Supporting Dynamic Re-Planning In Multiple Uav Control: A Comparison of 3 Levels of Automation

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) control currently requires multiple operators to supervise the mission of a single vehicle. The goal is to improve this ratio and have a single operator supervise up to 10 UAVs. Achieving this goal requires the introduction of automated systems that support multitasking and decision-making. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate level of automation (LOA). The present study compared re-planning performance at three LOAs (manual, intermediate, full automation) of 30 participants who each supervised 9 UAVs. Full automation resulted in the best re-planning performance and matched intermediate automation in terms of target detection. The manual condition showed significantly poorer performance on these tasks, especially in high workload, but suffered the smallest loss of UAVs. Subjectively, most participants preferred intermediate automation, which they trusted more than full automation. The findings from this research help inform UAV system design and add to the knowledge base in human-automation collaboration.

[1]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[3]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Automation Failures on Tasks Easily Performed by Operators Undermines Trust in Automated Aids , 2003 .

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators , 1978 .

[6]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Pilot Interaction With Cockpit Automation II: An Experimental Study of Pilots’ Model and Awareness of the Flight Management System , 1994 .

[7]  Heath A. Ruff,et al.  Human Interaction with Levels of Automation and Decision-Aid Fidelity in the Supervisory Control of Multiple Simulated Unmanned Air Vehicles , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[8]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Future of Air Traffic Control: Human Operators and Automation , 1998 .

[9]  Heath A. Ruff,et al.  EXPLORING AUTOMATION ISSUES IN SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF MULTIPLE UAVS , 2004 .

[10]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  Automation Architecture for Single Operator, Multiple UAV Command and Control, , 2007 .

[12]  Thomas K. Ferris,et al.  Using Informative Peripheral Visual and Tactile Cues to Support Task and Interruption Management , 2009, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Board on Human-Systems Integration The Future of Air Traffic Control: Human Operators and Automation , 1998 .

[14]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  Trust as a Construct for Evaluation of Automated Aids: Past and Future Theory and Research , 1999 .