The authors are developing a theory for human control of robot teams based on considering how control difficulty grows with team size. Current work focuses on domains, such as foraging, in which robots perform largely independent tasks. Such tasks are particularly amenable to analysis because effects on performance and cognitive resources are predicted to be additive, and tasks can safely be allocated across operators because of their independence. The present study addresses the interaction between automation and organization of human teams in controlling large robot teams performing an urban search-and-rescue (USAR) task. Two possible ways to organize operators were identified: as individual assignments of robots to operators, assigned robots, or as a shared pool in which operators service robots from the population as needed. The experiment compares two-person teams of operators controlling teams of 12 robots each in the assigned-robots condition or sharing control of 24 robots in the shared-pool condition using either waypoint control in the manual condition or autonomous path planning in the autonomy condition. Automating path planning improved system performance, but process measures suggest it may weaken situation awareness.
BalakirskyS.CarpinS.KleinerA.LewisM.VisserA.WangJ.ZiparaV. (2007). Toward heterogeneous robot teams for disaster mitigation: Results and performance metrics from RoboCup Rescue. Journal of Field Robotics, 24, 943–967.
2.
CaoY.FukunagaA.KahngA. (1997). Cooperative mobile robotics: Antecedents and directions. Autonomous Robots, 4, 1–23.
3.
CarpinS.LewisM.WangJ.BalakirskyS.ScrapperC. (2006). Bridging the gap between simulation and reality in urban search and rescue. In LakemeyerG.SklarE.SorrentiD. G.TakahashiT. (Eds.), RoboCup 2006: Robot Soccer World Cup X (pp. 1–12). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
4.
CarpinS.StoyanovT.NevatiaLewisM.WangJ. (2006). Quantitative assessments of USARSim accuracy. In Proceedings of PerMIS. PerMIS.
5.
CarpinS.WangJ.LewisM. (2005). High-fidelity tools for rescue robotics: Results and perspectives. In BredenfeldA.JacoffA.NodaI.TakahashiY. (Eds.), RoboCup 2005: Robot Soccer World Cup IX (pp. 301–311). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
6.
CarrettaT.WarfieldL.PatzekM. (2009, April). Manual and cooperative control mission management methods for wide area search munitions. Paper presented at the 15th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH.
7.
CrandallJ.GoodrichM.OlsenD.NielsenC. (2005). Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part A, 35, 438–449.
8.
CummingsM.MitchellP. (2008). Predicting controller capacity in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part A: Systems and Humans, 38, 451–460.
9.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
10.
EndsleyM. R. (1996). Situation awareness measurement in test and evaluation. In O’BrienT. G.CharltonS. G. (Eds.), Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation (pp. 159–180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381–394.
12.
GerkeyB.MataricM. (2004). A formal framework for the study of task allocation in multi-robot systems. International Journal of Robotics Research, 23, 939–954.
13.
HartS.StavelandL. (1988). Development of a multi-dimensional workload rating scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
14.
LatombeJ. C. (1991). Robot motion planning. New York, NY: Springer.
15.
LewisM.HughesS.WangJ.KoesM.CarpinS. (2005). Validating USARSim for use in HRI research. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 457–461). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
16.
LewisM.PolvichaiJ.SycaraK.ScerriP. (2006). Scaling-up human control for large UAV teams. In CookeN. (Ed.), The human factors of remotely piloted vehicles (pp. 237–250). New York, NY: Elsevier.
17.
LewisM.WangH.ChienS.VelagapudiP.ScerriP.SycaraK. (2010). Choosing autonomy modes for multirobot search. Human Factors, 52, 225–233. doi: 10.1177/0018720810366859
18.
MontemerloM.RoyN.ThrunS. (2003). Perspectives on standardization in mobile robot programming: The Carnegie Mellon Navigation (CARMEN) toolkit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 3 (pp. 2436–2441). October, 2003, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
19.
MorgantiF.CarassaA.GeminianiG. (2007). Planning optimal paths: A simple assessment of survey spatial knowledge in virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1982–1996.
20.
NickersonJ.SkienaS. (2005). Attention and communication: Decision scenarios for teleoperating robots. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 295–305). Kona, HI, USA.
21.
PepperC.BalakirskyS.ScrapperC. (2007). Robot simulation physics validation. In Proceedings of PerMIS’07. PerMIS.
22.
PeruchP.VercherJ.GuthierG. (1995). Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments. Ecological Psychology, 7, 1–20.
23.
TaylorB.BalakirskyS.MessinaE.QuinnR. (2007). Design and validation of a Whegs robot in USARSim. Proceedings of PerMIS’07. PerMIS.
24.
WalletG.SauzéonH.RodriguesJ.N’KaouaB. (2009). Use of virtual reality for spatial knowledge transfer: Effects of passive/active exploration mode in simple and complex routes for three different recall tasks. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (pp. 175–178). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
25.
WangJ.LewisM. (2007).Assessing coordination overhead in control of robot teams. In Proceedings of 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 2645–2649). New York, NY: IEEE.
26.
WangJ.WangH.LewisM. (2008). Assessing cooperation in human control of heterogeneous robots. In Proceedings of the Third ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’08) (pp. 9–16). New York, NY: IEEE.
27.
WarfieldL.CarrettaT.PatzekM.O’NealJ. (2009). Comparing manual and cooperative control mission management methods for wide area search munitions, report AFRL-RH-WP-TR-2010-0063, AFRL WPAFB. Retrieved from dodreports.com/pdf/ada519651.pdf.
28.
ZarattiM.FratarcangeliM.IocchiL. (2006). A 3D simulator of multiple legged robots based on USARSim. In LakemeyerG.SklarE.SorrentiD. G.TakahashiT. (Eds.), RoboCup 2006: Robot Soccer World Cup X (pp. 13–24). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
