Delegation control in control of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

AIAA Infotech at Aerospace Conference and Exhibit 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Jay Shively, R ^a   Flaherty, Susan R ^a   Miller, Chistopher ^b   Fern, Lisa ^c   Neiswander, Greg ^c  

^a US Army AMRDEC Development   (United States)

^b Smart Information Flow Technology Inc   (United States)

^c SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BETTER PERFORMANCE; FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION; IN-CONTROL; INFORMATION FLOWS; OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS; OPERATOR WORKLOAD; TECHNICAL MATURITY; UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS;

FLIGHT DYNAMICS;

EID: 84880824727     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Billings, C. (1997). Aviation Automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Endsley, M., & Kiris, E. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381-394.
3. Fern, L., & Shively, R. J. (2009). A comparison of varying levels of automation on the supervisory control of multiple UASs. InProceedings of AUVSI's Unmanned Systems, North America, Washington, D. C.
4. Layton, C., Smith, P., and McCoy, C. (1994). Design of a cooperative problem-solving system for en-route flight planning: An empirical evaluation. Human Factors, 36, 94-119.
5. th Conference on Human Performance, situation awareness, and automation, Daytona Beach, FL (2003).
6. Miller, C. and Parasuraman, R. (2007). Designing For Flexible Interaction Between Humans and Automation: Delegation Interfaces for Superviory Control. Human Factors, Vol. 49, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 57-75.
7. Miller, C., Shaw, T., Emfield, A., Hamell, J., deVisser, E., Parasuraman, R., and Musliner, D. (2011). Delegating to Automation; Performance, Complacency and Bias Effects under Non-Optimal Conditions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting vol. 55 no. 1 (pp. 95-99). Santa Monica, CA; HFES. doi: 10. 1177/1071181311551020.
8. Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., Singh, I. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced "complacency. " Int. Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1-23.
9. Parasuraman, R. & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
10. 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.
11. Parasuraman, R. and Manzey, D. (2010). Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381-410.
12. Rovira, E., McGarry, K., Parasuraman, R. (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49, 76-87.
13. Sarter, N. (1994). "Strong, silent and 'out-of-the-loop'": properties of advanced (cockpit) automation and their impact on human-automation interaction. Doctoral Dissertation; University of Ohio. Available at http://rave. ohiolink. edu/etdc/view?accfinum=osu1241100682.
14. Shaw, T., Emfield, A., Garcia, A., deVisser, E., Miller, C., Parasuraman, R., and Fern, L. (2010). Evaluating the Benefits and Potential Costs of Automation Delegation for Supervisory Control of Multiple UAVs. In Proceedings of the 54th Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, (pp. 1498-1502), Santa Monica, CA; HFES.
15. th Annual Meeting.