Managing autonomy in robot teams: Observations from four experiments

It is often desirable for a human to manage multiple robots. Autonomy is required to keep workload within tolerable ranges, and dynamically adapting the type of autonomy may be useful for responding to environment and workload changes. We identify two management styles for managing multiple robots and present results from four experiments that have relevance to dynamic autonomy within these two management styles. These experiments, which involved 80 subjects, suggest that individual and team autonomy benefit from attention management aids, adaptive autonomy, and proper information abstraction.

[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]  Henry Hexmoor,et al.  Agent Autonomy , 2003, Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations.

[3]  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.

[4]  Dan R. Olsen,et al.  Metrics for Evaluating Human-Robot Interactions , 2003 .

[5]  Yehuda Elmaliach,et al.  Experiments with an ecological interface for monitoring tightly-coordinated robot teams , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[6]  Ashley Nunes,et al.  Identifying Controller Strategies that Support the ‘Picture’ , 2003 .

[7]  Stephen Whitlow,et al.  A playbook interface for mixed initiative control of multiple unmanned vehicle teams , 2002, Proceedings. The 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[8]  N Moray,et al.  Designing for transportation safety in the light of perception, attention, and mental models. , 1990, Ergonomics.

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

[10]  David B. Kaber,et al.  The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task , 2004 .

[11]  Ronald C. Arkin,et al.  Multiagent Teleautonomous Behavioral Control , 1997 .

[12]  K. Suzanne Barber,et al.  Dynamic adaptive autonomy in multi-agent systems , 2000, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

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

[14]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  Developing Operator Capacity Estimates for Supervisory Control of Autonomous Vehicles , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Jijun Wang Cooperating Robots for Search and Rescue , 2006 .

[16]  Gaurav S. Sukhatme,et al.  Spreading Out: A Local Approach to Multi-robot Coverage , 2002, DARS.

[17]  M. Cummings Management of Multiple Dynamic Human Supervisory Control Tasks for UAVs , 2005 .

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

[19]  Maarten Sierhuis,et al.  Adjustable Autonomy and Human-Agent Teamwork in Practice: An Interim Report on Space Applications , 2003 .

[20]  Ronald C. Arkin,et al.  Integration of reactive and telerobotic control in multi-agent robotic systems , 1994 .

[21]  Gaurav S. Sukhatme,et al.  The Analysis of an Efficient Algorithm for Robot Coverage and Exploration based on Sensor Network Deployment , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[22]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Control: False Alarms versus Misses , 2004 .

[23]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control , 2003 .

[24]  Lynne E. Parker,et al.  ALLIANCE: an architecture for fault tolerant, cooperative control of heterogeneous mobile robots , 1994 .

[25]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Towards predicting robot team performance , 2003, SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Conference Theme - System Security and Assurance (Cat. No.03CH37483).