Adaptive Aiding of Human-Robot Teaming

In many emerging civilian and military operations, human operators are increasingly being tasked to supervise multiple robotic uninhabited vehicles (UVs) with the support of automation. As 100% automation reliability cannot be assured, it is important to understand the effects of automation imperfection on performance. In addition, adaptive aiding may help counter any adverse effects of static (fixed) automation. Using a high-fidelity multi-UV simulation involving both air and ground vehicles, two experiments examined the effects of automation reliability and adaptive automation on human-system performance with different levels of task load. In Experiment 1, participants performed a reconnaissance mission while assisted with an automatic target recognition (ATR) system whose reliability was low, medium, or high. Overall human-robot team performance was higher than with either human or ATR performance alone. In Experiment 2, participants performed a similar reconnaissance mission with no ATR, static automation, or with adaptive automation keyed to task load. Participant trust and self-confidence were higher and workload was lower for adaptive automation compared with the other conditions. The results show that human-robot teams can benefit from imperfect static automation even in high task load conditions and that adaptive automation can provide additional benefits in trust and workload.

[1]  George Mason.  Situation Awareness, Mental Workload, and Trust in Automation:Viable, Empirically Supported Cognitive Engineering Constructs , 2011 .

[2]  Lawrence J. Prinzel.  Team-Centered Perspective for Adaptive Automation Design , 2003 .

[3]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Automation Reliability in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control: A Reliance-Compliance Model of Automation Dependence in High Workload , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Tjerk de Greef,et al.  Adaptive Automation in a Naval Combat Management System , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[5]  John E. Deaton,et al.  Theory and Design of Adaptive Automation in Aviation Systems , 1992 .

[6]  George Panoutsos,et al.  Real-Time Adaptive Automation System Based on Identification of Operator Functional State in Simulated Process Control Operations , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

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

[8]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Aviation Automation: The Search for A Human-centered Approach , 1996 .

[9]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  Human-Centered Design of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles , 2003 .

[10]  R Parasuraman,et al.  Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models , 2000, Ergonomics.

[11]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Comparison of a Brain-Based Adaptive System and a Manual Adaptable System for Invoking Automation , 2006, Hum. Factors.

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

[13]  W. Karwowski.  International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors , 2001 .

[14]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Concurrent Performance of Gunner's and Robotic Operator's Tasks in a Simulated Mounted Combat System Environment , 2006 .

[15]  Earl L. Wiener.  13 – Cockpit Automation , 1988 .

[16]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Conceptual Issues in the Study of Dynamic Hazard Warnings , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[17]  N Moray,et al.  Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[18]  Paula J. Durlach,et al.  Human–Robot Interaction in the Context of Simulated Route Reconnaissance Missions , 2008 .

[19]  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 .

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

[21]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[22]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics , 2005 .

[23]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  15. Workload and Automation Reliability in Unmanned Air Vehicles , 2006 .

[24]  David C. Nagel,et al.  Human factors in aviation , 1988 .

[25]  David D. Woods,et al.  Systems with Human Monitors: A Signal Detection Analysis , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[26]  Regina A. Pomranky,et al.  The role of trust in automation reliance , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  Glenn F. Wilson,et al.  Performance Enhancement in an Uninhabited Air Vehicle Task Using Psychophysiologically Determined Adaptive Aiding , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[28]  Nancy J. Cooke.  Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles , 2006 .

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

[30]  Glenn F. Wilson,et al.  Real-Time Assessment of Mental Workload Using Psychophysiological Measures and Artificial Neural Networks , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[31]  A. Freedy,et al.  A Comprehensive Methodology for Assessing Human-Robot Team Performance for Use in Training and Simulation , 2006 .

[32]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  Psychophysiology and adaptive automation , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[33]  Marc Gacy,et al.  Commonality of control paradigms for unmanned systems , 2006, HRI '06.

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

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

[36]  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.

[37]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Adaptive Automation , 2006, Neuroergonomics.

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

[39]  D. Woods,et al.  Automation Surprises , 2001 .

[40]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Adaptive Automation of Human-Machine System Information-Processing Functions , 2005, Hum. Factors.

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

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

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

[44]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Effects of Imperfect Automation on Decision Making in a Simulated Command and Control Task , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[45]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Management of Multiple Uavs with Imperfect Automation , 2006 .

[46]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Adaptive Automation for Human-Robot Teaming in Future Command and Control Systems , 2007 .

[47]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[48]  Scott M. Galster,et al.  Managing Multiple Uavs: Are we Asking the Right Questions? , 2006 .

[49]  P. Hancock,et al.  Human Mental Workload , 1988 .

[50]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Adaptive Automation for Human Supervision of Multiple Uninhabited Vehicles: Effects on Change Detection, Situation Awareness, and Mental Workload , 2009 .