A tactile option to reduce robot controller size | Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A tactile option to reduce robot controller size

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In response to operational requirements for smaller robotic controller devices for use by dismounted US Army soldiers, three types of robot controller navigation map display configurations were evaluated for effects on beyond line-of-sight robotic navigation tasks. We predicted better performance with the larger split screen display that presents both a map display and a camera-based driving display on a 6.5 inch screen. Two smaller alternatives were also evaluated. One alternative was a 3.5 inch display that allowed the operator to toggle back and forth between the driving display and the map display. The third option added a torso-mounted tactile display to the toggle-based display in order to provide direction information simultaneously with the camera display and thus reduce the need to toggle as frequently to the map display. Each display option was evaluated based on objective performance data, expert-based observations, and scaled subjective soldier questionnaire items. Findings indicated that operators’ navigation performance with the multimodal 3.5 inch toggle display was as effective as their performance with a 6.5 inch split screen display. Operator performance was significantly lower with the 3.5 inch toggle display that did not have the tactile display.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander AL, Wickens CD, Hardy TJ (2005) Synthetic vision systems: The effects of guidance symbology, display size, and field of view. Hum Factors 47:693–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boles DB (2001) Multiple resources. In: Karwowski W (ed) International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 271–275

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dorneich M, Ververs Pl, Whitlow S, Mathan S (2006) Evaluation of a tactile navigation queuing system and real-time assessment of cognitive state. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 50th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, Santa Monica, pp 2600–2604

    Google Scholar 

  4. Duistermaat M, Elliott L, van Erp J, Redden E (2007) Tactile land navigation of dismount soldiers. In: de Waard D, Hockey G, Nickel P, Brookhuis K (eds) Human factors issues in complex environment performance. Europe chapter of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Shaker, Aachen

    Google Scholar 

  5. Elliott LR, Redden ES, Pettitt RA, Carstens; CB, van Erp J, Duistermaat M (2006) Tactile guidance for land navigation. ARL-TR-3814, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground

  6. Elliott LR, Duistermaat M, Redden ES, van Erp J (2007) Multimodal guidance for land navigation. ARL-TR-4295, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground

  7. Elsmore TF (1994) SYNWORK1: a PC-based tool for assessment of performance in a simulated work environment. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 26:421–426

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gilson R, Redden ES, Elliott LR (2007) Remote tactile displays for future soldiers. Special report No ARL-SR-0152, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground

  9. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 139–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Hermann F, Bieber G, Duesterhoeft A (2003) Egocentric maps on mobile devices. In: Bieber G, Kirste T (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on mobile computing, IMC 2003. IRB, Stuttgart, pp 32–37

    Google Scholar 

  11. Minkov Y, Perry S, Oran-Gilan T (2007) The effect of display size on performance of operational tasks with UAVs. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 1091–1095

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mortimer B, Zets G, Cholewiak R (2007) Vibrotactile transduction and transducers. J Acoust Soc 121(5):2970–2977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Muthard EK, Wickens CD (2004) Compensation for display enlargement in flight control and surveillance. Technical report AHFE-04-03/NASA-04-1, University of Illinois Human Factors Division

  14. Pettitt RA, Redden ES, Carstens CB, Elliott LR (2008) Scalability of robotic controllers: an evaluation of alternatives. ARL-TR-4457, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground

  15. Porathe T (2007) User-centered map design. Paper presented at the usability professionals’ association conference 2007, Austin, TX, USA

  16. Proctor RW, Wang DY, Pick DF (1998) An empirical evaluation of the SYNWORK1 multiple-task work environment. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 30:287–305

    Google Scholar 

  17. Redden ES, Carstens CB, Turner DD, Elliott LR (2006) Localization of tactile signals as a function of tactor operating characteristics. ARL-TR-3971, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground

  18. Redden ES, Pettitt RA, Carstens CB, Elliott LR (2008) Scalability of robotic displays: display size investigation. ARL-TR-4456, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground

  19. Redden ES, Pettitt R, Carstens C, Elliott L (2009) Scaling robotic displays: Visual and multimodal options for navigation by dismounted soldiers. ARL technical report, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground (in press)

  20. Seager W, Stanton-Fraser D (2007) Comparing physical, automatic and manual map rotation for pedestrian navigation. In: ACM SIGCHI conference on computer-human interaction (CHI 2007), May 2007. ACM Press, New York, pp 767–776

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stark JM, Comstock JR, Prinzel LJ, Burdette DW, Scerbo MW (2001) A preliminary examination of situation awareness and pilot performance in a synthetic vision environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, Santa Monica, pp 40–43

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stelzer E, Wickens C (2006) Pilots strategically compensate for display enlargements in surveillance and flight control tasks. Hum Factors 48(1):166–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Erp J (2007) Tactile displays for navigation and orientation: perception and behavior. Mostert & Van Onderen, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  24. Van Erp JBF (2005) Presenting directions with a vibrotactile torso display. Ergonomics 48:302–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Erp JBF (2002) Guidelines for the use of vibro-tactile displays in human computer interaction. In: Wall SA, Riedel B, Crossan A, McGee MR (eds) Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2002. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, pp 18–22

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wickens CD (2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 4:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wickens C, Muthard E, Alexander A, van Olffen P, Podczerwinski P (2003) The influences of display highlighting and size and event eccentricity for aviation surveillance. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, Santa Monica, pp 149–153

    Google Scholar 

  28. Williams EJ (1949) Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Aust J Phys Sci A 2:149–168

    Google Scholar 

  29. Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM (1991) Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USAIC Human Research and Engineering Field Element, US Army Research Laboratory, Bldg 4, rm 60, Fort Benning, GA, USA

    Elizabeth S. Redden, Rodger A. Pettitt & Christian B. Carstens

  2. USAIC Human Research and Engineering Field Element, US Army Research Laboratory, Bldg 4, rm 59, Fort Benning, GA, USA

    Linda R. Elliott

Authors
  1. Elizabeth S. Redden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda R. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rodger A. Pettitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian B. Carstens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda R. Elliott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Redden, E.S., Elliott, L.R., Pettitt, R.A. et al. A tactile option to reduce robot controller size. J Multimodal User Interfaces 2, 205 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-009-0019-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-009-0019-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation