A field assessment of multimodal communication (MMC) was conducted as part of a program integration demonstration to support and enable bi-directional communication between a dismounted Soldier and a robot teammate. In particular, the assessment was focused on utilizing auditory and visual/gesture based communications. The task involved commanding a robot using semantically-based MMC. Initial participant data indicates a positive experience with the multimodal interface (MMI) prototype. The results of the experiment inform recommendations for multimodal designers regarding perceived usability and functionality of the currently implemented MMI.
References
1.
BarberD.LackeyS.Reinerman-JonesL.HudsonI. (2013). Visual and tactile interfaces for bi-directional human-robot communication. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 87410U-87410U). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
2.
BarberD.Reinerman-JonesL.MatthewsG. (2014). Toward a tactile language for human-robot interaction: Two studies of tacton learning and performance. Human Factors, 1-20. doi: 10.1177/0018720814548063.
DeanR. M. S. (2013, May). Common world model for unmanned systems. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 87410O-87410O). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
5.
DumasB.LalanneD.OviattS. (2009). Multimodal interfaces: A survey of principles, models and frameworks. In LalanneD.KohlasJ. (Eds.), Human machine in-teraction: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 3-26). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidel-berg.
6.
EasonK.D. (1984). Towards the experimental study of usability. Behaviour and Information Technology, 3(2), 133-143
7.
HillS.BarberD.EvansA.W.III. (2015). Achieving the vision of effective Soldier-robot teaming: Recent work in multimodal communication. Proceedings from Human Robot Interaction: Extended Abstracts.
8.
HowardT.ChungI.ProppO.WalterM.RoyN. (2014). Efficient natural language interfaces for assistive robots. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Rehabilitation and Assistive Robotics at the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.
9.
IshiharaS. (2014). Ishihara’s tests for colour deficiency: Concise edition. Tokyo: Kanehara Trading Inc.
10.
JaimesA.SebeN. (2007). Multimodal human computer interaction: A survey. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 108(1), 116-134.
11.
LeventhalL.BarnesJ. (2008). Usability engineering: Process, products, and examples. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
OviattS.L. (1997). Multimodal interactive maps: Designing for human performance. Human-Computer Interaction12, 93–129.
14.
OviattS. (2012). Multimodal interfaces. In JackoJ. (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.GroveJ.JenstchF. (2011). From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1491-1495.
16.
ShackelB (1986). Ergonomics in design for usability. In HarrisonM.D.MonkA.F. (Eds.), People and computers: Designing for usability, Proceedings of the HCI’86 Conference on People and Computers II 1986. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 44-64.
