Human control of multiple unmanned vehicles: effects of interface type on execution and task switching times

The number and type of unmanned vehicles sought in military operations continues to grow. A critical consideration in designing these systems is identifying interface types or interaction schemes that enhance an operator's ability to supervise multiple unmanned vehicles. Past research has explored how interface types impact overall performance measures (e.g. mission execution time), but has not extensively examined other human performance factors that might influence human-robot interaction. Within a dynamic military environment, it is particularly important to assess how interfaces impact an operator's ability to quickly adapt and alter the unmanned vehicle's tasking. To assess an operator's ability to confront this changing environment, we explored the impact of interface type on task switching. Research has shown performance costs (i.e. increased time response) when individuals switch between different tasks. Results from this study suggest that this task switching effect is also seen when participants controlling multiple unmanned vehicles switch between different strategies. Results also indicate that when utilizing a flexible delegation interface, participants did not incur as large a switch cost effect as they did when using an interface that allowed only the use of fixed automated control of the unmanned vehicles.

[1]  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.

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

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

[4]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Movement time prediction in human-computer interfaces , 1992 .

[5]  N. Meiran,et al.  Component Processes in Task Switching , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  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.

[7]  M. Schmitter-Edgecombe,et al.  Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks following severe closed-head injury. , 2006, Neuropsychology.

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

[9]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues , 2004 .

[11]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Automation Technology and Human Performance: Current Research and Trends , 1999 .

[12]  S. Monsell Task-set reconfiguration processes do not imply a control homunuculus: Reply to Altmann , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  S. Monsell Task switching , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  Erik M. Altmann,et al.  Task switching and the pied homunculus: where are we being led? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.