Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate two models for adjusting autonomy in mobile robots to find out the best way for the operator to interact with the system with as many robots as possible. The first model is the most used in mobile robots; the second proposes a flexible autonomy management.
Background: There are different ways of adjusting the autonomy level in man-machine systems: adjustable autonomy, in which the operator has the initiative over the autonomy level; adaptive autonomy, in which the autonomy level is adjusted depending on the task and context; and mixed initiatives. One of the drawbacks of using adjustable autonomy is that it is claimed not to be flexible enough, resulting in a high operator workload. We propose and evaluate a flexible adjustable autonomy model for robot-team supervision.
Method: Two experiments were designed to test the scalability and performance of the man-machine system with two alternative configurations for the autonomy management. The independent variable is the number of robots, and the measured variable is the man-machine system performance. The experiments are between subjects. We have used ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc analysis for analyzing the results.
Results: On the basis of these analyses, we conclude that a flexible adjustable autonomy model results in better performance than the classic, rigid one, in which the operator directly chooses the autonomy level.
Conclusion: Flexible autonomy adjustment permits one operator to control a team of robots with better results in terms of performance and robot use, as he or she can directly act at the error level, leaving the responsibility of readjusting and resuming the task to the system and hence reducing the operator’s workload.
Application: The results can be applied to exploration robotics, mainly, in which one operator controls a team of robots. In general, these principles can be extended to other single-man/multiple-machine systems.
BurkeJ. L.MurphyR. R. (2004). Human-robot interaction in USAR technical search: Two heads are better than one. In IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 307–312). doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2004.137477810.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374778
2.
CalisiD.CensiA.IocchiL.NardiD. (2009). OpenRDK: A modular framework for robotics software development. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 1872–1877). doi:10.1109/IROS.2008.465121310.1109/IROS.2008.4651213
3.
CrandallJ. W.GoodrichM. A.OlsenD. R.NielsenC. W. (2005). Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 35(4), 438–449. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2005.85058710.1109/TSMCA.2005.850587
4.
DruryJ. L.KeyesB.YancoH. A. (2007). Lassoing HRI: Analyzing situation awareness in map-centric and video-centric interfaces. In Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 279–286). doi:10.1145/1228716.122875410.1145/1228716.1228754
5.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
FongT.ThorpeC. E.BaurC. (2003). Robot, asker of questions. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 235–243. doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00378-010.1016/S0921-8890(02)00378-0
8.
GoodrichM. A.McLainT. W.AndersonJ. D.SunJ.CrandallJ. W. (2007). Managing autonomy in robot teams: Observations from four experiments. In Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 25–32). doi:10.1145/1228716.122872110.1145/1228716.1228721
9.
HancockP. A.ChignellM. H.LowenthalA. (1985). An adaptive human-machine system. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 15, 627–629.
10.
HardinB.GoodrichM. A. (2009). On using mixed-initiative control: A perspective for managing large-scale robotic teams. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 165–172). doi:10.1145/1514095.151412610.1145/1514095.1514126
11.
HuangH. M.PavekK.AlbusJ.MessinaE. (2005). Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) framework: An update. In Proceedings of the 2005 SPIE Defense and Security Symposium (pp. 439–448). doi:10.1117/12.60372510.1117/12.603725
12.
HumphreyC. M.HenkC.SewellG.WilliamsB. W.AdamsJ. A. (2007). Assessing the scalability of a multiple robot interface. In Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 239–246). doi:10.1145/1228716.122874910.1145/1228716.1228749
13.
InagakiT. (2003). Adaptive automation: Sharing and trading of control. In HollnagelE. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 46–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
KramerT. A.LairdR. T.DinhM.BarngroverC. M.CruickshanksJ. R.GilbreathG. A. (2006). FIRRE Joint Battlespace Command and Control System for manned and unmanned assets (JBC2S). In SPIE Unmanned Systems Technology VIII (pp. 623020–623033). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
15.
LewisM.WangH.ChienS. Y.VelagapudiP.ScerrP.SycaraK. (2010). Choosing autonomy modes for multirobot search. Human Factors, 52, 225–233. doi:10.1177/001872081036685910.1177/0018720810366859
16.
LewisM.WangH.HughesS. (2007). USARSim: Simulation for the study of human-robot interaction. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1, 98–120.
17.
MillerC.ParasuramanR. (2007). Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Human Factors, 49, 57–75. doi:10.1518/00187200777959803710.1518/001872007779598037
18.
NormanD. A. (2007). The design of future things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19.
NielsenC. W.GoodrichM. A. (2006). Comparing the usefulness of video and map information in navigation tasks. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 95–101). doi:10.1145/1121241.112125910.1145/1121241.1121259
20.
ParasuramanR. (2000). Designing automation for human use: Empirical studies and quantitative models. Ergonomics, 43, 931–951. doi:10.1080/00140130040912510.1080/001401300409125
21.
ParasuramanR.ConsenzoK. A.De VisserE. (2009). Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Military Psychology, 21, 270–297. doi:10.1080/0899560090276880010.1080/08995600902768800
22.
ParasuramanR.GalsterS.SquireP.FurukawaH.MillerC. (2005). A flexible delegation-type interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple robots: Empirical studies with RoboFlag. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 35, 481–493. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2005.85059810.1109/TSMCA.2005.850598
23.
ParasuramanR.MoulouaM.MolloyR. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665–679.
24.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 30, 286–297. doi:10.1109/3468.84435410.1109/3468.844354
25.
RouseW. B. (1988). Adaptive aiding for human/computer control. Human Factors, 30, 431–443.
26.
ScholtzJ.AntonishekB.YoungJ. (2004). Operator interventions in autonomous off-road driving: Effects of terrain. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 2797–2802). doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2004.140075610.1109/ICSMC.2004.1400756
27.
SheridanT. B. (2002). Humans and automation: System design and research issues. Wiley Series in Systems Engineering and Management. San Francisco, CA: Wiley-Interscience.
28.
SimmonsR.SinghS.HegerF.HiattL.KoterbaS.MelchiorN.SellnerB. (2007). Human-robot teams for large-scale assembly. In Proceedings of the NASA Science Technology Conference. doi:10.1.1.65.700110.1.1.65.7001
29.
StubbsK.HindsP.WettergreenD. (2007). Autonomy and common ground in human-robot interaction: A field study. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2(2), 42–50. doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.2110.1109/MIS.2007.21
30.
ValeroA.delaPuenteP.Rodriguez-LosadaD. (2010). Evaluating a human-robot interface for exploration missions. In Proceedings of the IFAC Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles Conference. doi:10.3182/20100906-3-IT-2019.0004810.3182/20100906-3-IT-2019.00048
31.
ValeroA.RandelliG.BottaF.SaraciniC.NardiD. (2009). Give me the control, I can see the robot! In Proceeding of the 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics. doi:10.1109/SSRR.2009.542415710.1109/SSRR.2009.5424157
32.
ValeroA.RandelliG.SaraciniS.BottaF.MecellaM. (2009). The advantage of mobility, mobile tele-operation for mobile robots. In Proceedings of the AISB-HRI Symposium “New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction - 23rd Convention of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour 2009”. Edimburgh, UK. ISBN: 190295680X
33.
VigL.AdamsJ. A. (2005). A framework for multi-robot coalition formation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 347–363). Pune, India, December 20-22, 2005. IICAI 2005, ISBN 0-9727412-1-6.
34.
YancoH. A.DruryJ. L. (2004). “Where am I?” Acquiring situation awareness using a remote robot platform. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man & Cybernetics (pp. 2835–2840). doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2004.140076210.1109/ICSMC.2004.1400762
