Objective: The number of robots an operator can supervise increases with the robots’ level of autonomy. The reported study investigates multirobot foraging to identify aspects of the task most suitable for automation. Background: Many envisioned applications of robotics involve multirobot teams. One of the simplest of these applications is foraging, in which robots are operated independently to explore and discover targets. Depending on levels of autonomy and task, operators have been found able to manage 3 to 12 robots. Method: The foraging task can be functionally subdivided into visiting new regions and identifying targets. In the reported experiment, full-task foraging performance was compared with exploration and perceptual search performance for 4-, 8-, and 12-robot teams in a between-groups repeated measures design. Results: Operators in the full-task condition could not successfully manage 12 robots, finding only half as many victims as perceptual search operators. Exploration performance was roughly the same in the full-task and exploration conditions, suggesting that performance of this subtask was limiting the number of robots that could be controlled. Conclusion: Performance and workload measures indicate that exploration (navigation) tasks are the limiting factor in multirobot foraging. This finding suggests that robot navigation is the best candidate for automation. Application: Search tasks, such as foraging or perimeter control, account for many of the near-term applications envisioned for multirobot teams. The results support the choice of task-centered architectures in which the control and coordination of robotic platforms is automated, leaving search and identification of targets to human operators.
Alberts, D., Garstka, J., & Stein, F. ( 1999). Network centric warfare: Developing and leveraging information superiority. DoD C4ISR Cooperative Research Program , Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_NCW.pdf
2.
Balakirsky, S., Carpin, S., Kleiner, A., Lewis, M., Visser, A., Wang, J., & Zipara, V. ( 2007). Toward hetereogeneous robot teams for disaster mitigation: Results and performance metrics from RoboCup Rescue. Journal of Field Robotics, 24, 943-967.
3.
Balch, T., & Arkin, R. ( 1998) Behavior-based formation control for multi-robot teams . IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 14, 926-939.
4.
Burke, J., Murphy, R., Coovert, M., & Riddle, D. ( 2004). Moonlight in Miami: An ethnographic study of human-robot interaction in USAR. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1/2), 85-116.
5.
Cao, Y., Fukunaga, A., & Kahng, A. ( 1997). Cooperative mobile robotics: Antecedents and directions . Autonomous Robots, 4, 1-23.
6.
Crandall, J., & Cummings, M. ( 2007). Developing performance metrics for the supervisory control of multiple robots. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 25-32). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
7.
Crandall, J., Goodrich, M., Olsen, D., & Nielsen, C. ( 2005). Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 35, 438-449.
8.
Endo, Y., MacKenzie, D., & Arkin, R. ( 2004). Usability evaluation of high-level user assistance for robot mission specification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 34, 168-180.
9.
Endsley, M., & Kaber, D. ( 1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics , 42, 462-492.
10.
Hart, S., & Staveland, L. ( 1988). Development of a multidimensional workload rating scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
11.
Humphrey, C., Henk, G., Sewell, B., Williams, B., & Adams, J. ( 2007). Assessing the scalability of a multiple robot interface . In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robotic Interaction (pp. 239-246). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
12.
Jacoff, A.S., & Messina, E.R. ( 2007). Urban search and rescue robot performance standards: Progress update. In G. Gerhart, D. Gage, & C. Shoemaker (Eds.), Proceedings of SPIE Unmanned Systems Technology IX (Vol. 6561, No. 65611L). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
13.
Lewis, M., Sycara, K., & Scerri, P. ( 2009). Scaling up wide area search munition teams. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(3), 10-13.
14.
Lewis, M., Wang, J., & Hughes, S. ( 2007). USARSim: Simulation for the study of human-robot interaction . Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(1), 98-120.
15.
Miller, C., & Parasuraman, R. (2007). Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Human Factors, 49, 57-75.
16.
Olsen, D., & Wood, S. ( 2004). Fan-out: Measuring human control of multiple robots. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 231-238). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
17.
Parker, L. ( 2000). Lifelong adaptation in heterogeneous multirobot teams: Response to continual variation in individual robot performance. Autonomous Robots, 8, 239-267.
18.
Peruch, P., Vercher, J., & Guthier, G. ( 1995). Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments. Ecological Psychology, 7(1), 1-20.
19.
Trouvain, B., Schlick, C., & Mevert, M. (2003). Comparison of a mapvs. camera-based user interface in a multi-robot navigation task. In Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 3224-3231). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
20.
Trouvain, B., & Wolf, H. (2002). Evaluation of multi-robot control and monitoring performance. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 111-116). Piscataway, NJ : IEEE.
21.
Wang, J., & Lewis, M. (2007). Assessing coordination overhead in control of robot teams. In Proceedings of 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 2645-2649). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
