Future robots may act as team members, capable of independently executing tasks and interacting with humans cooperatively and socially. These types of robots will occupy a niche between what is currently addressed by human-robot interaction (HRI) and what is considered to be teamwork. This paper addresses that need by providing innovative direction in the measurement of situation awareness (SA) while considering robotic agents as integral team members. We include relevant metrics for the measurement of individual SA within human-robot teams and present a model describing SA of the team. In doing this, we expand upon current methodologies for measuring SA so that they can be applied to future human-robot teams.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BolstadC. A.CuevasH. M. (2010). Integrating situation awareness assessment into test and evaluation. ITEA Journal, 31, 240-246.
2.
BreazealC. (2004). Social interactions in HRI: The robot view. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part C: Applications and Reviews, 34(2), 181-186.
3.
BretonR.TremblayS.BanburyS. (2007). Measurement of individual and team situation awareness: A critical evaluation of the available metrics and tools and their applicability to command and control environments (Report No. 2003-283). Quebec, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada.
4.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. A. (1990). Cognitive psychology and team training: Shared mental models in complex systems. Human Factors Bulletin, 33, 1-4.
5.
CookeN. J.StoutR. J.SalasE. (2001). A knowledge elicitation approach to the measurement of team situation awareness. In McNeeseM.SalasE.EndsleyM. (Eds.), New Trends in Cooperative Activities: Understanding System Dynamics in Complex Environments (pp. 114-139). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
DruryJ. L.ScholtzJ.YancoH. A. (2003). Awareness in human robot interactions. IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1, 912-918. Washington, DC: IEEE.
7.
DruryJ. L.ScottS. D. (2008). Awareness in unmanned aerial vehicle operations. The International C2 Journal, 2(1), 1-10.
8.
EndsleyM. R. (1995a). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32-64.
9.
EndsleyM. R. (1995b). Measurement of situation awareness indynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65-84.
10.
EndsleyM. R. (1996). Situation awareness measurement in test and evaluation. In O’BrienT. G.CharltonS. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation (pp. 159-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
EndsleyM. R. (2000). Direct measurement of situation awareness:Validity and use of SAGAT. In EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (pp. 147-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
EndsleyM. R.JonesW. (2001). A model of inter and intrateam situational awareness: Implications for design, training, and measurement. In McNeeseM.SalasE.EndsleyM. (Eds.), New Trends in Cooperative Activities: Understanding System Dynamics in Complex Environments (p. 46-67). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
EndsleyM. R.RoberstonM. M. (2000). Situation awareness in aircraft maintenance teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(2), 301-325.
14.
HassellA. J.SmithP.StrattonD. (2007). An evaluation framework for videogame based tasking of remote vehicles. Proceedings of the 4th Austrian Conference on Interactive Entertainment, 305. Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computing Machinery.
15.
HoeftR. M. (2006). Investigating the mechanisms that drive implicit coordinattion in teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
16.
JonesD. G. (2000). Subjective measures of situation awareness. In EndsleyM.R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (pp. 113-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
LimB.KleinK. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,403-418.
18.
MunizE. J.SalasE.StoutR. J.BowersC. A. (1999). The validation of a team situational awareness measure. Proceedings for the Third Annual Symposium and Exhibition on Situation Awareness in the Tactical Air Environment, 183-190. Patuxent River, MD: Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division.
19.
PritchettA. R.HansmanR. J. (2000). Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. In EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (pp. 189-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
RouseW. B.MorrisN. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models.Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349-363.
21.
SalasE. (1995). Situation awareness in team performance:Implications for measurement and training. Human Factors,37(1), 123-136.
22.
ScholtzJ. (2002). Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:0-7695-1874-5/030-7695-1874-5/03
23.
ShuY.FurutaK. (2005). An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cognition Technology and Work, 7, 272-287.
24.
SteinfeldA.FongT.KaberD.LewisM.ScholtzJ.SchultzA.GoodrichM. (2006). Common metrics for human-robot interaction. Human Robot Interaction. Salt Lake City, UT: ACM Press.
