Effect of Level of Automation on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Routing Task

Supervisory control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) raises many issues concerning the balance of system autonomy with human interaction for optimal operator situation awareness and system performance. A UAV simulation environment designed to manipulate the application of automation was used to evaluate participants' performance on routing tasks under three levels of automation. Trials also involved completion of several mission-related secondary tasks as participants supervised either one or three UAVs. Both objective and subjective data were collected. The results showed that participants took longer to complete the routing task when automation was high due to the time they spent verifying the accuracy of the imperfect decision aid. These results show the importance of designing an interface that provides an efficient means of interacting with the automation and communicates the automation's rationale, especially under high automation levels.

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

[2]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  The Impact of Intelligent Aiding for Multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Schedule Management , 2007 .

[3]  Heath A. Ruff,et al.  Levels of Automation in Multi-UAV Control Allocation and Router Tasks , 2009 .

[4]  Daniel Goldberg,et al.  Testing Adaptive Levels of Automation (ALOA) for UAV Supervisory Control , 2007 .

[5]  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.

[6]  M R Endsley,et al.  Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[7]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  Operator Performance and Intelligent Aiding in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Scheduling , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

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

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

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

[11]  Emilie Roth,et al.  Human in the Loop Evaluation of a Mixed-Initiative System for Planning and Control of Multiple UAV Teams , 2004 .

[12]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Designing for Flexible Interaction Between Humans and Automation: Delegation Interfaces for Supervisory Control , 2007, Hum. Factors.