Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

On the Impact of Interruptions During Multi-Robot Supervision Tasks (2306.16501v1)

Published 28 Jun 2023 in cs.RO and cs.HC

Abstract: Human supervisors in multi-robot systems are primarily responsible for monitoring robots, but can also be assigned with secondary tasks. These tasks can act as interruptions and can be categorized as either intrinsic, i.e., being directly related to the monitoring task, or extrinsic, i.e., being unrelated. In this paper, we investigate the impact of these two types of interruptions through a user study ($N=39$), where participants monitor a number of remote mobile robots while intermittently being interrupted by either a robot fault correction task (intrinsic) or a messaging task (extrinsic). We find that task performance of participants does not change significantly with the interruptions but depends greatly on the number of robots. However, interruptions result in an increase in perceived workload, and extrinsic interruptions have a more negative effect on workload across all NASA-TLX scales. Participants also reported switching between extrinsic interruptions and the primary task to be more difficult compared to the intrinsic interruption case. Statistical significance of these results is confirmed using ANOVA and one-sample t-test. These findings suggest that when deciding task assignment in such supervision systems, one should limit interruptions from secondary tasks, especially extrinsic ones, in order to limit user workload.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (28)
  1. C. Y. Wong and G. Seet, “Workload, awareness and automation in multiple-robot supervision,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 1729881417710463, 2017.
  2. A. Dahiya, A. M. Aroyo, K. Dautenhahn, and S. L. Smith, “A survey of multi-agent human–robot interaction systems,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 161, p. 104335, 2023.
  3. S. A. Zanlongo, P. Dirksmeier, P. Long, T. Padir, and L. Bobadilla, “Scheduling and path-planning for operator oversight of multiple robots,” Robotics, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 57, 2021.
  4. G. Swamy, S. Reddy, S. Levine, and A. D. Dragan, “Scaled autonomy: Enabling human operators to control robot fleets,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 5942–5948.
  5. S. Y. Chien, Y. L. Lin, P. J. Lee, S. Han, M. Lewis, and K. Sycara, “Attention allocation for human multi-robot control: Cognitive analysis based on behavior data and hidden states,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 117, pp. 30–44, 2018.
  6. M. Lewis, “Human interaction with multiple remote robots,” Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 131–174, 2013.
  7. A. Rossi, M. Staffa, and S. Rossi, “Supervisory control of multiple robots through group communication,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 56–67, 2016.
  8. J. Y. Chen and M. J. Barnes, “Supervisory control of multiple robots: Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences,” Human Factors, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 157–174, 2012.
  9. K. Zheng, D. F. Glas, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita, “Supervisory control of multiple social robots for navigation,” in 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).   IEEE, 2013, pp. 17–24.
  10. D. A. Wiegmann, A. W. ElBardissi, J. A. Dearani, R. C. Daly, and T. M. Sundt III, “Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation,” Surgery, vol. 142, no. 5, pp. 658–665, 2007.
  11. H. M. Herrick, S. Lorch, J. Y. Hsu, K. Catchpole, and E. E. Foglia, “Impact of flow disruptions in the delivery room,” Resuscitation, vol. 150, pp. 29–35, 2020.
  12. G. Fealy, S. Donnelly, G. Doyle, M. Brenner, M. Hughes, E. Mylotte, E. Nicholson, and M. Zaki, “Clinical handover practices among healthcare practitioners in acute care services: A qualitative study,” Journal of clinical nursing, vol. 28, no. 1-2, pp. 80–88, 2019.
  13. P. Zigoris, J. Siu, O. Wang, and A. T. Hayes, “Balancing automated behavior and human control in multi-agent systems: a case study in roboflag,” in Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference, 2003., vol. 1.   IEEE, 2003, pp. 667–671.
  14. A. Dahiya, N. Akbarzadeh, A. Mahajan, and S. Smith, “Scalable operator allocation for multi-robot assistance: A restless bandit approach,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, pp. 1397–1408, 2022.
  15. P. Squire and R. Parasuraman, “Effects of automation and task load on task switching during human supervision of multiple semi-autonomous robots in a dynamic environment,” Ergonomics, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 951–961, 2010.
  16. J. Y. Chen, M. J. Barnes, and M. Harper-Sciarini, “Supervisory control of multiple robots: Human-performance issues and user-interface design,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 435–454, 2010.
  17. J. M. Riley and M. R. Endsley, “Situation awareness in hri with collaborating remotely piloted vehicles,” in proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 49, no. 3.   SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2005, pp. 407–411.
  18. S. Musić and S. Hirche, “Control sharing in human-robot team interaction,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 44, pp. 342–354, 2017.
  19. M. B. Dias, B. Kannan, B. Browning, E. Jones, B. Argall, M. F. Dias, M. Zinck, M. Veloso, and A. Stentz, “Sliding autonomy for peer-to-peer human-robot teams,” in International conference on intelligent autonomous systems, 2008, pp. 332–341.
  20. K. R. Campoe and K. K. Giuliano, “Impact of frequent interruption on nurses’ patient-controlled analgesia programming performance,” Human factors, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 1204–1213, 2017.
  21. F. Sasangohar, B. Donmez, P. Trbovich, and A. C. Easty, “Not all interruptions are created equal: positive interruptions in healthcare,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 56, no. 1.   SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2012, pp. 824–828.
  22. S. Addas and A. Pinsonneault, “The many faces of information technology interruptions: a taxonomy and preliminary investigation of their performance effects,” Information Systems Journal, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 231–273, 2015.
  23. A. J. Gould, “What makes an interruption disruptive? understanding the effects of interruption relevance and timing on performance,” Ph.D. dissertation, UCL (University College London), 2014.
  24. J. Gluck, A. Bunt, and J. McGrenere, “Matching attentional draw with utility in interruption,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2007, pp. 41–50.
  25. J. Q. Young, D. M. Irby, M.-L. Barilla-LaBarca, O. Ten Cate, and P. S. O’Sullivan, “Measuring cognitive load: mixed results from a handover simulation for medical students,” Perspectives on medical education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 24–32, 2016.
  26. J. Sweller, J. J. Van Merrienboer, and F. G. Paas, “Cognitive architecture and instructional design,” Educational psychology review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 251–296, 1998.
  27. J. Y. Chen and M. J. Barnes, “Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues,” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 13–29, 2014.
  28. S. G. Hart, “NASA-task load index (NASA-tlx); 20 years later,” in Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol. 50, no. 9, 2006, pp. 904–908.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now