Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Smart Shepherding: Towards Transparent Artificial Intelligence Enabled Human-Swarm Teams Read chapter Read first chapter

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

13. Human Performance Operating Picture for Shepherding a Swarm of Autonomous Vehicles

Authors : Raul Fernandez Rojas, Essam Debie, Justin Fidock, Michael Barlow, Kathryn Kasmarik, Sreenatha Anavatti, Matthew Garratt, Hussein A. Abbass

Published in: Shepherding UxVs for Human-Swarm Teaming

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Due to many factors that range from ethical considerations and accountability to technological imperfection in autonomous systems, humans will continue to be an integral part of any meaningful autonomous system. While shepherding offers a technological concept that allows a human to operate a significantly larger number of autonomous systems that a human can handle in today’s environment, it is important to realise that a significant amount of accidents today are due to human error. The scalability promise that shepherding offers comes with possible challenges including those arising from the cognitive load imposed on human operators and the need to smoothly integrate the human, as a biological autonomous system, with the wider multi-agent autonomous system of future operating environments. In this chapter, we bring together the dimensions of this complex problem. We present carefully selected factors to cover human performance, especially for cognitively demanding tasks and situation awareness, and how these factors contribute to trust in the system. We then present the Human Factors Operating Picture (H-FOP), which offers a real-time situation awareness picture on human performance in this complex environment. We conclude with the concept of operation for integrating H-FOP with the human-swarm teaming problem, with a focus on the reliance of shepherding as the swarm guidance and control method.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Transparent Shepherding: A Rule-Based Learning Shepherd for Human Swarm Teaming
Literature
1.
Abbass, H.A., Tang, J., Amin, R., Ellejmi, M., Kirby, S.: Augmented cognition using real-time EEG-based adaptive strategies for air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 58, pp. 230–234. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2014)
2.
3.
Bindewald, J.M., Rusnock, C.F., Miller, M.E.: Measuring human trust behavior in human-machine teams. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 47–58. Springer, Berlin (2017)
4.
Blais, C., Ellis, D.M., Wingert, K.M., Cohen, A.B., Brewer, G.A.: Alpha suppression over parietal electrode sites predicts decisions to trust. Soc. Neurosci. 14(2), 226–235 (2019)CrossRef
5.
Blanco, J.A., Johnson, M.K., Jaquess, K.J., Oh, H., Lo, L.C., Gentili, R.J., Hatfield, B.D.: Quantifying cognitive workload in simulated flight using passive, dry EEG measurements. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Develop. Syst. 10(2), 373–383 (2016)CrossRef
6.
7.
Borghini, G., Astolfi, L., Vecchiato, G., Mattia, D., Babiloni, F.: Measuring neurophysiological signals in aircraft pilots and car drivers for the assessment of mental workload, fatigue and drowsiness. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 44, 58–75 (2014)CrossRef
8.
Brookhuis, K., Waard, D.D., Mulder, B.: Measuring driving performance by car-following in traffic. Ergonomics 37(3), 427–434 (1994)CrossRef
9.
Cain, B.: A review of the mental workload literature. Technical Report, Defence Research And Development Toronto (Canada) (2007)
10.
Catherwood, D., Edgar, G.K., Nikolla, D., Alford, C., Brookes, D., Baker, S., White, S.: Mapping brain activity during loss of situation awareness: an EEG investigation of a basis for top-down influence on perception. Hum. Factors 56(8), 1428–1452 (2014)CrossRef
11.
Chapman, A.C., Micillo, R.A., Kota, R., Jennings, N.R.: Decentralised dynamic task allocation: A practical game: Theoretic approach. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 2, pp. 915–922. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2009)
12.
Chen, J.Y., Haas, E.C., Barnes, M.J.: Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 37(6), 1231–1245 (2007)
13.
Chien, S.Y., Sycara, K., Liu, J.S., Kumru, A.: Relation between trust attitudes toward automation, hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and big five personality traits. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 60, pp. 841–845. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2016)
14.
Cooke, N.J.: Human factors of remotely operated vehicles. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 50, pp. 166–169. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2006)
15.
Corwin, W.H., Sandry-Garza, D.L., Biferno, M.H., Boucek Jr, G.P., Logan, A.L.: Assessment of crew workload measurement methods, techniques and procedures. Volume 1. Process, methods and results. Technical Report, Douglas Aircraft Co Long Beach CA (1989)
16.
Council, N.R., et al.: Quantitative Modeling of Human Performance in Complex, Dynamic Systems. National Academies Press, Washington (1990)
17.
Council, N.R., et al.: Tactical Display for Soldiers: Human Factors Considerations. National Academies Press, Washington (1997)
18.
Das, G.P., McGinnity, T.M., Coleman, S.A., Behera, L.: A distributed task allocation algorithm for a multi-robot system in healthcare facilities. J. Intell. Rob. Syst. 80(1), 33–58 (2015)CrossRef
19.
Debie, E., Rojas, R.F., Fidock, J., Barlow, M., Kasmarik, K., Anavatti, S., Garratt, M., Abbass, H.A.: Multimodal fusion for objective assessment of cognitive workload: a review. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 1–4 (2019)
20.
DeSteno, D., Breazeal, C., Frank, R.H., Pizarro, D., Baumann, J., Dickens, L., Lee, J.J.: Detecting the trustworthiness of novel partners in economic exchange. Psychol. Sci. 23(12), 1549–1556 (2012)CrossRef
21.
Dijksterhuis, C., de Waard, D., Brookhuis, K., Mulder, B., de Jong, R.: Classifying visuomotor workload in a driving simulator using subject specific spatial brain patterns. Front. Neurosci. 7, 149 (2013)CrossRef
22.
Dong, S.Y., Kim, B.K., Lee, K., Lee, S.Y.: A preliminary study on human trust measurements by EEG for human-machine interactions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, pp. 265–268. ACM, New York (2015)
23.
Dorneich, M.C., Passinger, B., Hamblin, C., Keinrath, C., Vašek, J., Whitlow, S.D., Beekhuyzen, M.: Evaluation of the display of cognitive state feedback to drive adaptive task sharing. Front. Neurosci. 11, 144 (2017)CrossRef
24.
Elkin-Frankston, S., Bracken, B.K., Irvin, S., Jenkins, M.: Are behavioral measures useful for detecting cognitive workload during human-computer interaction? In: Advances in The Human Side of Service Engineering, pp. 127–137. Springer, Berlin (2017)
25.
Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In: Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, pp. 789–795. IEEE, Piscataway (1988)
26.
27.
Endsley, M.R., Garland, D.J.: Situation awareness analysis and measurement. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)CrossRef
28.
Fernandez Rojas, R., Debie, E., Fidock, J., Barlow, M., Kasmarik, K., Anavatti, S., Garratt, M., Abbass, H.A.: Encephalographic assessment of situation awareness in teleoperation of human-swarm teaming. In: Proceedings of The 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing 2019. Springer, Berlin (2019)
29.
Fernandez-Rojas, R., Perry, A., Singh, H., Campbell, B., Elsayed, S., Hunjet, R., Abbass, H.A.: Contextual awareness in human-advanced-vehicle systems: a survey. IEEE Access 7, 33304–33328 (2019)CrossRef
30.
Fischer, J.E., Greenhalgh, C., Jiang, W., Ramchurn, S.D., Wu, F., Rodden, T.: In-the-loop or on-the-loop? Interactional arrangements to support team coordination with a planning agent. In: Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, p. e4082 (2017)
31.
Flanagan, J.C.: The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bullet. 51(4), 327 (1954)CrossRef
32.
Gaudiello, I., Zibetti, E., Lefort, S., Chetouani, M., Ivaldi, S.: Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. an experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers. Comput. Human Behav. 61, 633–655 (2016)
33.
Gawron, V.J.: Human performance, workload, and situational awareness measures handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRef
34.
Ha, J.S., Seong, P.H., Lee, M.S., Hong, J.H.: Development of human performance measures for human factors validation in the advanced MCR of APR-1400. IEEE Trans. Nuclear Sci. 54(6), 2687–2700 (2007)CrossRef
35.
Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N.: Human Mental Workload. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)
36.
Harbour, J.L.: Lean Human Performance Improvement. Productivity Press, Boca Raton (2014)
37.
Harriott, C.E., Seiffert, A.E., Hayes, S.T., Adams, J.A.: Biologically-inspired human-swarm interaction metrics. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 58, pp. 1471–1475. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2014)
38.
Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139–183 (1988). 07598
39.
40.
Hill, S.G., Iavecchia, H.P., Byers, J.C., Bittner Jr, A.C., Zaklade, A.L., Christ, R.E.: Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Hum. Factors 34(4), 429–439 (1992)CrossRef
41.
Hirshfield, L., Bobko, P., Barelka, A., Sommer, N., Velipasalar, S.: Toward interfaces that help users identify misinformation online: using fnirs to measure suspicion. Augment. Hum. Res. 4(1), 1 (2019)CrossRef
42.
Hoff, K.A., Bashir, M.: Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors 57(3), 407–434 (2015)CrossRef
43.
44.
Hussein, A., Elsawah, S., Abbass, H.A.: The reliability and transparency bases of trust in human-swarm interaction: principles and implications. Ergonomics 63, 1–19 (2020)CrossRef
45.
Hussein, A., Ghignone, L., Nguyen, T., Salimi, N., Nguyen, H., Wang, M., Abbass, H.A.: Towards bi-directional communication in human-swarm teaming: A survey (2018). Preprint arXiv:1803.03093
46.
Jian, J.Y., Bisantz, A.M., Drury, C.G.: Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int. J. Cognit. Ergon. 4(1), 53–71 (2000)CrossRef
47.
Jones, D.G., Endsley, M.R.: Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 67, 507–512 (1996). 00423
48.
Joosse, M., Sardar, A., Lohse, M., Evers, V.: BEHAVE-II: The revised set of measures to assess users’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to a social robot. Int. J. Soc. Rob. 5(3), 379–388 (2013)CrossRef
49.
Kaber, D.B., Riley, J.M., Zhou, R., Draper, J.: Effects of visual interface design, and control mode and latency on performance, telepresence and workload in a teleoperation task. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 44, pp. 503–506. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2000)
50.
Kaber, D.B., Wright, M.C., Prinzel III, L.J., Clamann, M.P.: Adaptive automation of human-machine system information-processing functions. Hum. Factors 47(4), 730–741 (2005)CrossRef
51.
Keller, J., Lebiere, C., Shay, C.R., Latorella, K.: Cockpit system situational awareness modeling tool. Human Perform. Situation Awareness Autom. Current Res. Trends HPSAA II 2, 66–71 (2004). 00010
52.
Khalid, H.M., Shiung, L.W., Nooralishahi, P., Rasool, Z., Helander, M.G., Kiong, L.C., Ai-vyrn, C.: Exploring psycho-physiological correlates to trust: Implications for human-robot-human interaction. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 60, pp. 697–701. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2016)
53.
Kolling, A., Walker, P., Chakraborty, N., Sycara, K., Lewis, M.: Human interaction with robot swarms: A survey. IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst. 46(1), 9–26 (2015)CrossRef
54.
Kramer, R.M.: Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 50(1), 569–598 (1999)CrossRef
55.
Krueger, F., McCabe, K., Moll, J., Kriegeskorte, N., Zahn, R., Strenziok, M., Heinecke, A., Grafman, J.: Neural correlates of trust. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104(50), 20084–20089 (2007)CrossRef
56.
Larzelere, R.E., Huston, T.L.: The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J. Marriage Family 42, 595–604 (1980)CrossRef
57.
Laughery, K., Lebiere, C., Archer, S.: Modeling human performance in complex systems. In: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 965–996 (2006)
58.
Lee, J., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10), 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRef
59.
60.
Lingard, L., Espin, S., Whyte, S., Regehr, G., Baker, G.R., Reznick, R., Bohnen, J., Orser, B., Doran, D., Grober, E.: Communication failures in the operating room: An observational classification of recurrent types and effects. BMJ Qual. Saf. 13(5), 330–334 (2004). 01001
61.
Longo, L.: Human-computer interaction and human mental workload: Assessing cognitive engagement in the world wide web. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 402–405. Springer, Berlin (2011)
62.
Lyons, J.B., Stokes, C.K.: Human–human reliance in the context of automation. Hum. Factors 54(1), 112–121 (2012)CrossRef
63.
Ma-Wyatt, A., Fidock, J., Abbass, H.: Quantifying and predicting human performance for effective human-autonomy teaming. In: Proceedings of The 2018 International Conference on Science and Innovation for Land Power, pp. 915–922. Industry Defence and Security Australia Limited, Victoria (2018)
64.
Madsen, M., Gregor, S.: Measuring human-computer trust. In: 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, vol. 53, pp. 6–8. Citeseer (2000)
65.
Maior, H.A., Pike, M., Wilson, M.L., Sharples, S.: Continuous detection of workload overload: An fnirs approach. In: Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2014: Proceedings of the international conference on Ergonomics & Human Factors 2014, Southampton, 7–10 April 2014, p. 450. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)
66.
Marieb, E.N., Hoehn, K.: Human Anatomy & Physiology. Pearson Education, London (2007)
67.
Marsh, S., Dibben, M.R.: The role of trust in information science and technology. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 37(1), 465–498 (2003)CrossRef
68.
Master, R., Gramopadhye, A., Melloy, B., Bingham, J., Jiang, X.: A questionnaire for measuring trust in hybrid inspection systems. In: Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Dallas (2000)
69.
Megaw, T.: The definition and measurement of mental workload. In: Evaluation of Human Work, pp. 530–556, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)
70.
Merritt, S.M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., Lee, D.: I trust it, but i don’t know why: effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Hum. Factors 55(3), 520–534 (2013)CrossRef
71.
Montague, E., Xu, J., Chiou, E.: Shared experiences of technology and trust: an experimental study of physiological compliance between active and passive users in technology-mediated collaborative encounters. IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst. 44(5), 614–624 (2014)CrossRef
72.
Muir, B.M., Moray, N.: Trust in automation. Part II: experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39(3), 429–460 (1996)
73.
Müller, J.A., Wendt, D., Kollmeier, B., Brand, T.: Comparing eye tracking with electrooculography for measuring individual sentence comprehension duration. PloS One 11(10), e0164,627 (2016)CrossRef
74.
Mutz, D.C., Reeves, B.: The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 99(1), 1–15 (2005)CrossRef
75.
Nisbett, R.E., Wilson, T.D.: Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84(3), 231 (1977)CrossRef
76.
Norman, D.A.: The ‘problem’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 327(1241), 585–593 (1990)CrossRef
77.
Nourbakhsh, N., Wang, Y., Chen, F., Calvo, R.A.: Using galvanic skin response for cognitive load measurement in arithmetic and reading tasks. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, pp. 420–423. ACM, New York (2012)
78.
Oh, S., Seong, Y., Yi, S.: Preliminary study on neurological measure of human trust in autonomous systems. In: IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings, pp. 1066–1072. Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), Georgia (2017)
79.
O’Hara, J.M., Hall, R.E.: Advanced control rooms and crew performance issues: implications for human reliability. IEEE Trans. Nuclear Sci. 39(4), 919–923 (1992)CrossRef
80.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., Singh, I.L.: Performance consequences of automation-induced’complacency’. Int. J. Aviation Psychol. 3(1), 1–23 (1993)CrossRef
81.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 2(2), 140–160 (2008)CrossRef
82.
Parush, A., Kramer, C., Foster-Hunt, T., Momtahan, K., Hunter, A., Sohmer, B.: Communication and team situation awareness in the OR: implications for augmentative information display. J. Biomed. Inf. 44(3), 477–485 (2011). 00093
83.
Peck, E.M.M., Yuksel, B.F., Ottley, A., Jacob, R.J., Chang, R.: Using fnirs brain sensing to evaluate information visualization interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 473–482. ACM, Berlin (2013)
84.
Polvichai, J.: Modeling team performance for coordination configurations of large multi-agent teams using stochastic neural networks. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh (2008)
85.
Reid, G.B., Nygren, T.E.: The subjective workload assessment technique: a scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. Adv. Psychol. 52, 185–218 (1988). 00635
86.
Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., Zanna, M.P.: Trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49(1), 95 (1985)CrossRef
87.
Rojas, R.F., Debie, E., Fidock, J., Barlow, M., Kasmarik, K., Anavatti, S., Garratt, M., Abbass, H.: Electroencephalographic workload indicators during teleoperation of an unmanned aerial vehicle shepherding a swarm of unmanned ground vehicles in contested environments. Front. Neurosci. 14 (2020)
88.
Rojas, R.F., Huang, X., Ou, K.L.: Region of interest detection and evaluation in functional near infrared spectroscopy. J. Near Infrared Spec. 24(4), 317–326 (2016)CrossRef
89.
Rojas, R.F., Huang, X., Ou, K.L.: Toward a functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based monitoring of pain assessment for nonverbal patients. J. Biomed. Opt. 22(10), 106,013 (2017)
90.
Rojas, R.F., Huang, X., Ou, K.L.: A machine learning approach for the identification of a biomarker of human pain using fnirs. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 5645 (2019)CrossRef
91.
Rotter, J.B.: A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust 1. J. Personal. 35(4), 651–665 (1967)CrossRef
92.
Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J., Puente, J.M.: Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl. Psychol. 53(1), 61–86 (2004)CrossRef
93.
Sanchez, J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D., Rovira, E.: Understanding reliance on automation: effects of error type, error distribution, age and experience. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 15(2), 134–160 (2014)CrossRef
94.
Shah, J., Kim, B., Nikolaidis, S.: Human-inspired techniques for human-machine team planning. In: 2012 AAAI Fall Symposium Series (2012)
95.
Singh, I.L., Molloy, R., Parasuraman, R.: Automation-induced “complacency”: development of the complacency-potential rating scale. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3(2), 111–122 (1993)CrossRef
96.
Spravka, J.J., Moisio, D.A., Payton, M.G.: Unmanned air vehicles: A new age in human factors evaluations. Technical Report, Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards AFB CA (2003)
97.
Stein, E.S.: The measurement of pilot performance: A master-journeyman approach. Technical Report, Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center Atlantic City NJ (1984)
98.
Stokes, C.K., Lyons, J.B., Littlejohn, K., Natarian, J., Case, E., Speranza, N.: Accounting for the human in cyberspace: Effects of mood on trust in automation. In: 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, pp. 180–187. IEEE, Piscataway (2010)
99.
Taylor, R.: Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In: Situational Awareness, pp. 111–128. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)
100.
Thornton, R.C.: The effects of automation and task difficulty on crew coordination, workload, and performance. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Psychology, Old Dominion University (1992). 00019
101.
Uggirala, A., Gramopadhye, A.K., Melloy, B.J., Toler, J.E.: Measurement of trust in complex and dynamic systems using a quantitative approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 34(3), 175–186 (2004)CrossRef
102.
Veltman, J., Gaillard, A.: Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task. Biol. Psychol. 42(3), 323–342 (1996)CrossRef
103.
Vidulich, M.A., Hughes, E.R.: Testing a subjective metric of situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, vol. 35, pp. 1307–1311. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (1991)
104.
Vidulich, M., Tsang, P.: Techniques of subjective workload assessment: a comparison of SWAT and the NASA-Bipolar methods. Ergonomics 29(11), 1385–1398 (1986). 00067
105.
Vizer, L.M., Zhou, L., Sears, A.: Automated stress detection using keystroke and linguistic features: an exploratory study. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud. 67(10), 870–886 (2009)CrossRef
106.
Wang, M., Hussein, A., Rojas, R.F., Shafi, K., Abbass, H.A.: Eeg-based neural correlates of trust in human-autonomy interaction. In: 2018 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), pp. 350–357. IEEE, Piscataway (2018)
107.
Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3(2), 159–177 (2002)CrossRef
108.
Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., Banbury, S., Parasuraman, R.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Psychology Press, London (2015)CrossRef
109.
Wierwille, W.W., Casali, J.G.: A Validated Rating Scale for Global Mental Workload Measurement Applications. pp. 129–133. Sage Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (1983). 00247
110.
Wilson, G.F.: Strategies for psychophysiological assessment of situation awareness. In: Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, pp. 175–188. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)
111.
112.
Yagoda, R.E., Gillan, D.J.: You want me to trust a ROBOT? The development of a human–robot interaction trust scale. Int. J. Soc. Rob. 4(3), 235–248 (2012)
113.
Yamagishi, T.: The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51(1), 110 (1986)CrossRef
114.
Yamagishi, T., Yamagishi, M.: Trust and commitment in the united states and japan. Motiv. Emot. 18(2), 129–166 (1994)CrossRef
115.
Yeo, L.G., Sun, H., Liu, Y., Trapsilawati, F., Sourina, O., Chen, C.H., Mueller-Wittig, W., Ang, W.T.: Mobile EEG-based situation awareness recognition for air traffic controllers. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 3030–3035. IEEE, Piscataway (2017)
116.
Young, M.S., Brookhuis, K.A., Wickens, C.D., Hancock, P.A.: State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 58(1), 1–17 (2015)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Human Performance Operating Picture for Shepherding a Swarm of Autonomous Vehicles
Authors
Raul Fernandez Rojas
Essam Debie
Justin Fidock
Michael Barlow
Kathryn Kasmarik
Sreenatha Anavatti
Matthew Garratt
Hussein A. Abbass
Copyright Year
2021
Book
Shepherding UxVs for Human-Swarm Teaming

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60897-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-60898-9

Copyright Year: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60898-9_13

Premium Partner

    Image Credits