Examining external validity issues in research with human operation of unmanned vehicles

Abstract

Research has studied human operation of unmanned vehicles (UVs) in the laboratory and the field, but differences between these settings raise questions about the generalisability of findings. This article discusses how these differences can alter relationships of interest and establishes a framework for establishing causal inference. The goals of this article are to: (a) argue that findings can be externally valid, where differences may be as much the result of specifics from the field as any lack of generalisability of laboratory; (b) illustrate how external validity arguments can be presented in UV research; (c) support the idea that hypotheses about the real-world can be tested in laboratory domains; (d) challenge the notion that findings from the field will always generalise to future applications; and (e) present a position where field and laboratory research can be integrated to develop a stronger theoretical framework for understanding how human operators control unmanned systems.

Keywords:

• human–robot interaction
• unmanned vehicle operation
• laboratory research
• field research
• external validity

Acknowledgements

This study was in part supported by the Army Research Laboratory-Simulation and Training Technology Center through the HRI Analysis and Training Systems and Operational Neuroscience project, W91CRB08D00150068. The opinions are those of the authors only, however, and do not necessarily represent the position of the University of Central Florida, the US Army, or any of its organisations.

The submitted manuscript has been authored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract W91CRB08D0015. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.