Using Simulation to investigate a Non-Anthropomorphic Framework for Communications within a Human-Agent War-Fighting Team

Abstract

As complex, non-human agents become increasingly ubiquitous members of the US military war-fighting team, an effective and natural system of communications must be explored and developed to achieve human-agent collaboration across the entire team. A non-anthropomorphic communications framework does not exist that will support human-agent collaboration beyond current electronic control. This research surfaces a non-anthropomorphic framework of communications between human-human, human-agent, and agent-agent teams based on related literature review. The framework provides perspective on the potential breath of communication modalities that exist as well as the many challenges faced. Within this framework, this research uses simulation to explore the contribution to collaborative, covert military operations that non-verbal forms of communications between humans and agent team members might entail. Visual and audio cues considered include pose, motion, color, and non-speech sounds. In addition this article presents findings on contribution of these modalities to the military operation being considered as well as identifies issues for implementation, applications, implications, and areas for future research.

Keywords

agent communication haptic human-agent team multi-modal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

[1] Zieniewicz M , & Goodman, E (2003). Battlefield Information Concepts for the Highly Mobile Warrior. Army AL&T. Mar-Apr, 23–25.

[2] Headquarters, Department of the Army . (1987). Visual Signals (FM 21–60). Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[3] Lerner, P (2005). Robots go to War. Popular Science, Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/f59ca60b2e948010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

[4] Hill, R , Champagne, L , & Price, J (2004). Using Agent-based Simulation and Game Theory to Examine the WWII Bay of Biscay U-boat Campaign. Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation. 1, Issue 2, 99–109.

[5] Rocha, L. M. (1999). Artificial Life to Semiotic Agent Models: Review and Research Directions. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-UR-99–5475. Los Alamos, New Mexico.

[6] U.S. Army. “FCS Network.” FCS, On the Network the Strong Become Stronger. Available from http://www.army.mil/fcs/network.html. Internet; accessed 1 October 2007.

[7] U.S. Army. “Class 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).” FCS, On the Network the Strong Become Stronger. Available from http://www.army.mil/fcs/uav1.html. Internet; accessed 1 October 2007.

[8] Card, S. , Moran, T. , & Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.

[9] Newell, F.N. , et al. (2006). Visual, haptic and crossmodal recognition of scenes. Experimental Brain Research, 161, No. 2, 233–242.

10.

[10] Stanney, K. , et al. (2004). Functional Optical Brain Imaging Using Near-Infrared During Cognitive Tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 17, No. 2, 229–257.

11.

[11] Graber, D. (1988). Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc.

12.

[12] O'Hare, J. (1991). Perceptual Integration. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 81, 44–59.

13.

[13] Giard, M. H. , & Peronnet, F. (1999). Auditory-visual integration during multimodal object recognition in humans: A behavioral and electrophysiological study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 11 (5), 473–490. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Biological Sciences database.

14.

[14] Miller, J. (1982). Divided Attention: Evidence for Co-Activation with Redundant Signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.

15.

[15] Bruce, A., Nourbakhsh, I., Simmons, R., The Role of Expressiveness and Attention in Human-Robot Interaction. (2002) Retrieved Jan, 2007 from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/illah/PAPERS/bruce_icra2002.pdf

16.

[16] MIT Humanoid Robotics Group, “Kismet”. (2006) Retrieved Feb, 2007 from http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/sociable/overview.html

17.

[17] Headquarters, Department of the Army (1992). Field Manual No. 7–8 The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad. Washington D.C.: Department of the Army.

18.

[18] Mendenhall, W , & Sincich, T (1995). Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

19.

[19] Singer, M, Witmer, B., Goldberg, S. (1996). Presence Measures for Virtual Environments: Background & Development.

20.

[20] US Army G-1, (2005). Army G-1. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from Army G-1 Human Resources Policy Web site: http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp

21.

[21] Gelman, A. , Stern, H. (2006). The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician, November 2006, Vol. 60, No. 4.

22.

[22] Proctor, M , & Gerber, W (2004). Acoustic Considerations for Land Combat, Entity-Based Simulation. Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation. Volume 1, Issue 4, 225–233.

23.

[23] Proctor, M. , & Woodman, M. (2007) Training “Shoot House” Tactics using a Game. Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation. Volume 4, Issue 1, 55–63.

24.

[24] Hollander, C. & Proctor, M. (2007) A Multi-Modal Communication Framework for Trained and Impromptu Teams of Agents and Humans.

25.

[25] N. Matsumoto , H. Fujii , M. Okada , “Minimal design for human–agent communication,” Artificial Life and Robotics vol. 10 pp. 49–54, 2006.

26.

[26] C. Bethel and R. R. Murphy, “Non-facial/Non-verbal Affective Expressions for Appearance Constrained Robots,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part C, accepted pending revisions.

27.

[27] T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh, K. Dautenhahn, “A survey of socially interactive robots: Concepts, Design, and Applications,” Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-02–29, 2002.