The Role of bi-Directional Graphic Communication in Human-Unmanned Operations

References

• Baber, C., Fulthorpe, C., & Houghton, R. J. (2010). Supporting naturalistic decision making through location-based photography: A study of simulated military reconnaissance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(2–3), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310903498718
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Back, Y., Zak, Y., Parmet, Y., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2021). Combining cognitive work analysis and empirical evaluations to understand map use by operators of small carry-on unmanned aerial systems. Applied Ergonomics, 90, 103218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103218
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114–123. http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org.
   Google Scholar
• Barshi, I., & Farris, C. (2016). Misunderstandings in ATC communication: Language, cognition, and experimental methodology. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brehmer, B. (2005). The dynamic OODA loop: amalgamating Boyd’s OODA loop and the Cybernetic approach to command and control. In 10th International Command and Control research and technology symposium. http://www.dodccrp.org/events/10th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/365.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Breton, R., Rousseau, R. (2005, June). The C-OODA: A cognitive version of the OODA loop to represent C2 activities. In Proceedings of the 10th International Command and Control Research Technology Symposium. Defence Research and Development Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell, B. S., & Everhart, N. C. (1998). Information flow and development of coordination in distributed supervisory control teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1001_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calhoun, G. L., & Draper, M. H. (2010). ‘Synthetic Vision for Improving Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operator Situational Awareness’. In M. Barnes, & F. Jentsch (Eds.), Human-Robot Interaction in Future Military Operations. Human Factors in Defense (pp. 229–249). Burlington.
   Google Scholar
• Cassenti, D. N., Kelley, T. D., Yagoda, R. E., & Avery, E. (2012). Improvements in robot navigation through operator speech preferences. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 3(2), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13230-012-0100-6
   Google Scholar
• Christoffersen, K., & Woods, D. D. (2002). 1. How to make automated systems team players. In Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Craparo, E. M. (2004). [Natural language processing for unmanned aerial vehicle guidance interfaces]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, M., & Akar, E. (2005). Coordinating the complexity of design using P2P groupware. CoDesign, 1(4), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880500478361
   Google Scholar
• Demir, M., McNeese, N. J., & Cooke, N. J. (2020). Understanding human-robot teams in light of all-human teams: Aspects of team interaction and shared cognition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 140, 102436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper, M., Calhoun, G., Ruff, H., Williamson, D., & Barry, T. (2003). October) Manual versus speech input for unmanned aerial vehicle control station operations. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. (Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 109–113). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120304700123
   Google Scholar
• Grier, R. A. (2013). September) The potential utility of the system usability scale in US military acquisition. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. (Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 206–209). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571046
   Google Scholar
• Harris, J., & Barber, D. (2014). Speech and gesture interfaces for squad-level human-robot teaming [Paper presentation]. In Unmanned Systems Technology Xvi, June). (Vol. 9084, p. 90840B). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
   Google Scholar
• Helmus, T. C., & Glenn, R. W. (2005). Steeling the mind: Combat stress reactions and their implications for urban warfare. Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly,, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
   Google Scholar
• Hew, P. (2011). Structured, graphical analysis of C2 teams and their technologies. The International C2 Journal, 5(3). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA555521
   Google Scholar
• Klein, G., & Crandall, B. W. (1995). The role of mental simulation in problem solving and decision making. In Local Applications of the Ecological Approach to Human-Machine Systems, (Vol. 2, pp. 324–358).
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R. (2018). The system usability scale: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, W. C., Bord, T., Zhang, J., Braithwaite, G., & Lone, M. (2020). Evaluating system usability of augmented reality in flight operations. In Contemporary ergonomics and human factors. Eds. Rebecca Charles and Dave Golightly. CIEHF.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, G., Joyner, L., Gilliland, K., Campbell, S. E., Falconer, S., & Huggins, J. (1999). Validation of a comprehensive stress state questionnaire: Towards a state ‘Big Three’?. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 335–350). Tilburg University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, G. (2021). Stress states, personality and cognitive functioning: A review of research with the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosier, K. L., & Fischer, U. M. (2010). Judgment and decision making by individuals and teams: Issues, models, and applications. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 6(1), 198–256. https://doi.org/10.1518/155723410X12849346788822
   Google Scholar
• Naikar, N. (2017). Cognitive work analysis: An influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering. Applied Ergonomics, 59(Pt B), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neigel, A. R., Dever, D. A., Claypoole, V. L., & Szalma, J. L. (2019). Task engagement and the vigilance decrement revisited: Expanding upon the work of Joel S. Warm using a semantic vigilance paradigm. Human Factors, 61(3), 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819835086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ntuen, C. A., Park, E. H., & Gwang-Myung, K. (2010). Designing an information visualization tool for sensemaking. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(2–3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310903498825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obradovich, J. H., & Smith, P. J. (2008). Design concepts for virtual work systems. In J. Nemiro, M. M. Beyerlein, L. Bradley, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), The handbook of high-performance virtual teams: A toolkit for collaborating across boundaries (pp. 295–328). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• O'Hanlon, M. E., Miller, J. N. (2019). Why we need a more modern and ready military, not a larger one. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/10/04/why-we-need-a-more-modern-and-ready-military-not-a-larger-one/
   Google Scholar
• Ophir-Arbelle, R., Oron-Gilad, T., Borowsky, A., & Parmet, Y. (2013). Is more information better? How dismounted soldiers use video feed from unmanned vehicles: Attention allocation and information extraction considerations. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343412445054
   Google Scholar
• Oron-Gilad, T., & Oppenheim, I. (2015, December). Scalable interfaces for operator control units; a common display to conduct MOUT operations with multiple video feed sources – Final Research Report – Task (5), DCS subcontract no: APX03-S010 (BG Negev Technologies and Applications Ltd) under Prime Contract no W911NF-10-D-0002.
   Google Scholar
• Oron-Gilad, T., & Oppenheim, I. (2016, August). Scalable interfaces for operator control units; a common display to conduct MOUT operations with multiple video feed sources – Final Research Report – Task (6), One-Way Still Images Graphic Communication Between A Ground/Air Observer And A Ground Attacker In A Target Acquisition Task. DCS subcontract no: APX03-S010 (BG Negev Technologies and Applications Ltd) under Prime Contract no W911NF-10-D-0002.
   Google Scholar
• Oron-Gilad, T., & Oppenheim, I. (2017). Use of graphic imagery as a mean of communication between operators and unmanned systems in C3 fire tasks. In International conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics. (pp. 362–381). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Oron-Gilad, T., & Oppenheim, I. (2018, January). Scalable interfaces for operator control units; investigating Bi-directional Graphic Communication Between A Ground/Air Observer And A Ground Attacker. T2C1S3C – Investigating Tactical Multi-Modal Soldier-Robot Exchanges Fund Type: 6.2 GDLS PO 40253724 (BG Negev Technologies and Applications Ltd) under Prime Contract no W911MF-10-2-0016.
   Google Scholar
• Oppenheim, I., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2019). Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Adding Bi-Directional Graphic Communication to the Interaction of Observer-Attacker Teams.
   Google Scholar
• Oron-Gilad, T. I., Oppenheim, I., & Ziv-Schegolsky, R. (2019, July). Scalable interfaces for operator control units; investigating Bi-directional Graphic Communication Between Autonomous Ground/Air Observers and Ground. T2C1S3C – Investigating Tactical Multi-Modal Soldier-Robot Exchanges Fund Type: 6.2 GDLS PO 40253724 (BG Negev Technologies and Applications Ltd) under Prime Contract no W911MF-10-2-0016
   Google Scholar
• Oron-Gilad, T., & Parmet, Y. (2014, September) Is more information better for dismounted soldiers? Display-layout considerations of multiple video feed from unmanned vehicles. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. (Vol. 58, No. 1, pp.345–349). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581071
   Google Scholar
• Oron-Gilad, T., & Parmet, Y. (2017). Close target reconnaissance: A field evaluation of dismounted soldiers utilizing video feed from an unmanned ground vehicle in patrol missions. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416675077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettitt, R. A., Carstens, C. B., & Elliott, L. R. (2014). Speech-based robotic control for dismounted soldiers: Evaluation of visual display options. ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD HUMAN RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, H. A., Durlach, P. J., & Billings, D. R. (2011). Developing collective training for small unmanned aerial systems employment: Workload and performance with multiple systems. ARMY RESEARCH INST FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES ORLANDO FL.
   Google Scholar
• Razzak, M. A., & Islam, M. N. (2020). Exploring and evaluating the usability factors for military application: A road map for hci in military applications. Human Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and Safety, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41314-019-0032-6
   Google Scholar
• Revell, K., Langdon, P., Bradley, M., Politis, I., Brown, J., Thompson, S., … Stanton, N. (2018, July). UCEID-the best of both worlds: Combining ecological interface design with user centered design in a novel HF method applied to automated driving. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 493–501). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Jenkins, D. P., Walker, G. H., & Rafferty, L. (2010). Decisions, decisions… and even more decisions: Evaluation of a digitized mission support system in the land warfare domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(2–3), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310903498940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanton, N. A., & William Wong, B. L. (2010). Editorial: Explorations Into Naturalistic Decision Making With Computers, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 26(2–3), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310903498676
   Google Scholar
• Stothart, C. R., Burland, B. R., Strickland, H. C., Messina, F. D., Couch, D. S., & From, J. D. (2020). Can Artificial Intelligence Systems Improve Information-Gathering Efficiency in Army Mission Command Processes. ARMY RESEARCH INST FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES FORT BELVOIR VA FORT BELVOIR United States
   Google Scholar
• Stowers, K., Kasdaglis, N., Rupp, M. A., Newton, O. B., Chen, J. Y., & Barnes, M. J. (2020). The IMPACT of agent transparency on human performance. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2020.2978041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Jenkins, D. P., Salmon, P. M., & Rafferty, L. (2010). From the 6 Ps of planning to the 4 Ds of digitization: Difficulties, dilemmas, and defective decision making. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(2–3), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310903498742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zak, Y., Tapiro, H., Alicia, T. J., Parmet, Y., Rottem Hovev, M., Taylor, G. S., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2021). Rapid interpretation of temporal–spatial Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operational data – RITSUD: Aiding UAV operators with visualizations of patterns-of-life activities. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 15(4), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434211023605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziv-Schegolsky, R., Oppenheim, I., Parmet, Y., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2020, December). A communication interface for a dismounted ground commander and an Intelligent Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Systems (IA-UAS)–A feasibility study. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. (Vol. 64, No. 1, pp.218–223). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641053
   Google Scholar