Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Many current and emerging systems require human operators to supervise multiple uninhabited vehicles (UVs) with the support of automation. Automation is not 100% reliable; ergo it is important to understand the effects of automation imperfection on performance. This study investigated the effects of automation reliability on system performance with multiple UVs under different levels of task load. Twelve participants completed 12 “missions” supervising 3 (low load) or 6 (high load) UVs. Participants used one UV to conduct Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition. They were assisted with an automatic target recognition (ATR) system whose reliability was low, medium, or high. Overall system performance was higher than user or ATR performance alone. The gain in system performance with the ATR was particularly effective with medium and high automation reliability. Thus, human-robot teams can benefit from imperfect automation even under high workload conditions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cooke

Pringle

H. L.

Pedersen

H. K.

Connor

(Eds.). (2006). Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering. Volume 7. (pp. 251–266). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Cummings

M. L.

Guerlain

(2004). Human performance issues in supervisory control of autonomous airborne vehicles. AUVSI's Unmanned Systems North America 2004 Symposium, August 2004.

Cummings

M. L.

Guerlain

(2007). Developing operator capacity estimates for supervisory control of autonomous vehicles. Human Factors, 49(1), 1 15.

De Visser

E. J.

Parasuraman

Freedy

Weltman

(2006). A comprehensive methodology for assessing human-robot team performance for use in training and simulation. In Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 2639–2643). San Francisco, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Dixon

S. R.

Wickens

C. D.

(2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474 486.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Peterson

S. A.

Pomranky

R. A.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

(2003). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718.

Galster

S.M.

Knott

B.A.

Brown

R. D.

(2006). Managing multiple UAVs: Are we asking the right questions? In Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 2639–2643). San Francisco, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Lee

J. D.

Moray

(1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243 1270.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50 80.

10.

Levinthal

B.R.

Wickens

C. D.

(2006). Management of multiple UAVs with imperfect automation. In Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 2639–2643). San Francisco, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

11.

Meyer

(2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46, 196 204.

12.

Parasuraman

Galster

Squire

Furukawa

Miller

(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. Systems and Humans, 35, 481 493.

13.

Parasuraman

Riley

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

14.

Rovira

McGarry

Parasuraman

(2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49, 76 87.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

S. R.

(2006). Workload and automation reliability in UAVs. In Cooke

N. J.

Pringle

H. L.

Pedersen

H. K.

Connor

(Eds.), Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles. Elsevier: Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

16.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

S. R.

(2005). Is there a magic number 7 (to the minus 1)? The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature (Tech. Rep. AHFD-05-01/MAAD-05-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.

Effects of Imperfect Automation and Task Load on Human Supervision of Multiple Uninhabited Vehicles

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References