Task Switching and Single vs. Multiple Alarms for Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots

Foraging tasks, such as search and rescue or reconnaissance, in which UVs are either relatively sparse and unlikely to interfere with one another or employ automated path planning, form a broad class of applications in which multiple robots can be controlled sequentially in a round-robin fashion. Such human-robot systems can be described as a queuing system in which the human acts as a server while robots presenting requests for service are the jobs. The possibility of improving system performance through well-known scheduling techniques is an immediate consequence. Unfortunately, real human-multirobot systems are more complex often requiring operator monitoring and other ancillary tasks. Improving performance through scheduling jobs under these conditions requires minimizing the effort expended monitoring and directing the operator's attention to the robot offering the most gain. Two experiments investigating scheduling interventions are described. The first compared a system in which all anomalous robots were alarmed Open-queue, one in which alarms were presented singly in the order in which they arrived FIFO and a Control condition without alarms. The second experiment employed failures of varying difficulty supporting an optimal shortest job first SJF policy. SJF, FIFO, and Open-queue conditions were compared. In both experiments performance in directed attention conditions was poorer than predicted. A possible explanation based on effects of volition in task switching is proposed.

[1]  E. Hollnagel Handbook of Cognitive Task Design , 2009 .

[2]  Toshiyuki Inagaki,et al.  Adaptive Automation: Sharing and Trading of Control , 2001 .

[3]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  Reflection and Reasoning Mechanisms for Failure Detection and Recovery in a Distributed Robotic Architecture for Complex Robots , 2007, Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[4]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Scheduling operator attention for Multi-Robot Control , 2012, 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

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

[6]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Follow-up analysis of mobile robot failures , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[7]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Service level differentiation in multi-robots control , 2010, 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[8]  Katia Sycara,et al.  Effects of Alarms on Control of Robot Teams , 2011 .

[9]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Control and interference in task switching--a review. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  Stefano Carpin,et al.  Bridging the Gap Between Simulation and Reality in Urban Search and Rescue , 2006, RoboCup.

[11]  Michael Lewis,et al.  Human vs. Algorithmic Path Planning for Search and Rescue by Robot Teams , 2010 .

[12]  Alex Fukunaga,et al.  Cooperative mobile robotics: antecedents and directions , 1995 .

[13]  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.

[14]  A Kirlik,et al.  Modeling Strategic Behavior in Human-Automation Interaction: Why an "Aid" Can (and Should) Go Unused , 1993, Human factors.

[15]  Ravi Sethi,et al.  The Complexity of Flowshop and Jobshop Scheduling , 1976, Math. Oper. Res..

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

[17]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Space teleoperation through time delay: review and prognosis , 1993, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..