Adaptability and Flexibility are Key! Benefits of the “Playbook” Interface for Human Supervision of Multiple Unmanned Vehicles

Abstract

There is increasing empirical evidence supporting the “Playbook” interface as an effective method for controlling multiple unmanned vehicles (UVs). To better understand the benefits provided by a flexible Playbook interface, participants controlled either four or eight robots in a simulated UV mission with different forms of restricted or flexible Playbook interfaces in the Roboflag environment. Level of abstraction (robot behavior) and level of aggregation (unit of robot selection) were manipulated to yield different restricted or flexible interfaces. The results confirmed the benefits provided by a flexible Playbook interface in which operators are empowered to delegate (or not) tasks to automated agents, compared to less flexible interfaces which are susceptible to negative effects due to suboptimal automation or unexpected events.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Army Science Board (2002). Ad Hoc Study on Human Robot Interface Issues, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, Arlington, VA.

Campbell

D'Andrea

Schneider

Chaudhry

Waydo

Sullivan

Veverka

Klochko

(2003). RoboFlag games using systems based hierarchical control, Proceedings. of the American Control Conference. Denver, Colorado.

Crandall

Goodrich

M. A.

(2002). Principles of adjustable interactions. In Human-Robot Interaction, 2002 AAAI Fall Symposium ( Schultz

A.C.

Chair ). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/North Holland.

Miller

Parasuraman

(2002). Designing for flexible human-automation interaction: Playbooks for supervisory control, Technical Report, Minneapolis, MN: Smart Information Flow Technologies.

Miller

Pelican

Goldman

(2000). “Tasking” interfaces for flexible interaction with automation: Keeping the operator in control. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Interaction with Complex Systems. Urbana-Champaign, IL.

Parasuraman

Galster

Miller

(2003). Human control of multiple robots in the RoboFlag simulation Environment. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Man, Systems and Cybernetics. Washington, D.C.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000) A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation. IEEE Transaction on Man, Systems and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, Vol. 39, pp. 230–253.

10.

Taylor

R. M.

(1990). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478, pp. 3–1 and 3–17). Neuilly Sur Seine, France: NATO-AGARD.

11.

Sheridan

(1992) Telerobotics, automation, and supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Squire

P. N.

Galster

S. M.

Parasuraman

(2004) The effects of levels of automation in the human control of multiple robots in the Roboflag simulation environment. In Proceedings of the 2004 Human Performance, Situation Awareness, and Automation Technology Conference II. Daytona Beach, FL.