Tasking Teams: Supervisory Control and Task Management of Autonomous Unmanned Systems

2016 ◽  
pp. 397-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Gutzwiller ◽  
Douglas S. Lange
Keyword(s):  
Supervisory Control ◽  
Unmanned Systems ◽  
Task Management ◽  
And Task

Executive Control: Attention Switching, Interruptions, and Task Management

2019 ◽  
pp. 145-160
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Wickens ◽  
Jason S. McCarley
Keyword(s):  
Executive Control ◽  
Task Management ◽  
Attention Switching ◽  
And Task

Effects of Touch, Voice, and Multimodal Input, and Task Load on Multiple-UAV Monitoring Performance During Simulated Manned-Unmanned Teaming in a Military Helicopter

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (8) ◽  
pp. 1117-1129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel J. Levulis ◽  
Patricia R. DeLucia ◽  
So Young Kim
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Ability ◽  
Situation Awareness ◽  
Supervisory Control ◽  
Aerial Photographs ◽  
Visual Displays ◽  
Radio Communications ◽  
Landing Zone ◽  
Task Load ◽  
Voice Control ◽  
And Task

Objective: We evaluated three interface input methods for a simulated manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) supervisory control system designed for Air Mission Commanders (AMCs) in Black Hawk helicopters. Background: A key component of the U.S. Army’s vision for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is to integrate UAVs into manned missions, called MUM-T (Department of Defense, 2010). One application of MUM-T is to provide the AMC of a team of Black Hawk helicopters control of multiple UAVs, offering advanced reconnaissance and real-time intelligence of flight routes and landing zones. Method: Participants supervised a (simulated) team of two helicopters and three UAVs while traveling toward a landing zone to deploy ground troops. Participants classified aerial photographs collected by UAVs, monitored instrument warnings, and responded to radio communications. We manipulated interface input modality (touch, voice, multimodal) and task load (number of photographs). Results: Compared with voice, touch and multimodal control resulted in better performance on all tasks and resulted in lower subjective workload and greater subjective situation awareness, ps < .05. Participants with higher spatial ability classified more aerial photographs ( r = .75) and exhibited shorter response times to instrument warnings ( r = −.58) than participants with lower spatial ability. Conclusion: Touchscreen and multimodal control were superior to voice control in a supervisory control task that involved monitoring visual displays and communicating on radio channels. Application: Although voice control is often considered a more natural and less physically demanding input method, caution is needed when designing visual displays for users sharing common communication channels.

Influences of Task Management Strategy on Performance and Workload for Supervisory Control

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 856-860
Author(s):  
James R. Bowden ◽  
Christina F. Rusnock
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Supervisory Control ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Task Environment ◽  
Task Management ◽  
High Workload ◽  
Perceived Workload ◽  
Low Performance

Individual differences between task management strategies in a dual task environment – as a possible contributing factor to failures in supervisory control – have not been heavily researched. The purpose of this study was to identify strategies utilized by human subjects operating in a dual task environment to determine the effect of task management strategy on performance and workload outcomes. Participants monitored 8 remote processes while simultaneously executing a cognitively demanding secondary task. Researcher observation and participant feedback were used to identify specifically how tasks were managed. Four competing strategies were identified: Balanced Interleaving, Balanced Multitasking, Adaptive Attack, and Adaptive Avoidance. Findings revealed that the Adaptive Attack and Balanced Multitasking strategies demonstrated more advantageous outcomes toward performance while also resulting in lower participant perceived workload; Balanced Interleaving showed marginally higher performance, but high workload; and Adaptive Avoidance resulted in both low workload and low performance.

Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis

2019 ◽  
pp. 136216881985991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meixiu Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Task Management ◽  
Grammatical Analysis ◽  
L1 Use ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
And Task

Despite previous research suggesting that first language (L1) use fulfills important functions in collaborative writing (CW) tasks, research has yet to examine whether L1 or second language (L2) use may lead to variation in the lexico-grammatical aspects of learners’ collaborative texts and the pair talk. Using a corpus-based approach, this study examined how interacting in the L1 or the L2 during CW tasks influenced the use of lexico-grammatical features in learners’ co-constructed texts and the focus areas of their pair talk. The results suggest that L1 interaction significantly facilitates the production of lexico-grammatical features typical of academic writing in learners’ co-constructed texts. Additionally, compared with L2 interaction, L1 interaction allows learners to focus more on language and task management in pair talk. Methodological and pedagogical implications are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document