skip to main content
10.1145/2157689.2157750acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Transfer from a simulation environment to a live robotic environment: are certain demographics better?

Published:05 March 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

The ability to remotely operate an unmanned vehicle while simultaneously looking for suspicious targets and then classifying those targets is not a trivial skill. This study looked at different training approaches to make better use of simulation as a first training step. When transferring to a live environment, the operators could be grouped into two categories according to whether they passed live training criteria or not. There were clear performance differences between these groups. The group that failed to pass criteria had poorer performance overall, more SA errors, and spent more time in training. Post-hoc analysis showed differences in the demographics between those who passed and those that did not. Male participants and younger participants were more likely to achieve criteria. There were no differences in gaming experience and perceived sense of direction.

References

  1. Chen, J. Y. C, (2010). Effects of operator spatial ability on uav-guided ground navigation. Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, 139--140. ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Hegarty, M., Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., Lovelace, K., & Subbiah, I. (2002). Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 30, 425--447.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. McDermott, P. L. & Fisher, A. (2009). The Tradeoff of Frame Rate and Resolution in a Route Clearing Task: Implications for Human-Robot Interaction. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Wen, W., Ishikawa, T., & Sato, T. (2011). Working memory in spatial knowledge acquisition: Differences in encoding processes and sense of direction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25 (4), pp. 654--662.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Transfer from a simulation environment to a live robotic environment: are certain demographics better?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader