Situation awareness and attention allocation measures for quantifying telepresence experiences in teleoperation

Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 51-67

  Riley, Jennifer M ^a   Kaber, David B ^b   Draper, John V ^c  

^a SA Technologies   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Raven Research   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOMBS (ORDNANCE); COMPUTER SIMULATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REMOTE CONTROL; ROBOTIC ARMS; SUBJECTIVE TESTING; VIRTUAL REALITY;

ATTENTION ALLOCATION; SITUATION AWARENESS; TELEPRESENCE;

HUMAN ENGINEERING;

EID: 0345872245     PISSN: 10908471     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.10050     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Barfield, W., & Weghorst, S. (1993). The sense of presence within virtual environments: A conceptual framework. In G. Salvendy & M. Smith (Eds.), Human computer interaction: Software and hardware interfaces (pp. 699-704). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2. Bystrom, K., Barfield, W., & Hendrix, C. (1999). A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence, 8(2), 241-244.
3. Chew, V. (1977). Comparisons among treatment means in an analysis of variance. Washington, DC: Agriculture Research Sciences of the United States Department of Agriculture.
4. Deisinger, J., Cruz-Neira, C., Reidel, O., & Symanzik, J. (1997). The effect of different viewing devices for the sense of presence and immersion in virtual environments: A comparison of stereoprojections based on monitors, HMDs, and screen. In M. Smith, G. Salvendy, & R. Koubek (Eds.), Design of computing systems: Social and ergonomic considerations (pp. 881-884). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5. Ditton, T. (1997). The unintentional blending of direct experience and mediated experience: The role of enhanced versus limited television presentations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
6. Draper, J.V., Kaber, D.B., & Usher, J.M. (1998). Telepresence. Human Factors, 4(3), 354-375.
7. Eisenhauer, D.J., Norman, C.O., Kochanski, F.K., & Foley, J.W. (1999, April). Enhanced teleoperated ordnance disposal system (ETODS) for humanitarian demining. Proceedings of the 8th International Meeting of the American Nuclear Society, Pittsburgh.
8. Ellis, S.R., Dorighi, N.S., Menges, B.M., Adelstein, B.D., & Jacoby, R.H. (1997). In search of equivalence classes in subjective scales of reality. In M. Smith, G. Salvendy, & R. Koubek (Eds.), Design of computing systems: Social and ergonomic considerations (pp. 873-876). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9. Endsley, M.R. (1988). Situation global assessment technique (SAGAT). Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (pp. 789-795). New York: IEEE.
10. Endsley, M.R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65-84.
11. Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). Presence within virtual environments as a function of visual display parameters. Presence, 5(3), 274-289.
12. Hines, B., Hontalas, P., Fong, T., Piguet, L., Nygren, E., & Kline, A. (1995, July). VEVI: A virtual environment teleoperations interface for planetary exploration. Proceedings of the SAE 25th International Conference on Environment Systems. San Diego.
13. Kaber, D.B., & Riley, J.M. (2000, October). Task difficulty and user motivation effects on performance and telepresence in a teleoperation task. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
14. Kaber, D.B., Riley, J.M., Zhou, R., & Draper, J.V. (2000, August). Effects of visual interface design, control interface type, and control latency on performance, telepresence, and workload in a teleoperation task. Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association/44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Diego.
15. Lemhofer, A.J. (1999, April). Robotics in bomb disposal and demining. Proceedings of the 8th International Meeting of the American Nuclear Society, Pittsburgh.
16. Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2000, March). Development of a new cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC sense of presence inventory. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Presence, Delft, The Netherlands. Available:http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/immediate/immersivetv/publications2.htm
17. Lombard, M., Ditton, T.B., Crane, D., Davis, B., Gil-Egui, G., Horvath, K., Rossman, J., & Park, S. (2000, March). Measuring presence: A literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Presence, Delft, The Netherlands. Available:http://nimbus.temple.edu/~mlombard/P2000.html.
18. Loomis, J.M. (1992). Distal attribution as presence. Presence, 1(1), 113-119.
19. Nash, E.B., Edwards, G.W., Thompson, J.A., & Barfield, W. (2000). A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(1), 1-41.
20. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human information processing system. Psychological Review, 86(3), 214-255.
21. Prothero, J.D., Parker, D.E., Furness, T.A., & Wells, M.J. (1995). Towards a robust, quantitative measure of presence. Proceedings of the Conference on Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness, 359-366.
22. Psokta, J., & Davison, S. (1993). Cognitive factors associate with immersion in virtual environments. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute.
23. Riley, J.M., & Kaber, D.B. (1999, September). The effects of visual display type and navigational aid on performance, presence, and workload in virtual reality training of telerover navigation. Proceedings of 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Houston.
24. SAS/STAT. (1990). User's guide (Version 6, 4th ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
25. Sheridan, T.B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence, 1(1), 120-125.
26. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive visual environment (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence, 6(6), 603-617.
27. Stanney, K.M., Salvendy, G., Deisigner, J., DiZio, P., Ellis, S., Ellison, E., et al. (1998). Aftereffects and sense of presence in virtual environments: Formulation of a research and development agenda. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10(2), 135-187.
28. Welch, R.B. (1999). How can we determine if the sense of presence affects task performance? Presence, 8(5), 574-577.
29. Wickens, C.D., Vidulich, M., & Sandry, D. (1984). Principles of S-C-R compatibility with spatial and verbal tasks. Human Factors, 26, 533-543.
30. Wickens, C.D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
31. Wierwille, W.W., & Casali, J.G. (1983). A validated rating scale for global mental workload measure applications. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 129-133.
32. Witmer, B.G., & Singer, M.J. (1994). Measuring immersion in virtual environments (Tech. Report No. 1014). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
33. Witmer, B.G., & Singer, M.J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 225-240.