[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article
Open access

The Impact of Different Levels of Autonomy and Training on Operators’ Drone Control Strategies

Published: 15 November 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have extensive applications in civilian rescue and military surveillance realms. A common drone control scheme among such applications is human supervisory control, in which human operators remotely navigate drones and direct them to conduct high-level tasks. However, different levels of autonomy in the control system and different operator training processes may affect operators’ performance in task success rate and efficiency. An experiment was designed and conducted to investigate such potential impacts. The results showed us that a dedicated supervisory drone control interface tended toward increased operator successful task completion as compared to an enhanced teleoperation control interface, although this difference was not statistically significant. In addition, using Hidden Markov Models, operator behavior models were developed to further study the impact of operators’ drone control strategies as a function of differing levels of autonomy. These models revealed that people with both supervisory and enhanced teleoperation control training were not able to determine the right control action at the right time to the same degree that people with just training in the supervisory control mode. Future work is needed to determine how trust plays a role in such settings.

References

[1]
Leonard E. Baum and Ted Petrie. 1966. Statistical inference for probabilistic functions of finite state Markov chains. Ann. Math. Stat. 37, 6 (Dec. 1966), 1554--1563.
[2]
Yves Boussemart. 2011. Predictive Models of Procedural Human Supervisory Control Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
[3]
Yves Boussemart and M. L. Cummings. 2011. Predictive models of human supervisory control behavioral patterns using hidden semi-Markov models. Eng. Appl. Artific. Intell. 24, 7 (2011), 1252--1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2011.04.008
[4]
Yves Boussemart, M. L. Cummings, Jonathan Las Fargeas, and Nicholas Roy. 2011. Supervised vs. Unsupervised learning for operator state modeling in unmanned vehicle settings. J. Aerospace Comput. Info. Commun. 8, 3 (2011), 71--85. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.46767
[5]
Jan Bredereke and Axel Lankenau. 2002. A rigorous view of mode confusion. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP’02), Stuart Anderson, Massimo Felici, and Sandro Bologna (Eds.), Vol. 2434. Springer, Berlin, 19--31. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45732-1_4
[6]
M. L. Cummings, K. Jackson, P. Quimby, and D. Pitman. 2012. Field testing of a quad rotor smartphone control system. Int. J. Micro Air Vehicles 4, 3 (2012), 165--177. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/86945
[7]
Cristina Gómez and David R. Green. 2017. Small unmanned airborne systems to support oil and gas pipeline monitoring and mapping. Arab. J. Geosci. 10, 9 (May 2017), 202.
[8]
A. Gupta and B. Dhingra. 2012. Stock market prediction using hidden Markov models. In Proceedings of the Students Conference on Engineering and Systems. IEEE, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, 1--4.
[9]
Minwoo Kim. 2018. The Impact of Skill-based Training Across Different Levels of Autonomy for Drone Inspection Tasks. Master’s thesis. Duke University, Durham, NC.
[10]
Nataliya Kos’myna, Franck Tarpin-Bernard, and Bertrand Rivet. 2014. Bidirectional feedback in motor imagery BCIs: Learn to control a drone within 5 minutes. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’14). ACM, New York, NY.
[11]
Vianey Leos Barajas and Theo Michelot. 2018. An Introduction to Animal Movement Modeling with Hidden Markov Models using Stan for Bayesian Inference. arXiv: 1806.10639.
[12]
Dahai Liu, Elizabeth L. Blickensderfer, Nikolas D. Macchiarella, and Dennis A. Vincenzi. 2008. Transfer of training. In Human Factors in Simulation and Training, Peter A. Hancock, Dennis A. Vincenzi, John A. Wise, and Mustapha Mouloua (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 49--60.
[13]
Gonzalo Pajares. 2015. Overview and current status of remote sensing applications based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Photogram. Eng. Remote Sens. 81, 4 (2015), 281--330. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.81.4.281
[14]
Raja Parasuraman and Thomas B. Sheridan. 2000. A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. Part A: Syst. Hum. 30, 3 (May 2000), 286--297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
[15]
Alex Pentland and Andrew Liu. 1999. Modeling and prediction of human behavior. Neural Comput. 11, 1 (1999), 229--242.
[16]
David Pitman and M. L. Cummings. 2012. Collaborative exploration with a micro aerial vehicle: A novel interaction method for controlling a MAV with a hand-held device. Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2012 (2012), 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/768180
[17]
Julie C. Prinet, Andrew Terhune, and Nadine B. Sarter. 2016. Supporting dynamic re-planning in multiple Uav control: A comparison of three levels of automation. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonom. Soc. Ann. Meet. 56, 1 (Dec. 2016), 423--427.
[18]
L. R. Rabiner. 1989. A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proc. IEEE 77, 2 (Feb. 1989), 257--286.
[19]
L. R. Rabiner and B. Juang. 1986. An introduction to hidden Markov models. IEEE ASSP Mag. 3, 1 (1986), 4--16.
[20]
Narayanan Ramanathan. 2006. Applications of Hidden Markov Models. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umd.edu/djacobs/CMSC828/ApplicationsHMMs.pdf.
[21]
R. Schaufele, L. Ding, Nick Miller, H. Barlett, Michael Lukacs, and D. Bhadra. 2017. FAA aerospace forecast: Fiscal years 2017--2037. Technical Report. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC.
[22]
Thomas B. Sheridan. 1992. Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[23]
Greg Zacharias and Mark Maybury. 2011. Operating next-generation remotely piloted aircraft for irregular warfare. Technical Report. United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Washington, DC.
[24]
J. Zhang, J. Jung, G. Sohn, and M. Cohen. 2015. Thermal infrared inspection of roof insulation using unmanned aerial vehicles. Int. Arch. Photogram. Remote Sens. Spatial Info. Sci. XL-1/W4 (2015), 381--386.
[25]
Yong Zhang, Xiuxiao Yuan, Yi Fang, and Shiyu Chen. 2017. UAV low altitude photogrammetry for power line inspection. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Info. 6, 1 (2017), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6010014
[26]
Haibei Zhu, Mary Cummings, Mahmoud Elfar, Ziyao Wang, and Miroslav Pajic. 2019. Operator strategy model development in UAV hacking detection. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. (Feb. 2019), 1--10.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Monitoring the State of the Operator of the Ergatic System in UAV Control TasksMachines10.3390/machines1205029112:5(291)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Design of a Novice-Friendly Drone Control System2024 IEEE 14th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC)10.1109/CCWC60891.2024.10427804(0184-0190)Online publication date: 8-Jan-2024
  • (2024)Determining Novice and Expert Status in Human–Automation Interaction Through Hidden Markov ModelsApplied Artificial Intelligence10.1080/08839514.2024.240217438:1Online publication date: 10-Sep-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. The Impact of Different Levels of Autonomy and Training on Operators’ Drone Control Strategies

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction  Volume 8, Issue 4
      Survey Paper and Special Issue on Representation Learning for Human and Robot Cognition
      December 2019
      108 pages
      EISSN:2573-9522
      DOI:10.1145/3372354
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 15 November 2019
      Accepted: 01 July 2019
      Revised: 01 June 2019
      Received: 01 July 2018
      Published in THRI Volume 8, Issue 4

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Levels of autonomy
      2. drone
      3. hidden Markov model
      4. skill-based training
      5. supervisory control
      6. unmanned aerial vehicle

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

      Funding Sources

      • Office of Naval Research under the Science of Autonomy program

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)653
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)46
      Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Monitoring the State of the Operator of the Ergatic System in UAV Control TasksMachines10.3390/machines1205029112:5(291)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
      • (2024)Design of a Novice-Friendly Drone Control System2024 IEEE 14th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC)10.1109/CCWC60891.2024.10427804(0184-0190)Online publication date: 8-Jan-2024
      • (2024)Determining Novice and Expert Status in Human–Automation Interaction Through Hidden Markov ModelsApplied Artificial Intelligence10.1080/08839514.2024.240217438:1Online publication date: 10-Sep-2024
      • (2024)The Information Technologies Use for UAS Operators’ TrainingInformation Technology for Education, Science, and Technics10.1007/978-3-031-71804-5_22(327-338)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
      • (2023)Utilizing Drone-Based Ground-Penetrating Radar for Crime Investigations in Localizing and Identifying Clandestine GravesSensors10.3390/s2316711923:16(7119)Online publication date: 11-Aug-2023
      • (2023)Wearable Drone Controller: Machine Learning-Based Hand Gesture Recognition and Vibrotactile FeedbackSensors10.3390/s2305266623:5(2666)Online publication date: 28-Feb-2023
      • (2023)Measuring Human-Robot Team Benefits Under Time Pressure in a Virtual Reality Testbed2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)10.1109/IROS55552.2023.10341794(5410-5417)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
      • (2023)Human-Autonomy Teaming in Ship Inspection: Psychological Perspectives on the Collaboration Between Humans and Self-Governing SystemsSmart Ports and Robotic Systems10.1007/978-3-031-25296-9_18(343-362)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2023
      • (2022)Assessing the impact of autonomy and overconfidence in UAV first-person view trainingApplied Ergonomics10.1016/j.apergo.2021.10358098(103580)Online publication date: Jan-2022
      • (2021)Mode Awareness Interfaces in Automated Vehicles, Robotics, and Aviation: A Literature Review13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3409118.3475125(147-158)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2021
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Login options

      Full Access

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media