Defining the Challenges Operators Face when Controlling Multiple Unmanned Vehicles

Abstract

To achieve effective human-robot interaction (HRI) it is important to determine what types of supervisory control interfaces lead to optimal human-robot teaming. Research in HRI has demonstrated that operators controlling fewer robots against opponents of equal strength face greater challenges when control is restricted to only automation. Using human-in-the-loop evaluations of delegation-type interfaces, the present study examined the challenges and outcomes of a single operator supervising (1) more or less robots than a simulated adversary, with either a (2) flexible or restricted control interface. Testing was conducted with 12 paid participants using the RoboFlag simulation environment. Results from this experiment support past findings of execution timing deficiencies related to automation brittleness, and present new findings that indicate that successful teaming between a single human operator and a robotic team is affected by the number of robots and the type of interface.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Billings

C. E.

(1997). Aviation automation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1998). Development of NASATLX (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

C. A.

Parasuraman

(2002). Designing for flexible human-automation interaction: Playbooks for supervisory control: Smart Information Flow Technologies.

Olsen

D. R.

Goodrich

M. A.

(2003). Metrics for Evaluating Human-Robot Interactions. Paper presented at the Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop, Washington D.C.

Parasuraman

Galster

Miller

C. A.

(2003). Human control of multiple robots in the roboflag simulation environment. Paper presented at the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Man, Systems and Cybernetics., Washington, D.C.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation-Part A: System and humans. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30, 286–297.

Sarter

N. B.

Woods

D. D.

Billings

C. E.

(Eds.). (1997). Automation surprises. New York: Wiley.

Squire

Furukawa

Galster

Miller

C. A.

Parasuraman

(2004). Adaptability and flexibility are key! Benefits of the “playbook” interface for human supervision of multiple umanned vehicles. Paper presented at the 2004 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, New Orleans, LA.

10.

Squire

Galster

Parasuraman

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

11.

Taylor

R. M.

(1990). The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. (No. AGARD-CP-478). Neuilly Sur Seine, France.