The current study reviews the relationship between manipulations of teleoperator workload and task outcomes, using multiple resource theory as the underlying framework. Results indicated that controlling more than two platforms is detrimental to many performance indices (reaction time, error rate), but overall productivity improves. For studies that manipulated workload for a single robot task, visual demands were a limiting factor, and interventions which reduced visual demands improved performance. The review concludes with guiding principles for managing workload and improving teleoperator performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. J. (2009). Multiple robot/single human interaction: Effects on perceived workload. Behavior Information and Technology, 28(2), 18–198.
2.
ChadwickR. A. (2005). The impacts of multiple robots and display views: An urban search and rescue simulation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 49th Annual Meeting (Orlando, FL), HFES '05. 387–391.
3.
ChadwickR. A. (2006). Operating multiple semi-autonomous robots: Monitoring, responding, detecting. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 50th Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA), HFES '06, 329–333.
4.
ChenJ. Y. C.HaasE.BarnesM. (2007). Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 37, 6, 1231–147.
5.
ChenJ. Y. C.DurlachP. J.SloanJ. A.BowersL. D. (2008). Humanrobot interaction in the context of simulated route reconnaissance missions. Military Psychology, 20, 135–149.
6.
*chenJ Y. C.JoynerC. (2009). Concurrent performance of gunner's and robotics operator's tasks in a multi-tasking environment. Military Psychology, 21, 98–113.
7.
CosenzoK. A.ParasuramanR.NovakA.BarnesM. (2006). Implementation of automation for control of robotic systems. Technical Report. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.
8.
CrandallJ. W.CummingsM. L. (2007). Developing performance metrics for the supervisory control of multiple robots. Proceedings of the Second ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. Arlington, VA. HRI '07, 33–40.
9.
DarkenR. P.CervikH. (1999). Map usage in virtual environments: Orientation issues. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality, 133–140.
10.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D. (2003). Control of multiple-UAVs: A workload analysis. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (Dayton, OH), 1–5.
11.
FoldsD. J.GerthJ. (1994). Auditory monitoring of up to eight simultaneous sources. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 38th Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, CA,), HFES '94, 505–509.
12.
GalsterS. M.KnottB.A.BrownR. D. (2006). Managing multiple UAVs: Are we asking the right questions?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 50th Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA), HFES '06, 545–549.
13.
HardinB.GoodrichM. (2009). On using mixed-initiative control: A perspective for managing large-scale robot teams. Proceedings of the Fourth ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. La Jolia, CA. HRI '09, 165–172.
14.
HendyK.LaoJ.MilgramP. (1997). Combining time and intensity effects in assessing operator information-processing load. Human Factors, 30, 30–47.
15.
HumphreyC. M.HenckC.SewellG.WilliamsonB. W.AdamsJ. A. (2007). Assessing the scalability of a multi-robot interface. Proceedings of the Second ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. Arlington, VA. HRI '07, 239–246.
16.
LevinthalB. R.WickensC. D. (2006). Management of multiple UAVs with imperfect automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 50th Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA), HFES '06, 1941–1944.
17.
LifP.JanderH.BorgwallJ. (2007). Tactical evaluation of unmanned ground vehicle during a MOUT exercise. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (Beijing, China), HCI '07, 731–740.
18.
MosierK. L.SethiN.McCauleyS.KhooL.OrasanuJ. M. (2007). What you don't know can hurt you: Factors impacting diagnosis in the automated cockpit. Human Factors, 49, 2, 300–310.
19.
MurrayS. A. (1995). Human-machine interaction with multiple autonomous sensors. InProceedings of the 6th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium on Analysis, Design and Evaluation of Man-Machine Systems.
20.
ParasuramanR.GaslterS. M.SquireP.FurukawaH.MillerC. (2005). Flexible delegation-type interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple robots: Empirical studies with RoboFlag. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 35, 4, 481–493.
21.
ParkS. H.WoldstadJ. C. (2000). Multiple two-dimensional displays as an alternative to three-dimensional displays in telerobotic tasks. Human Factors, 42, 4, 592–603.
22.
RuffH. A.NarayanS.DraperM. H. (2002). Human interaction with levels of automation and decision-aid fidelity in the supervisory control of multiple simulated unmanned air vehicles. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11, 4, 335–351.
23.
RuffH. A.CalhounG.DraperM.FontejonJ.AbbottJ. (2004). Exploring automation issues in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. Proceedings of the 5th Conference of Human Performance, Situation Awareness, and Automation Technology, 218–222.
24.
SchipaniS. P. (2003). An evaluation of operator workload during partially autonomous vehicle operations. Technical Report. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.
25.
SellnerB. P.HiattL. M.SimmonsR.SinghS. (2006). Attaining situational awareness for sliding autonomy. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2006.
26.
SquireP.TraftonG.ParasuramanR. (2006). Human control of multiple unmanned vehicles: Effects of interface type on execution and task switching times. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI 2006, 26–32.
27.
TrouvainB.SchlickC.MervertM. (2003). Comparison of a map- vs. camera-based user interface in a multi-robot navigation task. InProceedings of IEEE Interantional Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (Washington DC, USA). SMC '03, 3224–3231.
28.
TrouvainB.WolfC. (2003). Design and evaluation of a multi-robot interface. The Role of Humans in Intelligent and Automated Systems. Symposium presented at the RTO HFM (Warsaw, Poland), 22–1 - 22–12.
29.
WatsonB.WalkerN.WoytiukP.RibarskyW. (2003). Maintaining usability during 3D placement despite delay. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality, 133–140.
30.
WickensC., (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3 (2) 159–177.
31.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R.ChangD. (2003). Using interference models to predict performance in a multiple-task UAV environment- 2 UAVs. Technical Report. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
32.
WitmerB. G.KlineP. B. (1998). Judging perceived and traversed distance in virtual environments. Presence, 7, 2, 144–167.
33.
YehM.WickensC. D. (2001). Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors, 43, 3, 355–365.
34.
YiH.SongB.JiD.YuT. (2006). Experimental research on situation awareness of the operators for unmanned aerial vehicle. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 36 (6), 1225–1228.
