Objective: A military multitasking environment was simulated to examine the effects of an intelligent agent, RoboLeader, on the performance of robotics operators.
Background: The participants’ task was to manage a team of ground robots with the assistance of RoboLeader, an intelligent agent capable of coordinating the robots and changing their routes on the basis of battlefield developments.
Method: In the first experiment, RoboLeader was perfectly reliable; in the second experiment, RoboLeader’s recommendations were manipulated to be either false-alarm prone or miss prone, with a reliability level of either 60% or 90%. The visual density of the targeting environment was manipulated by the presence or absence of friendly soldiers.
Results: RoboLeader, when perfectly reliable, was helpful in reducing the overall mission times. The type of RoboLeader imperfection (false-alarm vs. miss prone) affected operators’ performance of tasks involving visual scanning (target detection, route editing, and situation awareness). There was a consistent effect of visual density (clutter of the visual scene) for multiple performance measures. Participants’ attentional control and video gaming experience affected their overall multitasking performance. In both experiments, participants with greater spatial ability consistently outperformed their low-spatial-ability counterparts in tasks that required effective visual scanning.
Conclusion: Intelligent agents, such as RoboLeader, can benefit the overall human-robot teaming performance. However, the effects of type of agent unreliability, tasking requirements, and individual differences have complex effects on human-agent interaction.
Application: The current results will facilitate the implementation of robots in military settings and will provide useful data to designs of systems for multirobot control.
BarberD.DavisL.NicholsonD.FinkelsteinN.ChenJ. Y. C. (2008, December). The Mixed Initiative Experimental (MIX) Testbed for human robot interactions with varied levels of automation. Paper presented at the 26th Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL.
2.
BarnesM. J.EvansA. W.III. (2010). Soldier-robot teams in future battlefields: An overview. In BarnesM.JentschF. (Eds.), Human-robot interactions in future military operations (pp. 9–29). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
3.
BleckleyM.DursoF.CrutchfieldJ.EngleR.KhannaM. (2003). Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 884–889.
4.
BühnerM.KönigC. J.PickM.KrummS. (2006). Working memory dimensions as differential predictors of the speed and error aspect of multitasking performance. Human Performance, 19, 253–275.
5.
CassentiD.KelleyT.SwobodaJ.PattonD. (2009). The effects of communication style on robot navigation performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 359–363). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
ChappelleW.McMillanK.NovyP.McDonaldK. (2010). Psychological profile of USAF unmanned aerial systems Predator & Reaper pilots. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 81, 339.
7.
ChappelleW.NovyP.RandallB.McDonaldK. (2010). Critical psychological attributes of U.S. Air Force (USAF) Predator & Reaper sensor operators according to subject matter experts. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 81, 253.
8.
ChenC.CzerwinskiM.MacredieR. (2000). Individual differences in virtual environments: Introduction and overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 499–507.
9.
ChenJ. Y. C. (2010). UAV-guided navigation for ground robot teleoperation in a military reconnaissance environment. Ergonomics, 53, 940–950.
10.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.Harper-SciariniM. (2011). Supervisory control of multiple robots: Human performance issues and user interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part C: Applications and Reviews, 41, 435–454.
11.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.QuinnS. A.PlewW. (2011). Effectiveness of RoboLeader for dynamic re-tasking in an urban environment. In Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 1501–1505). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
ChenJ. Y. C.DurlachP.SloanJ.BowensL. (2008). Human robot interaction in the context of simulated route reconnaissance missions. Military Psychology, 20, 135–149.
13.
ChenJ. Y. C.HaasE. C.BarnesM. J. (2007). Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part C: Applications and Reviews, 37, 1231–1245.
14.
ChenJ. Y. C.JoynerC. T. (2009). Concurrent performance of gunner’s and robotic operator’s tasks in a multitasking environment. Military Psychology, 21, 98–113.
15.
ChenJ. Y.C.TerrenceP. I. (2008). Effects of tactile cueing on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics, 51, 1137–1152.
16.
ChenJ. Y. C.TerrenceP. I. (2009). Effects of imperfect automation on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multi-tasking environment. Ergonomics, 52, 907–920.
17.
CrandallJ.GoodrichM.OlsenD.NielsenC. (2005). Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 35, 438–449.
18.
CummingsM. L.ClareA.HartC. (2010). The role of human-automation consensus in multiple unmanned vehicle scheduling. Human Factors, 52, 17–27.
19.
DerryberryD.ReedM. A. (2002). Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 225–236.
20.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48, 474–486.
21.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49, 564–572.
22.
DuxP.TombuM.HarrisonS.RogersB.TongF.MaroisR. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63, 127–138.
23.
DzindoletM.PierceL.BeckH.DaweL.AndersonB. (2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147–164.
24.
EkstromR. B.FrenchJ. W.HarmanH. H. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25.
Feldman BarrettL.TugadeM.EngleR. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573.
26.
FernL.ShivelyR. J.DraperM. H.CookeN. J.Oron-GiladT.MillerC. A. (2011). Human-automation challenges for the control of unmanned aerial systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 424–428). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
27.
GreenC.BavelierD. (2006). Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: The case of action video game players. Cognition, 101, 217–245.
28.
GreenD.SwetsJ. (1988). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.
29.
GugertyL.BrooksJ. (2004). Reference-frame misalignment and cardinal direction judgments: Group differences and strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 75–88.
30.
HambrickD. Z.OswaldF. L.DarowskiE. S.RenchT. A.BrouR. (2010). Predictors of multitasking performance in a synthetic work paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1149–1167.
31.
HartS.StavelandL. (1988). Development of NASA TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
32.
Hubert-WallanderB.GreenC.BavelierD. (2010). Stretching the limits of visual attention: The case of action video games. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2, 222–230. doi:10.1002/wcs.11610.1002/wcs.116
33.
JianJ.BisantzA.DruryC. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53–71.
34.
KahnemanD.Ben-IshaiR.LotanM. (1973). Relation of a test of attention to road accidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 113–115.
35.
LathanC.TraceyM. (2002). The effects of operator spatial perception and sensory feedback on human-robot teleoperation performance. Presence, 11, 368–377.
36.
LewisM.WangH.ChienS. Y.VelagapudiP.ScerriP.SycaraK. (2010). Choosing autonomy modes for multirobot search. Human Factors, 52, 225–233.
37.
LinegangM.StonerH.PattersonM.SeppeltB.HoffmanJ.CrittendonZ.LeeJ. (2006). Human-automation collaboration in dynamic mission planning: A challenge requiring an ecological approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 2482–2486). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
38.
McKinleyA.McIntireL.FunkeM. (2010). Operator selection for unmanned aerial vehicles: A comparison of video game players and manned aircraft pilots. In Proceedings of the Aerospace Medical Association 81st Annual Scientific Meeting (p. 336). Alexandria, VA: Aerospace Medical Association.
39.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warning. Human Factors, 43, 563–572.
40.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46, 196–204.
41.
MillerC.ParasuramanR. (2007). Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Human Factors, 49, 57–75.
42.
MorganB.D’MelloS.FikeK.AbbottR.HaassM.TamplinA.RadvanskyG.ForsytheC. (2011). Individual differences in multitasking ability and adaptability. In Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 919–923). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
43.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410.
44.
RodesW.BrooksJ.GugertyL. (2005, May). Using verbal protocol analysis and cognitive modeling to understand strategies used for cardinal direction judgments. Poster presented at the Human Factors of UAVs Workshop, Mesa, AZ.
45.
RubinsteinJ.MeyerD.EvansJ. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797.
46.
SchumacherE.SeymourT.GlassJ.FencsikD.LauberE.KierasD.MeyerD. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101–108.
47.
SchurrN. (2007). Toward human-multiagent teams (Unpublished dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
48.
SingerP. (2010). War of the machines. Scientific American, 303, 56–63.
49.
SnyderM.QuZ.ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. (2010). RoboLeader for reconnaissance by a team of robotic vehicles. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (pp. 17–21). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
50.
SquireP. N.ParasuramanR. (2010). Effects of automation and task load on task switching during human supervision of multiple semi-autonomous robots in a dynamic environment. Ergonomics, 53, 951–961.
51.
StanneyK.SalvendyG. (1995). Information visualization: Assisting low spatial individuals with information access tasks through the use of visual mediators. Ergonomics, 38, 1184–1198.
52.
StubbsK.WettergreenD.NourbakhshI. (2008). Using a robot proxy to create common ground in exploration tasks. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 375–382). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
53.
ThomasL.WickensC. D. (2004). Eye-tracking and individual differences in off-normal event detection when flying with a synthetic vision system display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 223–227). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
54.
TriplettJ. (2008). The effects of commercial video game playing: A comparison of skills and abilities for the Predator UAV (Unpublished thesis). U.S. Air Force–Air University, Montgomery, AL.
55.
TrouvainB.WolfH. (2002). Evaluation of multi-robot control and monitoring performance. In Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 111–116). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
56.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 201–212.
57.
YoumansR. J.FigueroaI. J.KramarovaO. (2011). Reactive task-set switching ability, not working memory capacity, predicts change blindness sensitivity. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 914–918). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
58.
YoungM. S.StantonN. A. (2007). Back to the future: Brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Ergonomics, 50, 46–58.
