Although current urban search and rescue (USAR) robots are little more than remotely controlled cameras, the end goal is for them to work alongside humans as trusted teammates. Natural language communications and performance data are collected as a team of humans works to carry out a simulated search and rescue task in an uncertain virtual environment. Conditions are tested emulating a remotely controlled robot versus an intelligent one. Differences in performance, situation awareness (SA), trust, and workload are measured. The Intelligent robot condition resulted in higher levels of performance and operator SA.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A. (2005, September). Human-robot interaction design: Understanding user needs and requirements. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 49, pp. 447-451. SAGE Publications. doi:10.1177/154193120504900349
2.
BurkeJ. L.MurphyR. R.CoovertM. D.RiddleD. L. (2004). Moonlight in Miami: Field study of human-robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 85-116.
3.
CantrellR.TalamadupulaK.SchermerhornP.BentonJ.KambhampatiS.ScheutzM. (2012, March). Tell me when and why to do it! Run-time planner model updates via natural language instruction. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference (pp. 471-478). Boston, MA: IEEE.
4.
CasperJ.MurphyR. R. (2003). Human-robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the world trade center. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, 33(3), 367-385.
5.
DesaiM. K. (2013). Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 251-258). IEEE Press.
6.
DesaiM.MedvedevM.VázquezM.McSheehyS.Gadea-OmelchenkoS.BruggemanC.. . .YancoH. (2012). Effects of changing reliability on trust of robot systems. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference (pp. 73-80). IEEE.
7.
GaoF.CummingsM. L.BertuccelliL. F. (2012). Teamwork in controlling multiple robots. Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 81-88). ACM.
8.
GöbelbeckerM.KellerT.EyerichP.BrennerM.NebelB. (2010, May). Coming Up With Good Excuses: What to do When no Plan Can be Found. ICAPS, (pp. 81-88).
9.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology, 52, 139-183.
10.
KambhampatiS.CookeN. J. (2012). Planning for Peer-to-Peer Human Robot Teaming in Open Worlds.
11.
KaniarasuP.SteinfeldA.DesaiM.YancoH. (2012). Potential measures for detecting trust changes. Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 241-242). ACM.
12.
KaniarasuP.SteinfeldA.DesaiM.YancoH. (2013). Robot confidence and trust alignment. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 155-156). IEEE Press.
13.
MurphyR. R. (2000). Marsupial and shape-shifting robots for urban search and rescue. Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 15(2), 14-19.
14.
MurphyR. R. (2004). Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, 34(2), 138-153.
15.
MurphyR. R.BurkeJ. L. (2005). Up from the rubble: Lessons learned about HRI from search and rescue. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 49, pp. 437-441. SAGE Publications.
16.
OsoskyS.SchusterD.JentschF.FioreS.ShumakerR.LebiereC.. . .StentzA. (2012). The importance of shared mental models and shared situation awareness for transforming robots from tools to teammates. Proc. of SPIE, 8387, pp. 838710-1.
17.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.GroveJ.JentschF. (2011). From Tools to Teammates Toward the Development of Appropriate Mental Models for Intelligent Robots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 55, pp. 1491-1495. SAGE Publications.
18.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.SwigertB.JentschF. (2012). Human-animal teams as an analog for future human-robot teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 56, pp. 1553-1557. SAGE Publications.
19.
RamanV.LignosC.FinucaneC.LeeK. C.MarcusM. P.Kress-GazitH. (2013). Sorry Dave, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That: Explaining Unachievable Robot Tasks Using Natural Language. Robotics: Science and Systems.
20.
SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskyM. P. (Eds.). (2013). Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
ScheutzM.EberhardK. M. (2008). Towards a Framework for Integrated Natural Language Processing Architectures for Social Robots. NLPCS, (pp. 165-174).
22.
SellersB. C.FincannonT.JentschF. (2012). The Effects of Autonomy and Cognitive Abilities on Workload and Supervisory Control of Unmanned Systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 56, pp. 1039-1043. SAGE Publications.
23.
ShahJ.BreazealC. (2010). An empirical analysis of team coordination behaviors and action planning with application to human–robot teaming. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52, 234-245.
24.
WiltshireT. J.BarberD.FioreS. M. (2013). Towards Modeling Social-Cognitive Mechanisms in Robots to Facilitate Human-Robot Teaming. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 57, pp. 1278-1282. SAGE Publications.
25.
YancoH. A.DruryJ. (2004). “Where Am I?” Acquiring Situation Awareness Using a Remote Robot System. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2004 IEEE International Conference on. 3, pp. 2835-2840. IEEE.
