My Account Log in

2 options

The effects of imperfect automation on concurrent performance of gunner's and robotics operator's tasks in a simulated mounted environment / Jessie Y.C. Chen, Peter I. Terrence.

Connect to full text Available online

View online

U.S. Government Documents Available online

View online
Format:
Book
Government document
Author/Creator:
Chen, Jessie Y. C.
Contributor:
Terrence, Peter I.
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Human Research and Engineering Directorate
Series:
ARL-TR (Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.) ; 4455.
ARL-TR ; 4455
Language:
English
Subjects (All):
Artificial intelligence.
Artillery drill and tactics--Operational readiness.
Artillery drill and tactics.
Robotics--Operational readiness.
Robotics.
artificial intelligence.
Physical Description:
1 online resource (52 pages) : illustrations (some color)
Place of Publication:
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD : Army Research Laboratory, [2008]
Summary:
In this study, we simulated a generic mounted environment and conducted an experiment to examine the performance and workload of the combined position of gunner and robotics operator. Aided target recognition (AiTR) (via tactile and visual cueing) with imperfect reliability (false alarm-prone versus miss-prone) was provided to the participants to aid their gunnery task. Besides the gunnery task, participants performed robotics and communication tasks concurrently. Results show that when the robotics task was simply monitoring the video feed, participants had the best performance in the other two concurrent tasks and the lowest perceived workload, compared with the other robotics tasking conditions. Our data also show that there is a strong interaction between the type of AiTR unreliability and participants perceived attentional control. Overall, it appears that for high attentional control participants, false alarm-prone alerts were more detrimental than missprone alerts. For low attentional control participants, conversely, miss-prone automation was more harmful than false alarm-prone automation. Additionally, low spatial ability participants preferred visual cueing over tactile cueing, and high spatial ability participants favored tactile cueing over visual cueing.
Notes:
Title from title screen (viewed March 12, 2010).
"May 2008."
Includes bibliographical references (pages 23-25).
OCLC:
318687323
Access Restriction:
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.

The Penn Libraries is committed to describing library materials using current, accurate, and responsible language. If you discover outdated or inaccurate language, please fill out this feedback form to report it and suggest alternative language.

Find

Home Release notes

My Account

Shelf Request an item Bookmarks Fines and fees Settings

Guides

Using the Find catalog Using Articles+ Using your account