Objective: This study examined the impact of increasing automation replanning rates on operator performance and workload when supervising a decentralized network of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles. Background: Futuristic unmanned vehicles systems will invert the operator-to-vehicle ratio so that one operator can control multiple dissimilar vehicles connected through a decentralized network. Significant human-automation collaboration will be needed because of automation brittleness, but such collaboration could cause high workload. Method: Three increasing levels of replanning were tested on an existing multiple unmanned vehicle simulation environment that leverages decentralized algorithms for vehicle routing and task allocation in conjunction with human supervision. Results: Rapid replanning can cause high operator workload, ultimately resulting in poorer overall system performance. Poor performance was associated with a lack of operator consensus for when to accept the automation’s suggested prompts for new plan consideration as well as negative attitudes toward unmanned aerial vehicles in general. Participants with video game experience tended to collaborate more with the automation, which resulted in better performance. Conclusion: In decentralized unmanned vehicle networks, operators who ignore the automation’s requests for new plan consideration and impose rapid replans both increase their own workload and reduce the ability of the vehicle network to operate at its maximum capacity. Application: These findings have implications for personnel selection and training for futuristic systems involving human collaboration with decentralized algorithms embedded in networks of autonomous systems.
Alighanbari, M., & How, J.P. (August 2006). Robust decentralized task assignment for cooperative UAVs. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Keystone, CO.
Crandall, J.W., & Cummings, M.L. (May 2007). Attention allocation efficiency in human-uv teams. Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference, Rohnert Park, CA.
4.
Cummings, M.L. ( 2008). Of shadows and white scarves. C4ISR Journal, 7, 17-18. Retrieved from http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=3581309
5.
Cummings, M.L., Bruni, S., Mercier, S., & Mitchell, P.J. (2007). Automation architecture for single operator-multiple UAV command and control. International Command and Control Journal, 1(2), 1-24.
6.
Cummings, M.L., & Guerlain, S. ( 2004). Using a chat interface as an embedded secondary tasking tool. In D. A. Vincenzi, M. Mouloua, & P. A. Hancock (Eds.), Human performance, situation awareness and automation: Current research and trends. HPSAA II (Vol. 1, pp. 240-248). London, UK: Routledge.
7.
Cummings, M.L., & Guerlain, S. ( 2007). Developing operator capacity estimates for supervisory control of autonomous vehicles. Human Factors, 49, 1-15.
8.
Cummings, M.L., & Morales, D. ( 2005). UAVs as tactical wing-men: Control methods and pilots’ perceptions. Unmanned Systems, 23(1), 25-27.
9.
Cummings, M.L., & Nehme, C.E. ( 2010). Modeling the impact of workload in network centric supervisory control settings. In S. Kornguth, R. Steinberg, & M. D. Matthews (Eds.), Neurocognitive and physiological factors during high-tempo operations (pp. 23-40). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
10.
Fisher, C.S. (2008). Real-time, multi-agent system graphical user interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
11.
Franke, J., Zaychik, V., Spura, T., & Alves, E. (June 2005). Inverting the operator/vehicle ratio: Approaches to next generation UAV command and control. Paper presented at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International and Flight International, Unmanned Systems North America, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://www.atl.lmco.com/papers/1261.pdf
12.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin.
13.
Goodrich, M.A., McLain , T.W., Anderson, J.D., Sun , J., & Crandall, J.W. (2007). Managing autonomy in robot teams: Observations from four experiments. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 25-32). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
14.
Goodrich, M.A.Quigley, M., & Cosenzo, K. (2005). Task switching and multi-robot teams. In L. E. Parker, F. E. Schneider, & A. C. Schultz (Eds.), Multi-robot systems: From swarms to intelligent automata (Vol. 3, pp. 185-195). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
15.
Green, C.S., & Bavelier, D. ( 2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention . Nature, 423, 534-537.
16.
Hoeft, F., Watson, C.L., Kesler, S.R., Bettinger, K.E., & Reiss, A.L. ( 2008). Gender differences in the mesocorticolimbic system during computer game-play. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42, 253-258.
17.
Koepp, M.J., Gunn, R.N., Lawrence, A.D., Cunningham, V.J., Dagher, A., Jones, T., ... Grasby, P.M. ( 1998). Evidence for striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature, 393, 266-268.
18.
Law, A.M., & Kelton, D. ( 2000). Simulation modeling and analysis (3rd ed.): Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill .
19.
Layton, C., Smith, P.J., & McCoy, C.E. (1994). Design of a cooperative problem-solving system for en-route flight planning: An empirical evaluation . Human Factors, 36, 94-116.
20.
Lee, J.D., & See, K.A. ( 2004). Trust in technology: Designing for appropriate reliance . Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
21.
Miyata, Y., & Norman, D.A. ( 1986). Psychological issues in support of multiple activities . In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (pp. 265-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
Moray, N., Inagaki, T., & Itoh, M. ( 2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(1), 44-58.
23.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A.D. ( 2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587.
24.
Rouse, W.B. ( 1983). Systems engineering models of human-machine interaction . New York, NY: North Holland.
25.
Schmidt, D.K. ( 1978). A queuing analysis of the air traffic controller’s workload. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics , 8(6), 492-498.
Simon, H.A., Dantzig, G.B., Hogarth, R., Piott, C.R., Raiffa, H., Schelling, T.C., . . . Winter, S. ( 1986). Decision making and Problem solving. In Research briefings 1986: National Academy of Sciences report of the Research Briefing Panel on Decision Making and Problem Solving (pp. 17-36). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
Smith, P., McCoy, E., & Layton, C. ( 1997). Brittleness in the design of cooperative problem-solving systems: The effects on user performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 27, 360-371.
29.
U.S. Department of Defense. (1999). Interface standard, common warfighting symbology MIL-STD-2525B (MIL-STD-2525B) . Washington, DC: Author.
30.
Valenti, M., Bethke, B., Fiore, G., How, J.P., & Feron, E. (August 2006). Indoor multi-vehicle flight testbed for fault detection, isolation, and recovery. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, Keystone, CO.
31.
Wickens, C.D., & Hollands, J.G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
