Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment

Ergonomics

Volumn 52, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 907-920

  Chen, J Y C ^a   Terrence, P I ^b  

^a U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b State Farm Insurance   (United States)

Author keywords

Attention; Human robot interaction; Imperfect automation; Individual differences; Military; Multimodal display; Multitasking; Spatial ability; Tactile; Workload

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTION; IMPERFECT AUTOMATION; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; MILITARY; MULTIMODAL DISPLAY; SPATIAL ABILITY; TACTILE; WORKLOAD;

BALLISTICS; ENTERPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; MACHINE DESIGN; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS; MULTITASKING; PERSONNEL SELECTION; PERSONNEL TRAINING; ROBOTICS; USER INTERFACES;

ROBOTS;

ADULT; ARMY; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RELIABILITY; ROBOTICS; SIMULATION; SOLDIER; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORKLOAD;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CUES; FIREARMS; HUMANS; MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS; MILITARY PERSONNEL; ROBOTICS; SPACE PERCEPTION; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TOUCH PERCEPTION; WORKLOAD;

EID: 69349088042     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: 13665847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140130802680773     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Barnes, M.J., et al., 2005. Human robot teams as soldier augmentation in future battlefields: An overview. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 22-27 June 2005, Las Vegas, NV, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 22-27.
2. Bleckley, M.K., et al., 2003. Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 884-889.
3. Biros, D., Daly, M., and Gunsch, G., 2004. The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 173-189.
4. Calhoun, G. andDraper,M., 2006. Multi-sensory interfaces for remotely operated vehicles. In: N.J. Cooke, H.L. Pringle, H.K. Prsen, and O. Connor, eds. Human factors of remotely operated vehicles. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 149-163.
5. Chen, J.Y.C., Haas, E.C., and Barnes, M.J., 2007. Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C: Applications and Reviews, 37, 1231-1245.
6. Chen, J.Y.C. and Joyner, C.T., 2009. Concurrent performance of gunner's and robotic operator's tasks in a multitasking environment. Military Psychology, 21 (1), 98-113.
7. Chen, J.Y.C. and Terrence, P.I., 2008. Effects of tactile cueing on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics, 51, 1137-1152.
8. Chen, J.Y.C., et al., 2008. Human robot interaction in the context of simulated route reconnaissance missions. Military Psychology, 20, 135-149.
9. Cholewiak,R.W., Brill, J.C., and Schwab, A., 2004. Vibrotactile localization on the abdomen: Effects of place and space. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 970-987.
10. Derryberry, D. and Reed, M., 2002. Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 225-236.
11. de Vries, P.,Midden, C., and Bouwhuis, D., 2003. The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 719-735.
12. Dixon, S.R. and Wickens, C.D., 2006. Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48, 474-486.
13. Dixon, S.R., Wickens, C.D., and McCarley, J., 2007. On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors, 49, 564-572.
14. Ekstrom, R., French, J., and Harman, H., 1976. Kit of factorreferenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15. Gugerty, L. and Brooks, J., 2004. Reference-frame misalignment and cardinal direction judgments: Group differences and strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 75-88.
16. Hart, S. and Staveland, L., 1988. Development of NASA TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: P. Hancock and N. Meshkati, eds. Human mental workload. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 139-183.
17. Jian, J., Bisantz, A., and Drury, C., 2000. Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53-71.
18. Kahneman, D., Ben-Ishai, R., and Lotan, M., 1973. Relation of a test of attention to road accidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 113-115.
19. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., and Mayer, R.E., 2002. Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition & Instruction, 20, 47-77.
20. Lathan, C.E. and Tracey, M., 2002. The effects of operator spatial perception and sensory feedback on human-robot teleoperation performance. Presence, 11, 368-377.
21. Lee, J. and Moray, N., 1994. Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153-184.
22. Lee, J. and See, K., 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
23. Meyer, J., 2001. Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warning. Human Factors, 43, 563-572.
24. Meyer, J., 2004. Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46, 196-204.
25. Mitchell, D.K., 2005. Soldier workload analysis of the Mounted Combat System (MCS) platoon's use of unmanned assets, Tech. Report ARL-TR-3476. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army Research Laboratory.
26. Naveh-benjamin, M., et al., 2000. The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 609-625.
27. Redden, E.S., et al., 2007. A tactile communication field experiment at Fort Benning. In: R.D. Gilson, E.S. Ren, and L.R. Elliot, eds. Remote tactile displays for future soldiers, Tech. Report ARL-SR-0152. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army Research Laboratory.
28. Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D., and Evans, J., 2001. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
29. Schipani, S., 2003. An evaluation of operator workload during partially-autonomous vehicle operations. In: Proceedings of PerMIS 2003, 16-18 September, Washington, DC [online]. Available from: http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/research_areas/research_engineering/ Performance_Metrics/PerMIS_2003/Proceedings/Schipani.pdf [accessed 23 February 2004].
30. Schumacher, E., et al., 2001. Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-108.
31. Thomas, L. and Wickens, C.D., 2004. Eye-tracking and individual differences in off-normal event detection when flying with a synthetic vision system display. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th meeting, 20-24 September 2004, New Orleans, LA. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 223-227.
32. Wickens, C. and Dixon, S., 2005. Is there a magic number 7 (to the minus 1)? The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Tech. Report AHFD-05-01/MAAD-05-01. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
33. Wickens, C., Dixon, S., and Johnson, N., 2005a. UAV automation: Influence of task priorities and automation imperfection in a difficult surveillance task. Tech. Report AHFD-05-20/MAAD-05-6. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
34. Wickens, C., et al., 2005b. Pilot dependence on imperfect diagnostic automation in simulated UAV flights: An attentional visual scanning analysis. Tech. Report AHFD- 05-02/MAAD-05-02. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.