Measured effects of workload and auditory feedback on remote pilot task performance

Abstract

Absent or reduced sensory cueing can deprive pilots operating remotely piloted aircraft beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) of vital information necessary for safe flight. The present study tested the effects of real-time auditory feedback on remote pilot perception and decision-making task performance in an automated BVLOS flight, under three levels of workload (Low, Moderate and High). Results from 36 participants revealed workload and auditory feedback influenced perception task performance in terms of error type count, with misses more frequent than wrong identifications. In terms of performance in the decision-making task, under low and moderate levels of workload, auditory feedback was found to improve performance. Conversely, under high workloads, an inflexion or tipping point occurred whereby auditory feedback became detrimental to task performance. These results correspond with the expected behavioural responses to external stressors as predicted by the Arousal and Maximal Adaptability theory, and build upon previous findings related to workload, auditory feedback and remote pilot task performance.

Practitioner summary: This study tested the effect of real-time auditory feedback and dynamic workloads on remote pilots’ task performance. Auditory feedback and workload each influenced the perception tasks in terms of error types committed. Auditory feedback improved decision-making task performance under low and moderate workloads, and reduced performance under high workloads. These results may benefit practitioners by considering the nuanced effects of auditory feedback on human task performance within sensory deprived working environments, including those utilising teleoperated systems.

Keywords:

• Workload
• auditory feedback
• noise
• RPAS

Acknowledgements

The research would not be possible without the pilots and students who volunteered their time, for which we are grateful.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).