The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots: Human-Performance Issues and User-Interface Design
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review research pertaining to the limitations and advantages of supervisory control for unmanned systems. We identify and discuss results showing technologies that mitigate the observed problems such as specialized interfaces, and adaptive systems. In the report, we first present an overview of definitions and important terms of supervisory control and human-agent teaming. We then discuss human performance issues in supervisory control of multiple robots with regard to operator multitasking performance, trust in automation, situation awareness, and operator workload. In the following sections, we review research findings for specific areas of supervisory control of multiple ground robots, aerial robots, and heterogeneous robots (using different types of robots in the same mission). In the last section, we review innovative techniques and technologies designed to enhance operator performance and reduce potential performance degradations identified in the literature.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 3×
“liance on the automated system, potential situation awareness (SA) degradations, and possible loss of skills to perform the tasks manually when automation fails [5]–[7].”
BackgroundInfluentialMonsell, S. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00028-7 · Cited by 2,984
Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems
Endsley, M. R. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779049499 · Cited by 2,039
Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations
Vicente, K. J., & Rasmussen, J. (1992) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/21.156574 · Cited by 1,084
Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency'
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993) · The International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1 · Cited by 875 · cited 2×
“environment but not in single task environment [27].”
BackgroundResultHuman Performance Issues and User Interface Design for Teleoperated Robots
Chen, J. Y. C., Haas, E. C., & Barnes, M. J. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) · doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2007.905819 · Cited by 646
Self-citationTen challenges for making automation a ‘team player’ in joint human-agent activity
Klein, G., Woods, D. D., Bradshaw, J. M., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. J. (2004) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2004.74 · Cited by 590
Miller, C. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007779598037 · Cited by 434
Cited by
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051
Self-citationIntelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management
Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815621206 · Cited by 403
Self-citationChristoforakos, L., Gallucci, A., Surmava-Große, T., Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.640444 · Cited by 154
Transparency in a Human-Machine Context: Approaches for Fostering Shared Awareness/Intent
Lyons, J. B., & Havig, P. R. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07458-0_18 · Cited by 96
Human control of AI systems: from supervision to teaming
Tsamados, A., Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00489-4 · Cited by 92
Engineering Trust in Complex Automated Systems
Lyons, J. B., Koltai, K. S., Ho, N. T., Johnson, W. B., Smith, D. E., & Shively, R. J. (2016) · Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications · doi:10.1177/1064804615611272 · Cited by 46
ThriftyDAgger: Budget-Aware Novelty and Risk Gating for Interactive Imitation Learning
Hoque, R., Balakrishna, A., Novoseller, E., Wilcox, A., Brown, D. S., & Goldberg, K. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.08273 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., & Harper-Sciarini, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews)
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 435-454
- ISSN
- 1094-6977 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2442
- OpenAlex
- W2304786753
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 14.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
