US Army researchers and support contractors are involved in a multi-year effort to understand the impact of human-robot interaction (HRI) and teaming for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) in future and current Army conflicts. The purpose of this paper is to summarize human–robotic principles derived from these programs. The principles cover both problems and solutions evaluated over the more than six years of experimentation. We discuss the implications of Soldier teaming, survivability, multitasking, automation and the importance of individual differences for HRI. Mitigation strategies related to individual differences and training regimens are discussed. We also explicate results related to multimodal interfaces and adaptive systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnesM.ParasuramanR.CosenzoK. (2006). Adaptive automation for military robotic systems. In NATO Technical Report, Uninhabited military vehicles: Human factors issues in augmenting the force (NATO Publication No. RTOTR-HFM-078, pp. 420–440).
2.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.QuZ. (2010). RoboLeader: An agent for supervisory control of multiple robots. Proceedings of the 5th International ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Osaka, Japan (2–5 Mar 2010).
3.
ChenJ. Y. C.DurlachP. J.SloanJ. A.BowensL. D. (in press). Human robot interaction in the context of simulated route reconnaissance missions. Military Psychology, 20(3), 135–149.
4.
ChenJ. Y. C.JoynerC. T. (2009). Concurrent performance of gunner's and robotics operator's tasks in a multi-tasking environment. Military Psychology, 21 (1), 98–113.
5.
ChenJ. Y. C.TerrenceP. I. (2008). Effects of tactile cueing on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multi-tasking environment. Ergonomics, 51 (8), 1137–1152.
6.
ChenJ. Y. C.TerrenceP. I. (2009). Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics, 52 (8), 907–920.
7.
ChenJ. Y. C.HaasE. C.BarnesM. J. (2007). Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part C: Applications and Reviews, 37 (6), 1231–1245.
8.
CosenzoK.ParasuramanR.de VisserE. (2010) Automation strategies for facilitating human interaction with military unmanned vehicles. In BarnesM. J.JentschF. J. (eds), Human-Robot Interactions in Future Military Operations.Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
9.
CosenzoK.ChenJ.Y.C.ReinermanL.BarnesM.NicholsonD. (2010). Adaptive automation effects on operator performance during a simulated reconnaissance mission with an unmanned ground vehicle. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
10.
GilsonR. D.ReddenE. S.ElliottL. (2007). Remote tactile displays for future soldiers (TR-ARL-0152). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
11.
HaasE. C.StachowiakC.WhiteT.PillalamarriK.FengT. (2008). Multimodal signals to improve safety and situational awareness in a multitask human-robotic interface. Unpublished manuscript. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
12.
HaasE. C.Van ErpJ. (2010). Multimodal research for human-robotic interactions. In BarnesM. J.JentschF. J. (eds), Human-Robot Interactions in Future Military Operations.Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
13.
JentschF. G.EvansA. W.IIIOsosky (2010). Model world: Military Research conducted using a Scale MOUT facility. In BarnesM. J.JentschF. J. (eds), Human-Robot Interactions in Future Military Operations.Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
14.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
15.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43, 563–72.
16.
MurphyR. R. (2004). Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part C: Applications and Reviews, Special Issue on Human-Robot Interaction, 34 (2), 138–153.
