In this paper, we examine the influence of autonomy and cognitive ability on workload in unmanned systems. First, we outline prior research regarding the role of autonomy and operator selection in decreasing workload in the realm of human-robot interaction. Next, we discuss two aspects of cognitive ability (i.e., visualization and perceptual speed) explain differences between these constructs, and their influence on workload. Then, we describe the current study and discuss the effects of varying levels of autonomy, visualization, and perceptual speed on workload in a simulated reconnaissance mission. Finally, we explore the implications of our findings in terms of the influence of autonomy and operator selection and provide suggestions for future research.
BolesD. B.AdairL. P. (2001a). The multiple resources questionnaire (MRQ). Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1790–1794.
3.
CarrollJ. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
ChenJ.BarnesM.Harper-SciariniM. (2011). Supervisory control of multiple robots: Human performance issues and user-interface design. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part C: Applications and Reviews, 41(4), 435–454.
5.
EndsleyM.KaberD. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness, and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462–492.
6.
FincannonT.EvansA. W.JentschF.KeeblerJ. (2010). Dimensions of spatial ability and their influence on performance with unmanned systems. In AndrewsD. H.HullT. (Eds.), Human factors in defense: Human factors in combat identification (pp. 67–81). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
7.
FincannonT.EvansA. W.PhillipsE.JentschF.KeeblerJ. (2009). The influence of team size and communication modality on team effectiveness with unmanned systems. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 419–423.
8.
FincannonT.JentschF.SellersB.KeeblerJ. R. (2012). Beyond “spatial ability”: Examining the impact of multiple individual differences in a perception by proxy framework. Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 127–128.
9.
FincannonT.KeeblerJ. R.JentschF. (In Press). Examining external validity issues in research with human operation of unmanned vehicles. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.
10.
FincannonTOsoskyS.KeeblerJ.JentschF (2010). Acquisition of skill sets and mental models over time. 3rd International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. July: Miami, FL.
11.
FincannonT.OsoskyS.JentschF.PhillipsE.KeeblerJ. R. (2010). Some good and bad with spatial ability in three person teams that operate multiple unmanned systems. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1615–1619.
12.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model of types and levels of human interaction with automation. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, IEEE Transactions on, 30, 286–297.
13.
Reinerman-JonesL.BarberD.LackeyS.NicholsonD. (2010).Developing methods for utilizing physiological measures. In TadeuszM.WaldemarK.RiceV. (Eds.), Advances in Understanding Human Performance: Neuroergonomics, Human Factors Design, and Special Populations. Miami, Florida.
14.
SellersB.FincannonT.JentschF. (2011). Indexing spatial ability across team size: The influence of the weakest link, strongest link, and aggregate ability on performance with multiple unmanned systems. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 899–903.
15.
WoodsD. D.TittleJ.FeilM.RoeslerA. (2004). Envisioning human-robot coordination in future operations. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, IEEE Transactions on, 34(2), 210–218.
