The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human Interaction with Levels of Automation and Decision-Aid Fidelity in the Supervisory Control of Multiple Simulated Unmanned Air Vehicles
Abstract
Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) are vehicular robotic systems that are teleoperated by a geographically separated user. Advances in computing technology have enabled ROV operators to manage multiple ROVs by means of supervisory control techniques. The challenge of incorporating telepresence in any one vehicle is replaced by the need to keep the human “in the loop” of the activities of all vehicles. An evaluation was conducted to compare the effects of automation level and decision-aid fidelity on the number of simulated remotely operated vehicles that could be successfully controlled by a single operator during a target acquisition task. The specific ROVs instantiated for the study were unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). Levels of automation (LOAs) included manual control, management-by-consent, and management-by-exception. Levels of decision-aid fidelity (100% correct and 95% correct) were achieved by intentionally injecting error into the decision-aiding capabilities of the simulation. Additionally, the number of UAVs to be controlled varied (one, two, and four vehicles). Twelve participants acted as UAV operators. A mixed-subject design was utilized (with decision-aid fidelity as the between-subjects factor), and participants were not informed of decision-aid fidelity prior to data collection. Dependent variables included mission efficiency, percentage correct detection of incorrect decision aids, workload and situation awareness ratings, and trust in automation ratings. Results indicate that an automation level incorporating management-by-consent had some clear performance advantages over the more autonomous (management-by-exception) and less autonomous (manual control) levels of automation. However, automation level interacted with the other factors for subjective measures of workload, situation awareness, and trust. Additionally, although a 3D perspective view of the mission scene was always available, it was used only during low-workload periods and did not appear to improve the operator's sense of presence. The implications for ROV interface design are discussed, and future research directions are proposed.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“autonomous agents were better perceived when they provided a moderate level of decision-making input compared to a low or high level (Ruff et al., 2002; Wright & Kaber, 2003, 2005)”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Ruff et al., 2002
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
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
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×
“Human-centered approaches incorporating LOAs may attempt to lighten cognitive load via decision-aiding technology (Parasuraman et al., 2000), but a lack of decisionaid fidelity may lead to operator confusion and a decrease in overall system performance (Wickens, 2000).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 10.1109/21.3462 · DOI
- 10.1177/001872088702900401 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_1 · DOI
- 10.1080/00140139208967392 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/176789.176792 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/003754979907300105 · doi:10.1177/003754979907300105
- 10.1207/s15327108ijap0204_5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/s15327108ijap0401_1 · DOI · Paper page
- Sheridan T. B., 1980, Technology Review, 61
- 10.1162/pres.1996.5.2.241 · DOI
- 10.1518/001872001775992534 · DOI
- 10.1177/001872089103300605 · DOI
Cited by
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2022) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820960865 · Cited by 695
Human Interaction With Robot Swarms: A Survey
Kolling, A., Walker, P., Chakraborty, N., Sycara, K., & Lewis, M. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2015.2480801 · Cited by 424
Models of Trust in Human Control of Swarms With Varied Levels of Autonomy
Nam, C., Walker, P., Li, H., Lewis, M., & Sycara, K. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2019.2896845 · Cited by 76
The bilocated mind: New perspectives on self-localization and self-identification
Furlanetto, T., Bertone, C., & Becchio, C. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00071 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruff, H. A., Narayanan, S., & Draper, M. H.
- Affiliations
- Sytronics, Inc., Building 1 4433 Dayton-Xenia Road, Dayton, Ohio 45432,
- Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio,
- Air Force Research Lab, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio,
- Venue
- Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 335-351
- ISSN
- 1054-7460
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
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.
