Effects of unreliable automation and individual differences on supervisory control of multiple ground robots

A military multitasking environment was simulated to examine the effects of unreliable automation on the performance of robotics operators. The main task was to manage a team of four ground robots with the assistance of RoboLeader, an intelligent agent capable of coordinating the robots and changing their routes based upon developments in the mission environment. RoboLeader's recommendations were manipulated to be either false-alarm prone or miss prone, with a reliability level of either 60% or 90%. The visual density of the targeting environment was manipulated by the presence or absence of friendly soldiers. Results showed that the type of RoboLeader unreliability (false-alarm vs. miss prone) affected operator's performance of tasks involving visual scanning (target detection, route editing, and situation awareness). There was a consistent effect of visual density for multiple performance measures. Participants with higher spatial ability performed better on the two tasks that required the most visual scanning (target detection and route editing). Participants' attentional control impacted their overall multitasking performance, especially during their execution of the secondary tasks (communication and gauge monitoring).

[1]  Zhihua Qu,et al.  RoboLeader for reconnaissance by a team of robotic vehicles , 2010, 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems.

[2]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[3]  H. Harman,et al.  Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests , 1976 .

[4]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[5]  D. Derryberry,et al.  Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. , 2002, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[6]  Mark R. Lehto,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

[7]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[8]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Toward human-multiagent teams , 2007 .

[9]  Zhihua Qu,et al.  RoboLeader: An agent for supervisory control of multiple robots , 2010, 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[10]  Carla T. Joyner,et al.  Concurrent Performance of Gunner's and Robotics Operator's Tasks in a Multitasking Environment , 2009 .

[11]  Paula J. Durlach,et al.  Human–Robot Interaction in the Context of Simulated Route Reconnaissance Missions , 2008 .

[12]  Prasanna Velagapudi,et al.  How search and its subtasks scale in N robots , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[13]  Jessie Y. C. Chen Concurrent performance of military tasks and robotics tasks: Effects of automation unreliability and individual differences , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[14]  Wallace W. Tourtellotte,et al.  Interaction , 1988 .

[15]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  The Mixed Initiative Experimental (MIX) Testbed for Human Robot Interactions With Varied Levels of Automation , 2008 .

[16]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  Using a robot proxy to create common ground in exploration tasks , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  M. Endsley,et al.  Individual Differences in Pilot Situation Awareness , 1994 .

[18]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Conceptual Issues in the Study of Dynamic Hazard Warnings , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Juliana Goh,et al.  Pilot Dependence on Imperfect Diagnostic Automation in Simulated UAV Flights: An Attentional Visual Scanning Analysis. , 2005 .

[21]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[22]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[23]  Corinna E. Lathan,et al.  The Effects of Operator Spatial Perception and Sensory Feedback on Human-Robot Teleoperation Performance , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[24]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Individual Differences in Human-Robot Interaction in a Military Multitasking Environment , 2011 .

[25]  Stephen R. Dixon,et al.  UAV Automation : Influence of Task Priorities and Automation Imperfection in a Difficult Surveillance Task , 2005 .

[26]  John D. Lee,et al.  Human-Automation Collaboration in Dynamic Mission Planning: A Challenge Requiring an Ecological Approach , 2006 .

[27]  Michael Lewis,et al.  Assessing cooperation in human control of heterogeneous robots , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[28]  C. Wickens Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[29]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses? , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[30]  D. Meyer,et al.  Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  L. F. Barrett,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.