As robot usage becomes more widespread, there is a pressing need to develop smaller, lighter robotic control systems that have good training transfer from larger systems; do not overload the operator cognitively or physically; and enable good performance across a variety of settings. This article describes four experiments designed to investigate options for scaling robot controllers for dismounted use. The authors evaluated many different controller characteristics, chosen from consideration of available options and guided by factors expected to affect operator performance in realistic missions. These factors included camera display screen size, comparisons of handheld versus head-mounted displays and split screen displays versus toggle-driven and multimodal displays, and three approaches to reducing the size of the control interface. Each configuration examined was chosen on the basis of theory-based expectations and availability of technology. Participants were 108 soldiers from various military occupational specialties with ages ranging from 21 to 38. Results demonstrated the following fruitful methods for reducing controller size: reducing driving displays to between 3.5 and 6.5 inches, using handheld displays (HHDs), adding a tactile belt to a toggle screen for driving and map reading, and miniaturizing existing control size. All recommended options for reducing controller size had no adverse impact on cognitive requirements or performance.
AdamsJ. A. (2007, March). Unmanned vehicle situation awareness: A path forward. Paper presented at the Human Systems Integration Symposium 2007 (HSIS 2007), Annapolis, MD.
2.
AlbertsD. S.HayesR. E. (2003). Power to the edge: Command and control in the information age. Washington, DC: CCRP.
3.
AlexanderA. L.WickensC. D.HardyT. J. (2005). Synthetic vision systems: The effects of guidance symbology, display size, and field of view. Human Factors, 47, 693–707.
4.
AllportD. A.AntonisB.ReynoldsA. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235.
5.
BaileyB.IqbalS. (2008). Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14, 4.
6.
BaileyB.KonstanJ. (2005). On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(4), 685–708.
7.
BrauneR.WickensC. D. (1986). Time-sharing revisited: Test of a componential model for the assessment of individual differences. Ergonomics, 29, 1399–1414.
8.
CrandallB.KleinG.HoffmanR. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
ElliottL.R.van ErpJ. B. F.ReddenE. S.DuistermaatM. (2010). Field-based validation of a tactile navigation device. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 3(2), 78–87.
10.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
11.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload. (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
12.
HoppP. J.SmithC. A. R.CleggB. A.HeggestadE. D. (2005). Interruption management: The use of attention-directing tactile cues. Human Factors, 47, 1–11.
13.
Jaschinski-KruzaW. (1988). Visual strain during VDU work: The effect of viewing distance and dark focus. Ergonomics, 31, 1449–1465.
14.
JohnsonR. C.SaboeK. N.PrewettM. S.ElliottL. R.CoovertM. D. (2009). Autonomy and automation reliability in human-robot interaction: A qualitative review. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting. (pp. 1398–1402). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
15.
LandauerT. K.NachbarD. W. (1985). Selection from alphabetic and numeric menu trees using a touchscreen: Breadth, depth and width. In BormanL.CurtisB. (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI 85 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference. (pp. 73–78). San Francisco, CA: ACM Press.
LoelK.AlbersM. J. (2001). Web design issues when searching for information in a small screen display. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. (pp. 193–200). Sante Fe, NM: ACM Press.
18.
LuckS. J.ChelazziL.HillyardS. A.DesimoneR. (1997). Neural mechanisms of spatial selective attention in areas V1, V2, and V4 of Macaque visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 77, 24–42.
19.
MacMillanJ.DeutschS. E.YoungM. J. (1997). A comparison of alternatives for automated decision support in a multi-task environment. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting (pp. 190–194). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
MazumderS.DruryC. G.HelanderM. G. (1997). Binocular rivalry as an aid in visual inspection. Human Factors, 39, 642–650.
21.
MillerD. P. (1981). The depth/breadth tradeoff in hierarchical computer menus. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 296–300). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
22.
MuthardE. K.WickensC. D. (2004). Compensation for display enlargement in flight control and surveillance (Tech. Rep. No. AHFD-04–03/NASA-04–1). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Human Factors Division.
23.
National Research Council. (1997). Tactical display for soldiers: Human factors considerations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24.
OwensD. A.Wolf-KellyK. (1987). Near work, visual fatigue, and variations of oculomotor tonus. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 28, 743–749.
25.
PettittR. A.ReddenE. S.CarstensC. B. (2008). Scalability of robotic controllers: an evaluation of controller options (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-TR-4457). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
26.
PrewettM. S.SaboeK. N.JohnsonR. C.ElliottL. R.CoovertM. D. (2009). Workload in human-robot interaction: A review of manipulations and outcomes. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1393–1396). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
27.
ReddenE. S.PettittR. A.CarstensC. B.ElliottL. R. (2008). Scalability of robotic displays: Display size Investigation (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-TR-4456). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
28.
ReddenE. S.PettittR. A.CarstensC. B.ElliottL. R. (2010). Scalability of robotic displays: Displays and techniques for dismounted movement with robots (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-TR-5174). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
29.
ReddenE. S.PettittR. A.CarstensC. B.ElliottL. R.RudnickD. (2009). Scaling robotic displays: Visual and multimodal options for navigation by dismounted soldiers (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-TR-4708). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
30.
RempelD.WillmsK.AnshelJ.JaschinskiW.SheedyJ. (2007). The effects of visual display distance on eye accommodation, head posture, and vision and neck symptoms. Human Factors, 49, 830–838.
31.
RileyJ. M.EndsleyM. R. (2004). The hunt for situation awareness: Human-robot interaction in search and rescue. Proceeding of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting (pp. 693–697). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
32.
RileyJ. M.StraterL. D. (2006). Effects of robot control mode on situation awareness and performance in a navigation task. Proceeding of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 540–544). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics society.
SpinkA.ColeC.WallerM. (2008). Multitasking behavior. In CroninB. (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 93–118). Silver Spring, MD: American Society for Information Science and Technology.
35.
StarkJ. M.ComstockJ. R.PrinzelL. J.BurdetteD. W.ScerboM. W. (2001). A preliminary examination of situation awareness and pilot performance in a synthetic vision environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 40–43). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
36.
StelzerE. M.WickensC. D. (2006). Pilots strategically compensate for display enlargements in surveillance and flight control tasks. Human Factors, 48, 166–181.
37.
SterlingB. S.PeralaC. H. (2007). Workload, stress, and situation awareness of soldiers who are controlling unmanned vehicles in future urban operations (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-TR-4071). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
38.
TangK. E. (2001). Menu design with visual momentum for compact smart products. Human Factors, 43, 267–277.
39.
TreismanA. M.GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
40.
WickensC. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In DamosD. L. (Eds.), Multiple task performance (pp 3–34). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
41.
WickensC. D. (2002). Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 128–133.
42.
WickensC. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50, 449–454.
43.
WilliamsE. J. (1949). Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Physical Sciences, A2, 149–168.
