Advertisement

Effects of Dynamic Automation on Situation Awareness and Workload in UAV Control Decision Tasks

  • Wenjuan Zhang
  • James Shirley
  • Yulin Deng
  • Na Young Kim
  • David KaberEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 780)

Abstract

Complex unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations place high information processing demands on operators. Dynamic automation or function allocation (DFA) has been proposed as a method to address operator “overload” situations without compromising system/situation awareness. This study made use of a high-fidelity UAV simulation to investigate any benefits of DFA when applied to decision making tasks. Three modes of UAV control automation, including DFA and static high and low level of automation, were compared. A preliminary analysis of operator responses to situation awareness queries showed no significant differences; however, response accuracy in an aircraft detection task indicated superior situation comprehension under DFA as compared to static high level of automation. Results of an embedded secondary task indicated that participants experienced lower cognitive workload when operating under DFA as compared to static low level of automation. Findings of this study could be used for guiding design of DFA approaches for UAV control.

Keywords

UAV Dynamic automation Situation awareness Workload 

References

  1. 1.
    Monfort, S.S., Sibley, C.M., Coyne, J.T.: Using machine learning and real-time workload assessment in a high-fidelity UAV simulation environment. In: Next-Generation Analyst IV, vol. 9851, p. 98510B. International Society for Optics and Photonics (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiener, E.L., Curry, R.E.: Flight-deck automation: promises and problems. Ergonomics 23(10), 995–1011 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Endsley, M.R., Kiris, E.O.: The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Hum. Factors 37(2), 381–394 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scerbo, M.W., Freeman, F.G., Mikulka, P.J.: A brain-based system for adaptive automation. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 4(1–2), 200–219 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endsley, M.R., Kaber, D.B.: Level of automation effects on performance, SA and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42(3), 462–492 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaber, D.B., Endsley, M.R.: The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 5(2), 113–153 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parasuraman, R., Cosenzo, K.A., De Visser, E.: Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Mil. Psychol. 21(2), 270 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calhoun, G.L., Ward, V.B., Ruff, H.A.: Performance-based adaptive automation for supervisory control. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 2059–2063. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaber, D.B., Perry, C.M., Segall, N., McClernon, C.K., Prinzel III, L.J.: SA implications of adaptive automation for information processing in an air traffic control-related task. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 36(5), 447–462 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Afergan, D., Peck, E.M., Solovey, E.T., Jenkins, A., Hincks, S.W., Brown, E.T., Jacob, R.J.: Dynamic difficulty using brain metrics of workload. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3797–3806. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roberts, D.M., Taylor, B.A., Barrow, J.H., Robertson, G., Buzzell, G., Sibley, C., Baldwin, C.L.: EEG spectral analysis of workload for a part-task UAV simulation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 200–204. SAGE Publications, Sage CA (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murata, A., Iwase, H.: Evaluation of mental workload by fluctuation analysis of pupil area. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE. Vol. 6, pp. 3094–3097. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osburn, W.J.: Levels of difficulty in long division. Elem. Sch. J. 46(8), 441–447 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wickens, C.D., Gordon, S.E., Liu, Y., Lee, J.: An introduction to human factors engineering (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endsley, M.R.: Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 65–84 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vidulich, M.A., Tsang, P.S.: Absolute magnitude estimation and relative judgement approaches to subjective workload assessment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1057–1061. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenjuan Zhang
    • 1
  • James Shirley
    • 1
  • Yulin Deng
    • 1
  • Na Young Kim
    • 1
  • David Kaber
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations