg. (New Orleans, LA, Sep. 20--24, 2004). HFES, Santa Monica, CA, 223--227.Google Scholar
- Biros, D., Daly, M., and Gunsch, G. 2004. The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13 (Mar. 2004), 173--189.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, J. and Moray, N. 1994. Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 40 (Jan. 1994), 153--184. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F., Perretta, J., and Tonev, S. 2000. The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes. Quarterly J. Exp. Psych., 53A (Aug. 2000), 609--625.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schipani, S. 2003. An evaluation of operator workload during partially-autonomous vehicle operations. In Proc. PerMIS (Gaithersburg, MD, Sep. 16-18, 2003).Google Scholar
- Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., and Mayer, R. 2002. Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition & Instruction, 20 (Jan 2002), 47--77.Google Scholar
- Calhoun, G. and Draper, M. 2006. Multi-sensory interfaces for remotely operated vehicles. In Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, N. Cooke et al., Eds. Elsevier, Oxford, 149--163.Google Scholar
- Lee, J. and See, K. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46 (Spring 2004), 50--80.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Concurrent performance of military tasks and robotics tasks: effects of automation unreliability and individual differences
Recommendations
Effects of unreliable automation and individual differences on supervisory control of multiple ground robots
HRI '11: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interactionA military multitasking environment was simulated to examine the effects of unreliable automation on the performance of robotics operators. The main task was to manage a team of four ground robots with the assistance of RoboLeader, an intelligent agent ...
Robotics operator performance in a military multi-tasking environment
HRI '08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interactionWe simulated a military mounted environment and examined the performance of the combined position of gunner and robotics operator and how aided target recognition (AiTR) capabilities (delivered either through tactile or tactile + visual cueing) for the ...
Effects of operator spatial ability on uav-guided ground navigation
HRI '10: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interactionWe simulated a military reconnaissance environment and examined the performance of ground robotics operators who were instructed to utilize streaming video from an unmanned aerial vehicle to navigate his/her ground robot to the locations of the targets. ...
Comments