For human autonomy teaming, information for promoting transparency could lead to information overload, negatively impacting performance and workload. This paper presents an empirical study investigating how different level of details (LODs) about the autonomy represented on the user interface would influence speed, accuracy, and workload. Specifically, we compared visualizations of a lost person model at four different LODs to aid in directing human and unmanned aerial vehicles searchers in search and rescue missions. The lowest LOD was found to support higher accuracy but at the expense of speed. The highest LOD induced the highest workload, while the other three LODs induced lower and similar levels of workload. The results indicate that the LOD in transparent displays could induce a speed and accuracy tradeoff.
ChenJ. Y.ProcciK.BoyceM.WrightJ.GarciaA.BarnesM. (2014). Situation awareness-based agent transparency (ARL-TR-6905). Aberdeen Proving Ground (MD): Army Research Laboratory (US).
2.
ChenT.GonzalezF.CampbellD.CoppinG. (2014). Management of multiple heterogeneous UAVs using capability and autonomy visualisation: Theory, experiment and result. 2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 200–210.
3.
DokeJ. (2012). Analysis of search incidents and lost person behavior in Yosemite National Park [PhD Thesis, University of Kansas].
4.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27.
5.
GoodrichM. A.CooperJ. L.AdamsJ. A.HumphreyC.ZeemanR.BussB. G. (2007). Using a mini-UAV to support wilderness search and rescue: Practices for human-robot teaming. 2007 IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, 1–6.
6.
GuznovS.LyonsJ.PfahlerM.HeironimusA.WoolleyM.FriedmanJ.NeimeierA. (2020). Robot Transparency and Team Orientation Effects on Human–Robot Teaming. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(7), 650–660.
7.
HartS. G. (2006). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904–908.
8.
HashimotoA.AbaidN. (2019). An agent-based model of lost person dynamics for enabling wilderness search and rescue. Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, 59155, V002T13A005.
9.
HashimotoA.HeintzmanL.KoesterR.AbaidN. (2022). An agent-based model reveals lost person behavior based on data from wilderness search and rescue. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 1.
10.
HeintzmanL.HashimotoA.AbaidN.WilliamsR. K. (2021). Anticipatory planning and dynamic lost person models for Human-Robot search and rescue. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 8252–8258.
11.
HelldinT.FalkmanG.RiveiroM.DavidssonS. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 210–217.
12.
HillK. A. (2012). Cognition in the woods: Biases in probability judgments by search and rescue planners. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(4), 488–498.
13.
HoffmanG.BreazealC. (2004). Collaboration in human-robot teams. AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, 6434.
14.
JamesonA. (2007). Adaptive interfaces and agents. In The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 459–484). CRC press.
15.
JiangC.RenH.YeX.ZhuJ.ZengH.NanY.SunM.RenX.HuoH. (2022). Object detection from UAV thermal infrared images and videos using YOLO models. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 112, 102912.
16.
KaracaY.CicekM.TatliO.SahinA.PasliS.BeserM. F.TurediS. (2018). The potential use of unmanned aircraft systems (drones) in mountain search and rescue operations. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 36(4), 583–588.
17.
KoesterR. J. (2008). Lost Person Behavior: A Search and Rescue. Dbs Productions LLC.
18.
KolfschotenG. L.BrazierF. M. (2013). Cognitive load in collaboration: Convergence. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(5), 975–996.
19.
KooJ.KwacJ.JuW.SteinertM.LeiferL.NassC. (2015). Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 9(4), 269–275.
20.
KratzkeT. M.StoneL. D.FrostJ. R. (2010). Search and rescue optimal planning system. 2010 13th International Conference on Information Fusion, 1–8.
21.
KrausJ.ScholzD.StiegemeierD.BaumannM. (2020). The More You Know: Trust Dynamics and Calibration in Highly Automated Driving and the Effects of Take-Overs, System Malfunction, and System Transparency. Human Factors, 62(5), 718–736.
22.
LavieT.MeyerJ. (2010). Benefits and costs of adaptive user interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(8), 508–524.
23.
LinL.GoodrichM. A. (2010). A Bayesian approach to modeling lost person behaviors based on terrain features in wilderness search and rescue. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 16(3), 300–323.
24.
LyonsJ. B.SycaraK.LewisM.CapiolaA. (2021). Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1932.
25.
MansfieldG.CarlsonJ.MerrifieldD.RosenbergE.SwansonE.TemplinP. (2020). A Pragmatic Approach to Applied Search Theory. Journal of Search & Rescue, 4(1).
26.
McNeeseN. J.DemirM.CookeN. J.MyersC. (2018). Teaming with a synthetic teammate: Insights into human-autonomy teaming. Human Factors, 60(2), 262–273.
27.
MercadoJ. E.RuppM. A.ChenJ. Y.BarnesM. J.BarberD.ProcciK. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for Multi-UxV management. Human Factors, 58(3), 401–415.
28.
MoacdiehN.SarterN. (2015). Display clutter: A review of definitions and measurement techniques. Human Factors, 57(1), 61–100.
29.
RothG.SchulteA.SchmittF.BrandY. (2020). Transparency for a Workload-Adaptive Cognitive Agent in a Manned–Unmanned Teaming Application. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50(3), 225–233.
30.
ShivelyR. J.LachterJ.BrandtS. L.MatessaM.BattisteV.JohnsonW. W. (2018). Why Human-Autonomy Teaming? In BaldwinC. (Ed.), Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering (pp. 3–11). Springer International Publishing.
31.
SkraaningG.JamiesonG. A. (2021). Human Performance Benefits of The Automation Transparency Design Principle: Validation and Variation. Human Factors, 63(3), 379–401.
32.
StohlC.StohlM.LeonardiP. M. (2016). Managing opacity: Information visibility and the paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 15.
33.
StowersK.KasdaglisN.NewtonO.LakhmaniS.WohleberR.ChenJ. Y. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency: The design and evaluation of an interface to facilitate human and intelligent agent collaboration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1706–1710.
34.
StowersK.KasdaglisN.RuppM. A.NewtonO. B.ChenJ. Y.BarnesM. J. (2020). The IMPACT of agent transparency on human performance. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50(3), 245–253.
35.
SyrotuckW. (2000). Analysis of lost person behavior: An aid to search planning. Barkleigh Productions.
36.
WestinC.BorstC.HilburnB. (2016). Automation transparency and personalized decision support: Air traffic controller interaction with a resolution advisory system. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(19), 201–206.
37.
WickelgrenW. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41(1), 67–85.
38.
WilliamsR.NicoleA.JamesM.NathanL.LarkinH.AmandaH.TianziW.ChinmayaP. (2020). Collaborative multi-robot multi-human teams in search and rescue. Proceedings of the International ISCRAM Conference, 17.
39.
ZhangY.LiaoQ. V.BellamyR. K. (2020). Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 295–305.
