Human control of multiple robots in the RoboFlag simulation environment

Human performance and supervisory control strategies were examined using the RoboFlag simulation environment. In an emulation of a multiple unmanned vehicle mission, a single operator supervised a team of six robots using automated modes or "plays" as well as manual control. Simplified form of a delegation type interface, Playbook, was used. Effects on user performance of two factors, opponent "posture" (offensive, defensive, or mixed) and environmental uncertainty (visual range of the robots: low, medium, or high), were examined in 18 participants who completed five mission trials in each of the nine combinations of these factors. Objective performance measures and subjective assessments of mental workload and situation awareness were obtained from each participant. Opponent posture had a significant effect on the percent of missions successfully completed and the duration of the games. Both opponent posture and visual range also significantly affected the use of manual and automated control strategies. Operator strategy selection and implementation are discussed with regard to performance data and the design of supervisory control interfaces that support flexible task delegation.

[1]  Myra S. Wilson,et al.  Diminishing returns of engineering effort in telerobotic systems , 2001, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[2]  Bruce M. Alberts,et al.  Technology Development for Army Unmanned Ground Vehicles , 2002 .

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

[4]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Principles of Adjustable Interactions , 2002 .

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

[6]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Effects of Automated Cueing on Decision Implementation in a Visual Search Task , 2001 .

[7]  Bruce G. Coury,et al.  Status or Recommendation: Selecting the Type of Information for Decision Aiding , 1990 .

[8]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  EFFECTS OF UNRELIABLE AUTOMATION ON DECISION MAKING IN COMMAND AND CONTROL , 2002 .

[9]  R. D'Andrea,et al.  The RoboFlag testbed , 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference, 2003..

[10]  A. T. Hayes,et al.  Balancing automated behavior and human control in multi-agent systems: a case study in RoboFlag , 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference, 2003..

[11]  Rapid Thermal Multiprocessor,et al.  Supervisory Control of a , 1993 .

[12]  Julie A. Adams,et al.  Critical Considerations for Human-Robot Interface Development , 2002 .

[13]  James A. Hendler,et al.  UMCP: A Sound and Complete Procedure for Hierarchical Task-network Planning , 1994, AIPS.

[14]  D. Woods,et al.  Automation Surprises , 2001 .

[15]  B. Rouse William,et al.  Adaptive Aiding for Human/Computer Control , 1988 .

[16]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Supporting Decision Making and Action Selection under Time Pressure and Uncertainty: The Case of In-Flight Icing , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[17]  Robert P. Goldman,et al.  "Tasking" Interfaces for Flexible Interaction with Automa- tion: Keeping the Operator in Control , 1999 .

[18]  Mark Campbell,et al.  Experimental Study of Information Load on Operators of Semi-Autonomous Systems , 2003 .

[19]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  IMPERFECT AND UNRELIABLE AUTOMATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ATTENTION ALLOCATION , INFORMATION ACCESS AND SITUATION AWARENESS , 2000 .

[20]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Control of Multiple-UAVs: A Workload Analysis , 2003 .