Beyond robot fan-out: Towards multi-operator supervisory control

This paper explores multi-operator supervisory control (MOSC) of multiple independent robots using two complementary approaches: a human factors experiment and an agent-based simulation. The experiment identifies two task and environment limitations on MOSC: task saturation and task diffusion. It also identifies the correlation between task specialization and performance, and the possible existence of untapped spare capacity that emerges when multiple operators coordinate. The presence of untapped spare capacity is explored using agent-based simulation, resulting in evidence which suggests that operators may be more effective when they operate at less than maximum capacity.

[1]  H. Guetzkow,et al.  A social psychology of group processes for decision-making , 1964 .

[2]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? , 2003 .

[3]  Hiroshi Furukawa,et al.  A flexible delegation-type interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple robots: empirical studies with RoboFlag , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[4]  Jacob W. Crandall,et al.  Predicting Operator Capacity for Supervisory Control of Multiple UAVs , 2007, Innovations in Intelligent Machines.

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

[6]  R. Murphy,et al.  Up from the Rubble: Lessons Learned about HRI from Search and Rescue , 2005 .

[7]  A. Ijspeert,et al.  A Macroscopic Analytical Model of Collaboration in Distributed Robotic Systems , 2002, Artificial Life.

[8]  J. Philip Craiger,et al.  The Weakest Link: The Performance of Individual Team Members , 1992 .

[9]  Holly A. Yanco,et al.  Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[10]  R. Zajonc.  SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[11]  Lynne E. Parker,et al.  Robot Teams: From Diversity to Polymorphism , 2002 .

[12]  Provocation: Is the UAV Control Ratio the Right Question? , 2007 .

[13]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Seven principles of efficient human robot interaction , 2003, SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Conference Theme - System Security and Assurance (Cat. No.03CH37483).

[14]  Dan R. Olsen,et al.  Fan-out: measuring human control of multiple robots , 2004, CHI.

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

[16]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Task Switching and Multi-Robot Teams , 2005 .

[17]  Steven Skiena,et al.  Attention and Communication: Decision Scenarios for Teleoperating Robots , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[18]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[19]  E. Entin,et al.  Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. , 2004 .

[20]  Scott P. Robertson,et al.  Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1991 .

[21]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[22]  M. Lewis,et al.  Teamwork Coordination for Realistically Complex Multi Robot Systems , 2006 .

[23]  Julie A. Jacko,et al.  Unresolved Problems in Accessibility and Universal Design Guidelines , 2007 .

[24]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  S. G. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX(Task Load Index) , 1988 .