Effects of Individual Differences on Human-Agent Teaming for Multi-robot Control

  • Jessie Y. C. Chen
  • Stephanie A. Quinn
  • Julia L. Wright
  • Michael J. Barnes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8019)


In the current experiment, we simulated a military multitasking environment and evaluated the effects of RoboLeader on the performance of human operators (i.e., vehicle commanders) who had the responsibility of supervising the plans/routes for a convoy of three vehicles while maintaining proper 360° local security around their own vehicle. We evaluated whether – and to what extent – operator individual differences (spatial ability, attentional control, and video gaming experience) impacted the operator’s performance. In two out of three mission scenarios, the participants had access to the assistance of an intelligent agent, RoboLeader. Results showed that RoboLeader’s level of autonomy had a significant impact on participants’ concurrent target detection task performance and perceived workload. Those participants who played action video games frequently had significant better situation awareness of the mission environment. Those participants with lower spatial ability had increasingly better situation awareness as RoboLeader’s level of autonomy increased; however, those with higher spatial ability did not exhibit the same trend.


human-robot interaction intelligent agent military individual differences multitasking 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J., Harper-Sciarini, M.: Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots: Human Performance Issues and User Interface Design. IEEE Trans. Sys., Man, & Cybern.–Part C: App. & Rev. 41, 435–454 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cummings, M.L., Bruni, S., Mitchell, P.: Human Supervisory Control Challenges in Network-Centric Operations. Rev. Human Factors & Ergon. 6, 34–78 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots in Dynamic Tasking Environments. Ergonomics 55, 1043–1058 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fern, L., Shively, R.J.: A Comparison of Varying Levels of Automation on the Supervisory Control of Multiple UASs. In: Proc. AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems North America. AUVSI, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller, C., Parasuraman, R.: Designing for Flexible Interaction between Humans and Automation: Delegation Interfaces for Supervisory Control. Human Factors 49, 57–75 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Defense Science Board: The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. Undersecretary of Defense, Washington DC (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots: Effects of Imperfect Automation and Individual Differences. Human Factors 54, 157–174 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snyder, M., Qu, Z., Chen, J.: Barnes, M.: RoboLeader for Reconnaissance by a Team of Robotic Vehicles. In: Proc. Int. Symp. Collab. Tech. & Sys., pp. 522–530. IEEE, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parasuraman, R., Jiang, Y.: Individual Differences in Cognition, Affect, and Performance: Behavioral Neuroimaging, and Molecular Genetic Approaches. NeuroImage 59, 70–82 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shaw, T.H., et al.: Individual Differences in Vigilance: Personality, Ability and States of Stress. J. Research in Personality 44, 297–308 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szalma, J.L., Taylor, G.: Individual Differences in Response to Automation: The Five Factor Model of Personality. J. Exp. Psychology: Applied 17, 71–96 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Szalma, J.L.: Individual Differences in Human-Technology Interaction: Incorporating Variation in Human Characteristics into Human Factors and Ergonomics Research and Design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 10, 381–397 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodes, W., Gugerty, L.: Effects of Electronic Map Displays and Individual Differences in Ability on Navigation Performance. Human Factors 54, 589–599 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manzey, D., Reichenbach, J., Onnasch, L.: Human Performance Consequences of Automated Decision Aids: The Impact of Degree of Automation and System Experience. J. Cogn. Eng. & Decision Making 6, 57–87 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feldman Barrett, L., Tugade, M., Engle, R.: Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Dual-Process Theories of the Mind. Psych. Bulletin 130, 553–573 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D., Evans, J.: Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching. J. Exp. Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27, 763–797 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schumacher, E.H., et al.: Virtually Perfect Time Sharing in Dual-Task Performance: Uncorking the Central Cognitive Bottleneck. Psychological Science 12, 101–108 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barber, D., Davis, L., Nicholson, D., Finkelstein, N., Chen, J.: The Mixed Initiative Experimental (MIX) Testbed for Human Robot Interactions with Varied Levels of Automation. In: Proc. Army Sci. Conf. US Army, Washington, DC (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Derryberry, D., Reed, M.: Anxiety-Related Attentional Biases and Their Regulation by Attentional Control. J. Abnormal Psychology 111, 225–236 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gugerty, L., Brooks, J.: Reference-Frame Misalignment and Cardinal Direction Judgments: Group Differences and Strategies. J. Exp. Psych.: Applied 10, 75–88 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H.: Kit of Factor Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ (1976)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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, pp. 139–183. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Green, C.S., Bavelier, D.: Enumeration versus Multiple Object Tracking: The Case of Action Video Game Players. Cognition 101, 217–245 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Triplett, J.: The Effects of Commercial Video Game Playing: A Comparison of Skills and Abilities for the Predator UAV. Unpublished thesis. US Air Force – Air University (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chappelle, W.L., McMillan, K.K., Novy, P.L., McDonald, K.: Psychological Profile of USAF Unmanned Aerial Systems Predator & Reaper Pilots. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 81, 339 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McKinley, A., McIntire, L., Funke, M.: Operator Selection for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Comparison of Video Game Players and Manned Aircraft Pilots. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 81, 336 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Haas, E.C., Barnes, M.J.: 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 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dux, P.E., et al.: Training Improves Multitasking Performance by Increasing the Speed of Information Processing in Human Prefrontal Cortex. Neuron 63, 127–138 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessie Y. C. Chen
    • 1
  • Stephanie A. Quinn
    • 2
  • Julia L. Wright
    • 1
  • Michael J. Barnes
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Army Research Laboratory – Human Research & Engineering DirectorateUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Simulation & TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations