Advertisement

Establishing a Variable Automation Paradigm for UAV-Based Reconnaissance in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions

Experimental Evaluation and Results
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 784)

Abstract

This work addresses the factor of degraded automation reliability of machine based aerial reconnaissance in a manned-unmanned teaming approach. An army transport helicopter is accompanied by three unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance purposes, guided by the helicopters crew. Automated capabilities onboard the UAVs offer high automated, task-based guidance as well as manual operation. We designed and implemented an assistance system in our helicopter flight simulator, that supports the commander in gaining relevant reconnaissance information on flight routes for the helicopter to follow. Due to imperfection in automated reconnaissance performed by machine algorithms, we explicitly regarded the aspect of degrading reliability by utilizing the paradigm of “Levels of Automation”. The automation system produces reconnaissance results, thereby considering differing automation reliability. Several data representation modes were applied to display preprocessed results in the helicopters multi-function displays. We conducted an extensive human-in-the-loop campaign with army helicopter crews in full mission scenarios, in which system-triggered changes between the automation levels occurred and the cooperative human-machine relationship changed online. This paper presents questionnaire-gathered results of our investigation during mission execution, shedding light on human factors, user acceptance and system design aspects.

Keywords

MUM-T Multi-UAV Levels of automation Adaptive automation Automation reliability Automation trustworthiness Assistance system Human factors Mental workload Trust in automation Human-in-the-loop experiment 

References

  1. 1.
    Honecker, F., Brand, Y., Schulte, A.: A task-centered approach for workload-adaptive pilot associate systems. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Conference of the European Association for Aviation Psychology – Thinking High and Low: Cognition and Decision Making in Aviation (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruf, C., Stütz, P.: Model-driven payload sensor operation assistance for a transport helicopter crew in manned-unmanned teaming missions: assistance realization, modelling and experimental evaluation of mental workload. In: Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Performance, Emotion and Situation Awareness. EPCE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10275. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruf, C., Stütz, P.: Model-driven sensor operation assistance for a transport helicopter crew in manned-unmanned teaming missions : selecting the automation level by machine decision-making. In: Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, vol. 499, pp. 253–265 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hellert, C., Stütz, P.: Performance prediction and selection of aerial perception functions during UAV missions. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker, A.L., Keebler, J.R.: Factors affecting performance of human-automation teams. In: Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, vol. 499, pp. 331–340 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Billings, C.E.: Aviation Automation: The Search for a Human-Centered Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 30(3), 286–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Adaptive automation, level of automation, allocation authority, supervisory control, and adaptive control: distinctions and modes of adaptation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 41(4), 662–667 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Endsley, M.R.: The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. Proc. Hum. Factors Soc. Ann. Meet. 31(12), 1388–1392 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Endsley, M.R.: Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42, 462–492 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brand, Y., Schulte, A.: Model-based prediction of workload for adaptive associate systems. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC 2017, pp. 1722–1727 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MIL-STD-2525C: MIL-STD-2525C: Common Warfighting Symbology. Changes, no. November, p. 1170 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uhrmann, J., Schulte, A.: Concept, design and evaluation of cognitive task-based UAV guidance. J. Adv. Intell. Syst. 5(1) (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Flight Systems (IFS)University of the Bundeswehr Munich (UniBwM)NeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations