Goal-Directed Task Analysis is being applied to assessing the needs and requirements for developing novel techniques and tools to permit a small number of humans to supervise large robotic teams. The paper presents a preliminary overall goal hierarchy as well as a preliminary communication goal hierarchy based upon the initial analysis. This research involves working directly with the Nashville Metro Police department's Bomb Squad and the Nashville Metro Fire Department's HAZMAT team. The focus is the assessment of actual user needs and requirements employing well-defined user centered design practices in combination with Goal-Directed Task Analysis. The resulting Goal- Decision-SA structure will be employed to develop potential human-robot interaction designs for further qualitative and qualitative evaluation. The objective is to successfully integrate robots into the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive device search and rescue tasks such that the robots complement and augment the current human capabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A. (1995). “Human management of a hierarchical system for the control of multiple mobile robots.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Pennsylvania.
2.
AdamsJ. A. (2002). “Critical considerations for human-robot interface development.”2002 AAAI Fall Symposium, Tech. Report FS-02-03, pp. 1–7.
3.
BruemmerD. J.FewD. A.BoringR. L.MarbleJ. L.WaltonM. C.NielsenC. (2005) “Shared understanding for collaborative control.”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics — Part A, Special Issue on Human-Robot Interaction, to appear.
4.
BurkeJ. J.MurphyR. R.CoovertM.RiddleD. (2004). “Moonlight in Miami: A field study of human-robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise.”Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Special issue on Human-Robot Interaction, 19(1–2).
5.
CasperJ.MurphyR. (2003). “Human-robot interactions during the robotassisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center.”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part B, 33(3): 367–385.
6.
CrandallJ. W.GoodrichM. A.OlsenD. R.Jr.NielsenC. W. (2005) “Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multi-tasking environments.”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics — Part A, Special Issue on Human-Robot Interaction, to appear.
7.
CummingsM. L.GuerlainS. (2003) “The Tactical Tomahawk Conundrum: Designing decision support systems for revolutionary domains.”IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 1583–1588.
8.
CummingsM.L. (2003) “Designing decision support systems for a revolutionary command and control domains.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Systems Engineering, University of Virginia.
9.
DruryJ.ScholtzJ.YancoH. A. (2003). “Awareness in human-robot interactions.”Proc. of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 912–918.
10.
EndoY.MacKenzieD. C.ArkinR.C. (2004). “Usability evaluation of high-level user assistance for robot mission specification.”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics — Part C, Special Issue on Human-Robotic Interaction, 34(2): 168–180.
11.
EndsleyM. R. (1988). “Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement.”Proc. of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting, pp. 97–101.
12.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). “Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems.”Human Factors, 37(1): 32–64.
13.
EndsleyM. R.BoltéB.JonesD. G. (2003). Designing for Situation Awareness: An approach to User-Centered Design. London: Taylor & Francis.
14.
FongT.ThorpeC.BaurC. (2003) “Multi-robot remote driving with collaborative control.”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 50(4):699–704.
15.
JonesH. (2003). “An object-based interaction framework for the operation of multiple field robots.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
16.
JonesH.HindsP. (2002). “Extreme work teams: Using SWAT teams as a model for coordinating distributed robots.”Proc. of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 372–381.
17.
KaberD. B.OnalE.EndsleyM. R. (2000) “Design of automation for telerobots and the effect on performance, operator situation awareness and subjective workload.”Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10(4): 409–430.
18.
KleinG. (1999) Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT Press.
19.
LewisM.WangJ.HughesS.LiuX. (2003). “Experiments with attitude: Attitude displays for teleoperation.”Proc. of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 1345–1349.
20.
McKenzieD.ArkinR. (1998) “Evaluating the usability of robot programming toolsets.”International Journal of Robotics Research, 4(7): 381–401.
21.
ParasuramanR.GalsterS.SquireP.FurukawaH.MillerC. (2005) “A flexible delegation-type interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple robots: Empirical studies with RoboFlag.”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics — Part A, Special Issue on Human-Robot Interaction, to appear.
22.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT.WickensC. (2000) “A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation.”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics — Part A, 30(3): 286–297.
23.
PenceK. (2004) Nashville Metro Police Captain, Personal communication.
24.
ScholtzJ.AntonishekB.YoungJ. (2005) “Implementation of a situation awareness assessment tool for evaluation of human-robot interfaces.”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics — Part A, Special Issue on Human-Robot Interaction, to appear.
25.
ShankarS.JinY.AdamsJ. A.BodenheimerB. (2004). “Enhancing RoboFlag users' situational awareness.”Proc. of the 2004 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting.
26.
TrouvainB.SchlickC.MevertM. (2003). “Comparison of a map- vs. camera-based user interface in a multi-robot navigation task.”Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.
27.
YancoH.DruryJ. L.ScholtzJ. (2004). “Beyond usability evaluation: Analysis of human-robot interaction at major robotics competition.”Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Special issue on Human-Robot Interaction, 19(1–2): 117–149.
