28
D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

D. Bryant and J. HollandsDRDC TorontoHuman Systems Integration

September 2010

Decision Aids for Soldiers

Page 2: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

2

Combat Identification (CID)

• Combat Identification (CID) is the capability to identify friendly, enemy and neutral forces rapidly and accurately.

– When a weapon is fired, it is fired at an appropriate target

• Major risk factors are the loss of situation awareness and misidentification of the target

Page 3: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

3

Decision Support Concepts

• IFF Systems

– Markings (fluorescent, infrared reflecting, etc.)

– Non-cooperative approaches (beacons)

– IFF for ground vehicles (millimetre wave (mmW), infrared laser, and radio-frequency (RF) based solutions)

• Blue Force Tracking (BFT)

– Mitigate the risk of fratricide by supplying positional information regarding friendly units to enhance SA

– U.S. Army BFT system consists of a computer, satellite antenna, and Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver

– BFT employs a notebook-size, rugged, 12-inch diagonal daylight-visible computer display, strapped on or bolted into vehicles, as an interface for operators

Page 4: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

4

IMMERSIVE

• IMMERSIVE (Instrumented Military Modeling Engine for Research using SImulation and Virtual Environments)

– Simulated combat environment

– Based on Unreal Tournament software

– First-person perspective of a dismounted infantry soldier

• This platform presents blocks of trials consisting of:

– Terrain (urban environment)

– roBOTic computer controlled entities (BOTs)

– Scenario (sequence of BOT movements and actions)

• Subjects played the role of a dismounted soldier

– Controlled the movement of the rifle with the mouse and fired by pressing the left button

Page 5: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

5

IMMERSIVE Environment

Page 6: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

6

Subject’s View

Page 7: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

7

IMMERSIVE “BOTs”

Page 8: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

8

Simulated Rifle-Mounted IFF

Page 9: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

9

Hand-held BFT

Page 10: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

10

Hit Rate

Page 11: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

11

False Alarm Rate

Page 12: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

12

Blue Force Tracking (BFT)

• Current BFT systems implemented at vehicle level

• Can study impact of hand-held BFT for individual soldiers in the IMMERSIVE environment

– Simulate BFT as PDA device

– Simulate potential problems/errors in system

• Lag or delay in updating positional information

Page 13: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

13

Experiment 3: False Alarm Rate

Page 14: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

14

Conclusion

• Computer-based simulation offers two benefits:

– Learn about CID decision making and test models

– Evaluate decision support concepts before they are actually available

• Both IFF and BFT are viable CID support concepts

• Negative effect of update lag on BFT indicates that systems may not provide benefits under some conditions

Page 15: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

15

Reliance on Soldier Decision Aids

• Advances in soldier decision aids

• Soldier Information requirements

• Disclosing system reliability

• Displaying reliability (uncertainty)

• See through display DIR

Page 16: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

16

Soldier Information Requirements

• Improved SA, performance benefits and high usability and acceptance with augmented reality information displayed using Virtual Retinal Displays or dashboard, spectacle mounted HMDs

• Consider displaying cueing information (e.g., rolling compass, indicators for next waypoint, bearing, location of friendly and enemy entities) superimposed on real scene.

• Egocentric: FFOV spatial and identity information

Page 17: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

17

IFF vs BFT: uncertainty about ‘unknown’ feedback

Feedback: ‘friend’ (explicit), ‘unknown’ (implicit) ‘Friend’ reliability : P( friendly | ’friend’ ) ≈ 100%

‘Unknown’ reliability : P( hostile | ‘unknown’ ) < 100%

Individual Combat ID System

Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 51, 281-291.

Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 51, 281-291.

Page 18: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

18

Human-Automation Performance

• Generally human-automation performance improves with automation reliability

• However, for CID even highly reliable aids failed to improved target identification (Dzindolet, Pierce, Beck, Dawe, & Anderson, 2000, 2001; Dzindolet, Pierce, Pomranky, Peterson, & Beck, 2001; Karsh et al., 1995; Kogler, 2003)

• Trust in automated system not examined

Page 19: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

19

Methodology and Measures Task: Make correct engagement decisions

if hostile shoot; if friend hold fire

SDT reliance measure

Participant’s viewFriendly Hostile

Hollands, J. G., & Neyedli, H. F. (in press). A reliance model for automated combat identification systems: Implications for trust in automation. In N. Stanton (Ed.), Trust in military teams. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

Hollands, J. G., & Neyedli, H. F. (in press). A reliance model for automated combat identification systems: Implications for trust in automation. In N. Stanton (Ed.), Trust in military teams. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

Page 20: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

20

CID accuracy was improved in the 80% condition but not in the 67% reliabilty condition

• Informed group changed their response bias more appropriately than the uninformed group

Results

80% 67%

Page 21: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

21

Displaying Uncertainty• No Feedback (unknown feedback)=????

Finger & Bisantz, 2002

Numeric38% 60% p=0.05

Linguisticlikely, unlikely, probable

Graphic

Neyedli, H., Hollands, J. G., & Jamieson, G. A. (2009). Human reliance on an automated combat identification system: Effects of display format. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society – 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 212-216). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Neyedli, H., Hollands, J. G., & Jamieson, G. A. (2009). Human reliance on an automated combat identification system: Effects of display format. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society – 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 212-216). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Page 22: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

22

Experimental Design

2 display method x 2 display format x 5 reliability levels

display methodMesh Pie

integrated

separated

Page 23: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

23

Results: Interface Format

Compute ßoptimal equation. ßactual fit to ßoptimal model.

Pie: R2 = 0.24, Mesh: R2 = 0.19 Pie: R2 = -0.04, Mesh: R2 = -0.27

Integrated Separated

Page 24: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

24

Results: Display Method

Mesh

Pie

Reliability Level

d’

Page 25: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

25

DIR: See-Through Eyeglass Wearable Display Revision Eyewear Inc.Project Objectives

The primary objective of this DIR is to develop and prototype wearable display related technologies with mid-term future growth to provide long-term technology options to the sniper community and the broader Land Force.

Page 26: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

26

Implications

• DIR project is supported by the military sponsor (DLR-5) and will have long term benefits for the Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP).

• Image and information display to soldiers using protective eyewear integrated with see-through display combines ISR and protection together

• Our work on Decision Aids for Soldiers provides potential content

• Enhance the situational awareness and survivability of the CF

Page 27: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

27

Page 28: D. Bryant and J. Hollands DRDC Toronto Human Systems Integration September 2010 Decision Aids for Soldiers

28