Advertisement

Assessing Workload with Low Cost Eye Tracking During a Supervisory Control Task

  • Joseph T. Coyne
  • Ciara Sibley
  • Sarah Sherwood
  • Cyrus K. Foroughi
  • Tatana Olson
  • Eric Vorm
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10284)

Abstract

Automation is fundamentally shifting the tasks that many humans perform. Unmanned aerial vehicles, which originally had stick and rudder control, now rely on waypoint based navigation. The future operators of these systems are increasingly becoming supervisors of automated systems and their primary role is shifting to simply monitoring those systems. This represents a challenge for assessing human performance since there is limited interaction with the systems. Low cost eye tracking, specifically measures of pupil diameter and gaze dispersion, may serve as a means of assessing operator engagement and workload while using these automated systems. The present study investigated the use of a low cost eye tracking system to differentiate low and high workload during an unmanned vehicle supervisory control task. The results indicated that pupil diameter significantly increased during periods of high workload; however, there was no change in the distribution of eye gazes. These results suggest that low cost eye tracking may be an effective means of determining an operator’s workload in an automated environment, however more research is needed on the relationship between gaze distribution, workload and performance within a supervisory control environment.

Keywords

Supervisory control Workload Eye tracking Automation Pupil diameter 

References

  1. 1.
    Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., Van de Weijer, J.: Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rayner, K.: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62, 1457–1506 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Nocera, F., Terenzi, M., Camilli, M.: Another look at scanpath: distance to nearest neighbour as a measure of mental workload. In: de Waard, D., Brookhuis, K.A., Toffetti, A. (eds.) Developments in Human Factors in Transportation, Design, and Evaluation, pp. 295–303. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Nocera, F., Camilli, M., Terenzi, M.: A random glance at the flight deck: pilots’ scanning strategies and the real-time assessment of mental workload. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 1, 271–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, P.J., Evans, F.C.: Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35, 445–453 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hess, E.H., Polt, J.M.: Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science 143, 1190–1192 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beatty, J., Lucero-Wagoner, B.: The pupillary system. In: Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G., Berntson, G.G. (eds.) Handbook of Psychophysiology, pp. 142–162. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beatty, J.: Pupillometric measurement of cognitive workload. In: Proceedings of 12th Annual Conference on Manual Control (1976)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palinko, O., Kun, A.L., Shyrokov, A., Heeman, P.: Estimating cognitive load using remote eye tracking in a driving simulator. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications, pp. 141–144. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sibley, C., Coyne, J.T., Doddi, A., Jasper, P.: Pupillary response as an indicator of processing demands within a supervisory control simulation environment. In: The 18th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, pp. 506–511. Wright State University (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coyne, J., Sibley, C.: Investigating the use of two low cost eye tracking systems for detecting pupillary response to changes in mental workload. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 37–41. SAGE Publications (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sibley, C., Coyne, J., Thomas, J.: Demonstrating the Supervisory Control Operations User Testbed (SCOUT). In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 1324–1328. SAGE Publications (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ames, L.L., George, E.J.: Revision and verification of a seven-point workload estimate scale. Air Force Flight Test Center (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph T. Coyne
    • 1
  • Ciara Sibley
    • 1
  • Sarah Sherwood
    • 2
  • Cyrus K. Foroughi
    • 1
  • Tatana Olson
    • 3
  • Eric Vorm
    • 4
  1. 1.Naval Research LaboratoryWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Embry Riddle UniversityDaytona BeachUSA
  3. 3.Naval Aerospace Medical InstitutePensacolaUSA
  4. 4.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations