Wilderness search and rescue (WiSAR) requires thousands of hours of search over large and complex terrains. Mini-UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) may dramatically improve WiSAR search efficiency. Early field trials in UAV-enabled WiSAR indicated a need to improve the human-UAV interaction, the coordination between the UAV and ground search resources, and the UAV technology. A cognitive task analysis was conducted to inform the design of the UAV technology, the associated interface, and the roles and responsibilities associated with effectively integrating the technology into the existing WiSAR response. Two cognitive task analysis techniques were employed: goal-directed task analysis and a partial cognitive work analysis that included a work domain analysis and a control task analysis. Early field trials and WiSAR search personnel informed the task analyses, which consequently informed the UAV technology design and integration. This paper (a) reviews how and why the task analyses were conducted, how the systems engineering process incorporated field trials to inform the task analyses and to guide the technology development; and (b) provides examples of how the analyses informed the resulting technology development with an eye toward providing insight into how such analysis techniques can be applied to developing UAV systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A. (2005). Human-robot interaction design: Understanding user needs and requirements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 447–451). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
2.
AlmiraoF. M.da SilvaF. B.ScottS. D.CummingsM. L. (2007). Designing decisions and collaboration support technology for operators in multi-UAV operations teams (Tech. Rep. No. HAL2007–12). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Humans and Automation Laboratory.
3.
BeardR.KingstonD.QuigleyM.SnyderD.ChristiansenR.JohnsonW., et al. (2005). Autonomous vehicle technologies for small fixed-wing UAVs. Journal of Aerospace Computing Information and Communication, 2, 92–108.
4.
BolstadC. A.RileyJ. M.JonesD. G.EndsleyM. R. (2002). Using goal directed task analysis with army brigade officer teams. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 472–476). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
5.
BurkeJ.MurphyR. R.CoovertM.RiddleD. (2004). Moonlight in Miami: An ethnographic study of human-robot interaction in USAR. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 85–116.
6.
CasperJ.MurphyR. R. (2003). Human-robot interaction during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics — Part B, 33, 367–385.
7.
CooperJ.GoodrichM. A. (2008). Towards combining UAV and sensor operator roles in UAV-enabled visual search. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 351–358). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
8.
DesaiM.YancoH. A. (2005). Blending human and robot inputs for sliding scale autonomy. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 537–542). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.
9.
EndsleyM.BoltéB.JonesD. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. New York: Taylor & Francis.
10.
Goetzendorf-GrabowskiT.FrydrychewiczA.GorajZ.SuchodolskiS. (2006). MALE UAV design of an increased reliability level. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 78, 226–235.
11.
GoodrichM. A.CooperJ.AdamsJ. A.HumphreyC.ZeemanR.BussB. G. (2007). Using a mini-UAV to support wilderness search and rescue: Practices for human-robot teaming. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robots (pp. 1–6). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.
12.
GoodrichM. A.MorseB. S.GerhardtD.CooperJ. L.AdamsJ. A.HumphreyC., et al. (2008). Supporting wilderness search and rescue using a camera-equipped mini-UAV. Journal of Field Robotics, 25, 89–110.
13.
GoodrichM. A.QuigleyM.AdamsJ. A.MorseB. S.CooperJ. L.GerhardtD., et al. (2007). Camera-equipped mini-UAVs for wilderness search support: Tasks, autonomy, and interfaces (Tech. Rep. No. BYUHCMI TR 2007–1). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
14.
HillK. A. (1998). The psychology of lost. In HillK. A. (Ed.), Lost person behavior (pp. 1–15). Ottawa, CA: National Search and Rescue Secretariat.
15.
HumphreyC. M.AdamsJ. A. (2008). Cognitive task analysis for developing multiple robot systems. Manuscript in preparation.
16.
JamiesonG. A.MillerC. A.HoW. H.VicenteK. J. (2007). Integrating task- and work domain-based work analyses in ecological interface design: A process control case study. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics — Part A, 37, 887–905.
17.
JonesD. G.BolstadC. A.RileyJ. M.EndsleyM. R.ShattuckL. (2003). Situation awareness requirements for the future objective force. In Proceedings of the ARL Collaborative Technology Alliances Conference. Adelphi, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
18.
KaberD. B.SegallN.GreenR. S.EntzianK.JungingerS. (2006). Using multiple cognitive task analysis methods for supervisory control interface design in high-throughput biological screening processes. Cognitive Technology and Work, 8, 237–252.
19.
KleinG. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
MillerC. A.VicenteK. J. (2001). Comparison of display requirements generated via hierarchical task and abstraction-decomposition space analysis techniques. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5, 335–356.
21.
MorseB. S.EnghC.GoodrichM. A. (2008). Prioritized indexing of aerial video using coverage quality maps. Manuscript in preparation.
22.
MorseB. S.GerhardtD.EnghC.GoodrichM.RasmussenN.ThorntonD., et al. (2008). Application and evaluation of spatiotemporal enhancement of live aerial video using temporally local mosaics. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.
23.
MurphyR. R.PrattK.BurkeJ. (2008). Crew roles and operational protocols for rotary-wing micro-UAVs in close urban environments. In Proceedings of the Third ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 73–80). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
24.
MurphyR. R.SteimleE.GriffinC.CullinsC.HallM.PrattK. (2008). Cooperative use of unmanned sea surface and micro aerial vehicle at Hurricane Wilma. Journal of Field Robotics, 25, 164–180.
25.
MurphyR. R.StoverS. (2008). Rescue robots for mudslides: A descriptive study of the 2005 La Conchita mudslide response. Journal of Field Robotics, 25, 3–16.
26.
NaikarN.HopcroftR.MoylanA. (2005). Work domain analysis: Theoretical concepts and methodology (Tech. Rep. No. DSTO-TR-1665). Victoria, Australia: Australian Government Air Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
27.
NaikarN.MoylanA.PearceB. (2006). Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: Concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7, 371–394.
28.
NaikarN.PearceB.DrummD.SandersonP. M. (2003). Designing teams for first-of-a-kind, complex systems using the initial phases of cognitive work analysis: Case study. Human Factors, 45, 202–217.
29.
NehmeC. E.ScottS. D.CummingsM. L.FurushoC. Y. (2006). Generating requirements for futuristic heterogeneous unmanned systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 235–239). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
30.
QuigleyM.GoodrichM. A.BeardR. W. (2004). Semi-autonomous human-UAV interfaces for fixed-winged mini-UAVs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 2457–2462). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.
31.
RasmussenJ. (1976). Outlines of a hybrid model of the process plant operator. In SheridanT. B.JohannsenG. (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (pp. 371–384). New York: Plenum Press.
32.
RasmussenJ. (1998). Ecological interface design for complex systems: An example: SEAD-UAV systems (Tech. Rep. No. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-1999–0011). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.
33.
RileyJ. M.EndsleyM. R. (2004). The hunt for situation awareness: Human-robot interaction in search and rescue. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 693–697). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
34.
RileyJ. M.EndsleyM. R. (2005). Situation awareness in HRI with collaborating remotely piloted vehicles. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 407–411). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
35.
RileyJ. M.MurphyR. R.EndsleyM. R. (2006). Situation awareness in the control of unmanned ground vehicles. In CookeN. J.PringleH.PedersenH.ConnorO. (Eds.), Human factors of remotely operated vehicles: Vol. 7. Advances in human performance on cognitive engineering research (pp. 359–371). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
36.
SetnickaT. J. (1980). Wilderness search and rescue. Boston: Appalachian Mountain Club.
37.
SheridanT. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
SyrotuckW. G. (2000). An introduction to land search: Probabilities and calculations. Mechanicsburg, PA: Barkleigh Productions.
39.
TaoK. S.TharpG. K.ZhangW.TaiA. T. (1999). A multi-agent operator interface for unmanned aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of the 18th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 6A4.1–6A4.8). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.
