Home   >   CSC-OpenAccess Library   >    Manuscript Information
Full Text Available

(891.79KB)
This is an Open Access publication published under CSC-OpenAccess Policy.
Usage of Autonomy Features in USAR Human-Robot Teams
Benoit Larochelle, Geert-Jan Kruijff, Jurriaan van Diggelen
Pages - 19 - 30     |    Revised - 05-04-2013     |    Published - 30-04-2013
Volume - 4   Issue - 1    |    Publication Date - June 2013  Table of Contents
MORE INFORMATION
KEYWORDS
autonomy, transparency, trust, situation awareness, UGV
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of a high-fidelity urban search and rescue (USAR) simulation at a firefighting training site. The NIFTi was system used, which consisted of a semi-autonomous ground robot, a remote-controlled flying robot, a multiview multimodal operator control unit (OCU), and a tactical-level system for mission planning. From a remote command post, firefighters could interact with the robots through the OCU and with a rescue team in person and via radio. They participated in 40-minute reconnaissance missions and showed that highly autonomous features are not easily accepted in the socio-technological context. In fact, the operators drove three times more manually than with any level of autonomy.The paper identifies several factors, such reliability, trust, and transparency that require improvement if end-users are to delegate control to the robots, irrespective of how capable the robots are in such missions.
CITED BY (2)  
1 Kasper, W., Janıcek, M., Smets, N., van Diggelen, J., Bootsma, B., Bagosi, T., ... & Maul, R. DR 5.2: Expectation Management in Common Ground.
2 Larochelle, B., Kruijff, G. J. M., Smets, N. J., & van Diggelen, J. (2013, November). Experiences with USAR mobile interfaces: The need for persistent geo-localized information. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (pp. 5333-5338). IEEE.
1 Google Scholar
2 CiteSeerX
3 refSeek
4 Scribd
5 SlideShare
6 PdfSR
1 S. Lackey, D. Barber, L. Reinerman, N. I. Badler, and I. Hudson,“Defining next-generation multi-modal communication in human robotinteraction,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 55. SAGE, September 2011, pp.461–464.
2 K. Stubbs, P. Hinds, and D. Wettergreen, “Autonomy and commonground in human-robot interaction: A field study,” IEEE IntelligentSystems, vol. 22, pp. 42–50, March 2007, special Issue on Interactingwith Autonomy.
3 M. Desai, M. Medvedev, M. Vázquez, S. McSheehy, S. Gadea-Omelchenko, C.Bruggeman, A. Steinfeld, and H. Yanco, “Effects ofchanging reliability on trust of robot systems,” in Proceedings of theseventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-RobotInteraction. ACM, 2012, pp. 73–80.
4 B. Larochelle andG.J.M. Kruijff, “Multi-view operator control unit to improve situation awareness in USAR missions,” inProceedings of the 21th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1103–1108.
5 J. Burke, R. Murphy, M. Coovert, and D. Riddle, “Moonlight inMiami: An ethnographic study of human-robot interaction in USAR,”Human Computer Interaction, vol. 19, no. (1–2), pp.85–116, 2004.
6 H. Yanco and J. Drury, “Rescuing interfaces: A multi-year studyof human-robot interaction at the AAAI robot rescue competition,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 333–352,May 2007.
7 E. Guizzo, E. Ackerman, M. Waibel, M. Taylor, andS. Bouchard, “Fukushima robot operator writes tell-all blog,”http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrialrobots/fukushima-robot-operator-diaries,Aug. 2011, contains the Englishtranslation of the Japanese blog from the anonymous author S.H.
8 R. Parasuraman, K. Cosenzo, and E. de Visser, “Adaptive automationfor human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects onchange detection, situation awareness, and mental workload,” MilitaryPsychology, vol. 21, pp. 270–297, 2009.
9 C. Torrey, A. Powers, M. Marge, S. R. Fussell, and S. Kiesler,“Effects of adaptive robot dialogue on information exchange and socialrelations,” in Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Press, 2006, pp. 126–133.
10 T. Mioch, N. Smets, and M. Neerincx, “Assessing human-robotperformances in complex situations by means of unit task tests,” inProceedings of the 21th IEEE International Symposium on Robot andHuman Interactive Communication. IEEE, 2012, pp. 621–626.
11 J. van Diggelen, K. van Drimmelen, A. Heuvelink, P. Kerbusch,M. Neerincx, S. van Trijp, E. Ubink, and B. van der Vecht, “Mutualempowerment in mobile soldier support,” Special Issue of the International Journal of Battlefield Technology on Human Factors and Battlefield Technologies, 2012.
12 Bluebotics, “Patent, mobile robot,” Patent, 2011, pCT/EP2011/060937.
13 J. van Diggelen, R. Looije, T. Mioch, M. A. Neerincx, and N. J. M.Smets, “A usagecentered evaluation methodology for unmannedground vehicles,” in Proceedings of The Fifth International Conferenceon Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI), 2012.
14 G.J.M. Kruijff. et al, “Experience in system design for human-robot teaming inurban search & rescue,” in Proceedings of Field and Service Robotics(FSR) 2012, Matsushima/Sendai,Japan, 2012.
15 B. Larochelle, G.J.M. Kruijff, N. Smets, T. Mioch, and P. Groenewegen,“Establishing human situation awareness using a multi-modal operatorcontrol unit in an urban search & rescue human-robot team,” inProceedings of the 20th IEEE International Symposium on Robot andHuman Interactive Communication. IEEE, 2011.
16 S. Keshavdas andG.J.M. Kruijff, “Interpretation of Vague Scalar Predicates Expressing Direction.”Technical Report, February 2013.
17 S. Oviatt, R. Coulston, and R. Lunsford, “When do we interact multimodally?Cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. ACMPress, 2004, pp. 129–136.
18 A. V. Gómez, “Evolutionary design of human-robot interfaces forteaming humans and mobile robots in exploration missions,” Ph.D.dissertation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2010.
19 T. Komatsu and S. Yamada, “Adaptation gap hypothesis: How differencesbetween users’expected and perceived agent functions affecttheir subjective impression,” Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics andInformatics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 67–74, 2011.
Mr. Benoit Larochelle
Language Technology Lab German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI GmbH) Saarbrücken, 66121 - Germany
benoit.larochelle@dfki.de
Dr. Geert-Jan Kruijff
Language Technology Lab German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI GmbH) Saarbrücken, 66121 - Germany
Dr. Jurriaan van Diggelen
TNO Human Factors Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Res earch (TNO) Soesterberg, NL-3769 DE - Netherlands