An Initial Investigation of Exogenous Orienting Visual Display Cues for Dismounted Human-Robot Communication

  • Julian AbichIVEmail author
  • Daniel J. Barber
  • Linda R. Elliott
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 499)


The drive to progress dismounted Soldier-robot teaming is toward more autonomous systems with effective bi-directional Soldier-robot dialogue, which in turn requires a strong understanding of interface design factors that impact Soldier-robot communication. This experiment tested effects of various exogenous orienting visual display cues on simulation-based reconnaissance and communication performance, perceived workload, and usability preference. A 2 × 2 design provided four exogenous orienting visual display designs, two for navigation route selection and two for building identification. Participants’ tasks included signal detection and response to visual prompts within a tactical multimodal interface (MMI). Within the novice non-military sample, results reveal that all display designs elicited low perceived workload, were highly accepted in terms of usability preference, and did not have an effect on task performance regarding responses to robot assistance requests. Results suggest inclusion of other factors, such as individual differences (experience, ability, motivation) to enhance a predictive model of task performance.


Human-robot interaction Human-robot teams Multimodal communication Exogenous orientation Visual displays 



This research was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-10-2-0016. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of ARL or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon.


  1. 1.
    Chittaro, L.: Visualizing information on mobile devices. Comp. 39(3), 40–45 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, R., Holmgren, J., Juola, J.: Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display. Percept. Psychol. 6(6A), 321–326 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chao, C., Lin, C.-H., Hsu, S.-H.: An assessment of the effects of navigation maps on driver’s mental workloads. Percept. Motor Skills 118(3), 709–731 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glumm, M., Branscome, T., Patton, D., Mullins, L., Burton, P.: The effects of an auditory versus a visual presentation of information on soldier performance. Hum. Fact. Ergo. Soc. 43rd Anl. Mtng. 43, 1041–1043 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger, A., Henik, A., Rafal, R.: Competition between endogenous and exogenous orienting of visual attention. J. Exp. Psych. Gen. 134(2), 207–221 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopfinger, J., West, V.: Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention of cortical visual processing. NeuroImage 31(1), 774–789 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance [RCTA]: FY 2014 Annual program plan. Contract No. W911NF-10-2-0016 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Barber, D., Abich, J.I., Phillips, E., Talone, A., Jentsch, F., Hill, S.: Field assessment of multimodal communication for dismounted human-robot teams. In: Proceedings of the 59th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reinerman-Jones, L., Barber, D., Lackey, S., Nicholson, D.: Developing methods for utilizing physiological measures. In: Tadeusz, M., Waldemar, K., Rice, V. (eds.) Advances in Understanding Human Performance: Neuroergonomics, Human Factors Design, and Special Populations. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abich, J.I., Reinerman-Jones, L., Taylor, G.: Establishing workload manipulations utilizing a simulated environment. In: Shumaker R. (ed.) Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Systems and Applications: 5th International Conference, VAMR 2013, Held as Part of HCI International 2013, vol. 8022, pp. 211–220. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hart, S., Staveland, L.: Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload. North Holland Press, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooke, J.: SUS—A quick and dirty usability scale. Usab. Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blank, L., Cohen, J.: Feedback improves performance: validating a first principle. Arch. Ped. Adol. Med. 161(1), 103–104 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian AbichIV
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel J. Barber
    • 1
  • Linda R. Elliott
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Simulation and TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate Field ElementFt. BenningUSA

Personalised recommendations