Effects of Individual Differences on Human-Agent Teaming for Multi-robot Control
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.
Keywordshuman-robot interaction intelligent agent military individual differences multitasking
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 6.Defense Science Board: The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. Undersecretary of Defense, Washington DC (2012)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H.: Kit of Factor Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ (1976)Google Scholar
- 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.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.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