In the United States Military, 2011 marks the third year of a 25 year plan to increase the number of unmanned systems across the air, ground, and maritime domains. These systems perform as members of human-robot teams either autonomously or by remote-operation. The success of employing unmanned systems in coordination with human team members depends on system capabilities which support teamwork and trust. Weaponization of these systems introduces new concerns in teamwork and trust research. This paper presents research comparing the effects of autonomous and remotely-operated unmanned weapon systems on human-robot teamwork and trust. The results will contribute to the development of recommended roles and automation levels for future weaponized robotic systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
106th Congress. (2000). National Defense Authorization, Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398.
2.
CanningJ.S. (2008). Weaponized unmanned systems: A transformational warfighting opportunity, government roles in making it happen. Proceedings of Engineering the Total Ship (ETS). Falls Church, VA.
Department of Defense. (2009). FY2009-2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap (ADA522247). Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
6.
DzindoletM.PetersonS.PomrankyR.PierceL.BeckH. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697-718.
7.
HoeglM.GemuendenH.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435-449.
8.
KaberD.B.OnalE.EndsleyM.R. (2000). Design of automation for telerobots and the effect on performance, operator situation awareness, and subjective workload. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10(4), 409-430.
9.
LiebermanH.R.BathalonG.P.FalcoC.M.MorganC.A.IIINiroP.J.TharionW.J. (2005). The fog of war: Decrements in cognitive performance and mood associated with combat-like stress. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 76(7), C7-C14.
10.
LeeJ.D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153-184.
11.
LeeJ.D.SeeK.A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
12.
MoriM. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.
13.
MuirB. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905-1922.
14.
MuirB.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429-460.
15.
MurphyR. (2004). Human-robot interaction in rescue robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part C, Applications and Reviews, 34(2), 138-153.
16.
OgretenS.LackeyS.NicholsonD. (2010). Recommended roles for uninhabited team members within mixed-initiative combat teams. Proceedings of the 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (CTS).
17.
OrtizE.BarberD.StevensJ.FinkelsteinN. (2009). Simulation to assess an unmanned system’s effect on team performance. Proceedings of the 2009 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC).
18.
OrtizE.FiorellaL.StevensJ.HudsonI. (2010). Teaming with a robot: Effects on teamwork quality and human-robot trust. Proceedings of the 2010 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC).
19.
PaasF.TuovinenJ.E.TabbersH.Van GervenP.W.M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
20.
ParasuramanR.MillerC.A. (2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51-55.
21.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253.
22.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT.B.WickensC.D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30(3), 286-297.
23.
RileyV. (1996). Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance theory and applications (pp. 19-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbarm.
24.
ScholtzJ. (2003). Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
25.
SheridanT.B.VerplankW.L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators (Technical Report). Cambridge, MA: MIT Man-Machine Systems Laboratory.
