Evaluating the Benefits and Potential Costs of Automation Delegation for Supervisory Control of Multiple UAVs

Abstract

Previous studies have begun exploring the possibility that “adaptable” automation, in which tasks are delegated to intelligent automation by the user, can preserve the benefits of automation while minimizing its costs. One approach to adaptable automation is the Playbook^®interface, which has been used in previous research and has shown performance enhancements as compared to other automation approaches. However, additional investigations are warranted to evaluate both benefits and potential costs of adaptable automation. The present study incorporated a delegation interface into a new display and simulation system, the multiple unmanned aerial vehicle simulator (MUSIM), to allow for flexible control over three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) at three levels of delegation abstraction. Task load was manipulated by increasing the frequency of primary and secondary task events. Additionally, participants experienced an unanticipated event that was not a good fit for the higher levels of delegation abstraction. Treatment of this poor “automation fit” event, termed a “Non-Optimal Play Environment” event (NOPE event), required the use of manual control. Results showed advantages when access to the highest levels of delegation abstraction was provided and as long as operators also had the flexibility to revert to manual control. Performance was better across the two task load conditions and reaction time to respond to the NOPE event was fastest in this condition. The results extend previous findings showing benefits of flexible delegation of tasks to automation using the Playbook interface and suggest that Playbook remains robust even in the face of poor “automation-fit” events.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Campbell D'Andrea

Schneider

Chaudhry

Waydo

Sullivan

Veverka

Klochko

(2003). RoboFlag games using systems based hierarchical control, Proceedings of the American Control Conference. Denver, Colorado.

Dixon

S.R.

Wickens

C.D.

Chang

(2005) Mission control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles: A workload analysis. Human Factors, 47, 479–487.

Endsley

Kiris

(1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381–394.

Fern

Shively

R. J.

(2009). A comparison of varying levels of automation on the supervisory control of multiple UASs. In Proceedings of AUVSI's Unmanned Systems, North America, Washington, D.C.

Kirlik

(1993). Modeling strategic behavior in human-automation interaction: Why an “aid” can (and should) go unused. Human Factors, 35, 221–242.

Miller

Goldman

Funk

Pate

(2004). A playbook approach to variable autonomy control: Application for control of multiple, heterogeneous unmanned air vehicles. In Proceedings of FORUM 60, the Annual Meeting of the American Helicopter Society (pp. 2146–2157). Alexandria, VA: American Helicopter Society.

Miller

C.A.

Parasuraman

(2007) Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Human Factors, 49, 57–75.

Parasuraman

Galster

Miller

(2003). Human control of multiple robots in the RoboFlag simulation Environment. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Man, Systems and Cybernetics. Washington, D.C.

Parasuraman

Galster

Squire

Furukawa

Miller

(2005). A flexible delegation interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple autonomous robots: Empirical studies with RoboFlag. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part A: Systems and Humans, 35, 481–493.

10.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T.B.

Wickens

C.D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation,”; IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst. Humans, vol. 30, pp. 286–297.

11.

Parasuraman

Byrne

E. A.

, “Automation and human performancein aviation,” in Principles of Aviation Psychology, Tsang

Vidulich

, Eds. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 311–356.

12.

Parasuraman

Riley

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

13.

Sarter

N.B.

Woods

D.D.

Billings

C.E.

(1997). Automation Surprises. In Salvendy

(Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (2nd edition) (pp. 1926–1943). New York, NY: Wiley.

14.

Squire

P.N.

Galster

S. M.

Parasuraman

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