Unmanned Surface Vehicle Human-Computer Interface for Amphibious Operations

Abstract : This report describes a multiyear research effort conducted by SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific (SSC Pacific) investigating Human-Computer Interface (HCI) issues associated with operating unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). An iterative user-design process was used that resulted in the development of an enhanced HCI design. The primary focus of this effort was to investigate improvements to the baseline HCI design of the SPAWAR Multi-Operator Control Unit (MOCU) software to support simultaneous operation of multiple USVs by a single operator. A number of significant design enhancements were made to the baseline HCI as it was adapted to support multiple USVs. The enhancements included integrated visualization of video and graphics combined with multi-modal input and output using synthetic speech output and game-controller input. Significant gains in performance times and error reduction were found with the enhanced design. Following the ONR effort, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) LCS Mission Modules Program Office (PMS 420) supported the development of a prototype HCI design for operation of a single USV. While overall results of simulator-based usability evaluations indicate improved operator performance, the researchers conclude that improvements in on-board sensor capabilities and obstacle avoidance systems may still be necessary to safely support simultaneous operation multiple USVs in cluttered, complex transit environments.

[1]  Anup Basu,et al.  Predictive windows for delay compensation in telepresence applications , 1998, Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.98CH36146).

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

[3]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work , 1999 .

[4]  Won S. Kim,et al.  The phantom robot: predictive displays for teleoperation with time delay , 1990, Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[5]  Albert J. Ahumada,et al.  Searching the horizon for small targets , 2011 .

[6]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency' , 1993 .

[7]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Pilot Situation Awareness Training in General Aviation , 2000 .

[8]  Santosh Mathan,et al.  Efficacy of a predictive display, steering device, and vehicle body representation in the operation of a lunar vehicle , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[9]  R Parasuraman,et al.  MONITORING OF AUTOMATED SYSTEM , 1996 .

[10]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Overcoming Representational Errors in Complex Environments , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Anup Basu,et al.  Panoramic video with predictive windows for telepresence applications , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.99CH36288C).

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

[13]  G. Klein,et al.  A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. , 1993 .

[14]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Mitigation of human supervisory control wait times through automation strategies , 2005 .

[15]  Martin Fowler,et al.  The new methodology , 2001, Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences.

[16]  Stephanie Guerlain,et al.  An Interactive Decision Support Tool for Real-time In-flight Replanning of Autonomous Vehicles , 2004 .

[17]  Albert J. Ahumada A model for search and detection of small targets , 2010 .