Forty two pilots flew a systems integration lab (SIL) UAV simulator, while controlling either two or four UAVs with imperfect automation in a dual task experiment. One task required supervising the flight path trajectories of the UAVs, the other involved monitoring a 3D image window for camouflaged tanks, a perceptually demanding vigilance task. The latter was sometimes supported by an imperfectly reliable automated target recognition system. Its reliability was either 0.9, or, in two versions, around 0.6. The latter two differed according to the threshold setting, biasing automation errors toward miss-prone or false-alarm prone performance. In addition, some pilots used a baseline (no automation) condition. The results indicated a pronounced effect of increasing workload from two to four UAVs. This effect was much not buffered by automation, and effected performance on both the UAV task and the tank task. Performance on the tank task was slightly improved by high reliability automation, and degraded by lower reliability automation, particularly when the latter was false alarm prone. The difference in automation threshold setting is interpreted in terms of the model of reliance and compliance proposed by Meyer.
Supervising Two versus Four UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) with Imperfect Automation: A Simulation Experiment
2005
20 pages
Report
Keine Angabe
Englisch
Aircraft , Avionics , Computers, Control & Information Theory , Pattern Recognition & Image Processing , Air Transportation , Aeronautics , Unmanned aerial vehicles , Supervision , Automation , Simulation , Experiment , Dual task , Flight path trajectory , Camouflaged tanks , 3D image window , Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Firefighting
Springer Verlag | 2024
|Drone/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Technology
Springer Verlag | 2021
|Non-Lethal Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
NTIS | 1993
ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)
Europäisches Patentamt | 2024
|