Agent-Based Human-Robot Interaction Simulation Model for the Analysis of Operator Performance in the Supervisory Control of UGVs

  • Sang Yeong Choi
Regular Paper


Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) are most commonly characterized as dealing with “3D” tasks–dull, dirty, and dangerous with automations. Although most of the UGVs are designed to a high degree of autonomy, human operators will still intervene in the robot operations and tele-operate them to achieve their missions. Thus, operator capacity, together with robot autonomy and user interface, is one of the important design factors in research and development (R&D) of UGVs. This paper presents the implementation of an agent-based human-robot interaction simulation model (called “HRISim”). HRISim was developed to analyze operator capacity of UGVs and its resulting mission effectiveness in the supervisory control of UGVs. HRISim incorporates 1) UGV mission scenario, 2) operator’s task processes, human resources (visual, auditory, cognition, psychomotor), and associated user interface, 3) UGV automation level, such as autonomous unmanned operation, autonomous manned operation, and autonomous command & control operation, together with UGV functionalities including move, fire, and rescue. We further demonstrate some experimental results to show its applicability to the resolution of practical problems to be evaluated during R&D of UGVs.


Agent-based simulation model Human-robot interaction Human performance model Unmanned ground vehicle 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pew, R. W. and Mavor, A. S., “Modeling Human and Organizational Behavior: Application to Military Simulations,” National Academies Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brett, B. E., Doyal, J. A., Malek, D. A., Martin, E. A., and Hoagland, D. G., “The Combat Automation Requirements Testbed (Cart) Task 1 Final Report: Implementation Concepts and an Example,” Defense Technical Information Center, Report No. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2000-0009, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carson, I. and John, S., “Introduction to Modeling and Simulation,” Proc. of the 36th Conference on Winter Simulation, pp. 9–16, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rothenberg, J., “Object-Oriented Simulation: where do we Go from Here?” Proc. of the 18th Conference on Winter Simulation, pp. 464–469, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borshchev, A., “The Big Book of Simulation Modeling,” AnyLogic North America, pp. 60–63, 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macal, C. M. and North, M. J., “Introductory Tutorial: Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation,” Proc. of the 2013 Winter Simulations Conference, pp. 362–376, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendy, K. C. and Farrell, P. S. E., “Implementing a Model of Human Information Processing in a Task Network Simulation Environment,” Department of National Defence Canada, Defence & Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Technical Report DCIEM No. 97-R-71, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wickens, C. D., “Processing Resources and Attention,” Multiple-Task Performance, vol. 1991, pp. 3–34, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCrasken, J. and Aldrich, T., “Analysis of Selected LHX Mission Functions: Implications for Operator Workload and System Automation Goals,” Army Research Institute Aviation Research and Development Activity, Technical Note ASI479-024-84, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keller, J., “Human performance modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation: Workload,” Proc. of the Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 157–162, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galster, S., “Human Automation Integration,” in: Uninhabited Military Vehicles (UMVs): Human Factors Issues in Augmenting the Force, The Research and Technology Orgnisation (RTO), Barnes, M., Cosenzo, K., Galster, S., Hollnagel, E., Miller, C., Parasuraman, R., Reising, J., Taylor, R., van Breda, L., (Eds.), Nato Otan, Chap. 7, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiener, E. L., “Cockpit Automation,” in: Human Factors in Aviation, Wiener, E. L., Nagel, D. C., Friedman, M. P., Carterette, E. C., (Eds.), Elsevier, pp. 433–461, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheridan, T. B., “The System Perspective on Human Factors in Aviation” in: Human Ractors in Aviation, Salas, E., Maunino, D., (Eds.), Academic Press, pp. 23–63, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasmussen, J., “Skills, Rules, and Knowledge; Signals, Signs, and Symbols, and other Distinctions in Human Performance Models,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-13, no. 3, pp. 257–266, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollister, W. M., “Improved Guidance and Control Automation at the Man-Machine Interface,” Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development Neuilly-Sur-Seine (France), Accession No. ADA 177651, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., and Wickens, C. D., “A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 286–297, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    AnyLogic Homepage, “,” 2017.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karr, C. R., “Conceptual Modeling in Onesaf Objective System (OOS),” Proc. of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Precision Engineering and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Defense EngineeringMyongji UniversityGyeonggi-doRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations