A comprehensive methodology for assessing human-robot team performance for use in training and simulation

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 2639-2643

  De Visser, E ^a   Parasuraman, R ^a   Freedy, A ^b   Freedy, E ^b   Weltman, G ^b  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Perceptronics Solutions Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN ROBOT TEAM; MIXED INITIATIVE TEAM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (MITPAS);

COMPUTER SIMULATION; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS; PERSONNEL TRAINING; UNMANNED VEHICLES;

ROBOTS;

EID: 44349101922     PISSN: 10711813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. th Annual Meeting.
2. Albus, J.S. (2002). Metrics and performance: Measures for intelligent unmanned ground vehicles. In MIS Proceedings.
3. Barnes, M., Parasuraman, R. & Cosenzo, K. (In press). Adaptive automation for robotic military systems, Technical Report, NATO HFM.
4. Clough, B.T. (2002). Metrics, schmetrics! How the heck do you determine a UAV's autonomy anyway? AFB in MIS Proceedings. Air Force Research Lab, Wright Patterson.
5. Cosenzo, K., Parasuraman, R., Novak, A. & Barnes, M., (2006). Adaptive automation for robotic military systems. ARL Technical Report, ARL-TR-3808
6. Endsley, M.R. Direct measurement of Situation Awareness: Validity and use of SAGAT. In Endsley, M. R., Garland, D. J. (Eds.) Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Fallon, C. K. (2005). Improving user trust with a likelihood alarm display. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Augmented Cognition, Las Vegas, NV.
8. Fong , T., Kaber, D., Lewis, M., Scholtz , J. Shultz, A., and Steinfeld, A. (2004). A common metrics for human-robot interaction. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan.
9. th International Symposium on Robotic Research, Spinger Veralng.
10. Fox, J. E. & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (1998). Effects of age and congestion information accuracy of advanced traveler information systems on user trust and compliance. Transportation Research Record 1621 (Safety and Human Performance). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 43-49.
11. Freedy, A., McDonough, J.G., Freedy, E.T., Jacobs, R., Thayer, S.M., and Weltman, G. (2004). A mixed initiative team performance assessment system (MITPAS) for use in training and operational environments. SBIR Phase I Final Report, Perceptronics Solutions Contract No. N61339-04-C-0020.
12. Kalphat, H. M., and Stahl, J. (2002). STRICOM's advanced robotics simulation STO: The army solution to robotics M&S. In proceedings of the eleventh conference on computer generated forces & behavioral representation, Orlando, FL.
13. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
14. Parasuraman, R., Galster, S., Squire, P., Furukawa, H., & Miller, C. (2005). A flexible delegation-type interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple robots: Empirical studies with RoboFlag. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 35, 481-493.
15. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. & Wickens, C. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286-297.
16. Rovira, E., McGarry, K., Parasuraman, R. (in press). Effects of imperfect automation on decision-making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors.