Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Comparing Performance and Situation Awareness in USAR Unit Tasks in a virtual and real Environment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Comparing Performance and Situation Awareness in USAR Unit Tasks in a virtual and real Environment

63
views

Published on

Nanja Smets, Corine Horsch, Mark Neerincx and Raymond Cuijpers on "Comparing Performance and Situation Awareness in USAR Unit Tasks in a virtual and real Environment" at ISCRAM 2013 in …

Nanja Smets, Corine Horsch, Mark Neerincx and Raymond Cuijpers on "Comparing Performance and Situation Awareness in USAR Unit Tasks in a virtual and real Environment" at ISCRAM 2013 in Baden-Baden.

10th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management
12-15 May 2013, Baden-Baden, Germany

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
63
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Beschrijvenalgemeenprobleem van testen in complexe/gevaarlijkeomgevingen.
  • Narrow hallway and stop before collisionDetect objects (within 2 minutes find as many objects as possible)Slalom
  • During the slalom task participants in the virtual experiment bumped on average more into cones (M=5.1, SE=0.73), than participants in the real experiment (M=3.0, SE=0.41, t(16.7)=-2.48, p=.024, r =.5), see Figure 3. The other performance measures were not significantly different between the real and virtual environment in any task. Nonetheless, a medium effect size (r=.3) was found in the detect objects tasks where participants in the virtual environment bumped more into the walls (M=1.33, SE=.26) than in the real environment (M=.67, SE=.44).
  • The end questionnaire regarding overall SA showed that on average, participants reported a better overall SA in the real experiment (M=4.04, SE=.25), than participants in the virtual experiment (M=3.29, SE=.24, t(18)=2.13, p=.047, r=.45). , a medium effect size (r=.34) was found in the mismatch of distance (difference between the real distance to the wall and the estimated distance to the wall) between the real and virtual experiment in the collision task. Despite the non significant difference, the mismatch was bigger in the virtual environment (M=7.37, SE=5.35) than in the real environment (M=-1.00, SE= 4.39). A negative value means that the participant estimated that he was closer to the wall than he actually was.
  • . When an operator controls the robot in a real USAR situation he is physically not in the same room and has to rely on sensory input from the robot, which is similar to operation in VR. Even if differences between VE and reality exist, testing robots in virtual environments could still be useful, since comparisons of different conditions in VE seems to have the same results as the identical comparison in the field
  • Transcript

    • 1. Comparing performance and situationawareness in USAR unit tasks in a virtualand real environmentNanja Smets, Corine Horsch, Mark Neerincx and Raymond Cuijpers
    • 2. ContentIntroductionNIFTi projectUnit tasks explanation and illustrationResearch questionMethodHypothesesResults and conclusionsFuture workMay 15, 20132
    • 3. IntroductionUrban Search And RescueLive scenarios are often:Costly, high personnel andtime, demands for preparationexecution, analysis anddebriefingUse a virtual environment!That is why we want tocompare the outcomes of anevaluation in a virtual versus‘real’ environmentMay 15, 20133
    • 4. Introduction: NIFTi projectHuman robot cooperationEnd-users involvedEach year an end-user evaluationUGVUAVOperatorsIn-field rescuersMission Commander…NIFTi (www.nifti.eu) is funded by the EU FP7 Programme, ICT Cognitive Systems, Interaction, Robotics, Project #247870May 15, 20134
    • 5. Introduction: unit tasksUnit tasks are:Simple exercisesIndependent of location and development phaseThey examine the human-robot teamConvey the capabilities that are critical for the eventual operationaltaskHave different levelsPerformed every year at the end-user evaluationBenchmarkingPredictive value for performance of end-user in scenarioMay 15, 20135
    • 6. Unit tasks illustrationsMay 15, 20136
    • 7. Research questionEvaluate to what extent the unit tasks of Mioch and colleagues (2012)in a virtual reality can represent the results of the unit tasks in aphysical experiment.May 15, 20137Unit tests in realenvironmentUnit tests invirtualenvironment?
    • 8. MethodTask: perform unit tasks in virtual environment12 participants, within subjectsVirtual environment (UDK, USARSim)P3AT robot with game controllerMay 15, 20138
    • 9. HypothesesThe performance and situation awareness of the human-robot systemwill be different between the real environment and the virtualenvironmentWe expect influences of age and gaming experience on performanceand SAMay 15, 20139
    • 10. Results: performanceMay 15, 201310NumberofcollisionsSlalom Hallway Detect objectsVirtualReal world
    • 11. Results: Situation AwarenessMay 15, 201311Real world Virtual environmentDistancetowallUnit task: stop before collisionMeasured distanceDifference in measureddistance and distanceestimated by participantQuestionnaire on SA:Better overall SA in realthan in virtualenvironment
    • 12. Conclusion: SA and PerformanceDifference in performance and SA?Only small differences found in performance in slalom and a trend indetect objects maybe people were unaware of the shape ofthe robot in the virtual environment?Medium effect size in SA for stop before collisionReported SA better in virtual than in real environmentMay 15, 201312
    • 13. Results and conclusion: individual differencesWe expect influences of age and gaming experience on performanceand SANot found because of small age range in virtual environmentexperiment?May 15, 201313
    • 14. Future workNo big differences found, it could be that the resemblance is closeenough in a tele-operation unit task like thisContinue to use, develop and test unit tasks and benchmarkdevelopment of robotsVirtual environments might be interesting for training of end-users withrobotsWe will continue to use virtual reality in experiments with big numberof participantsMay 15, 201314
    • 15. Thank you for your attention!Any questions?May 15, 201315NIFTi (www.nifti.eu) is funded by the EU FP7 Programme, ICT Cognitive Systems, Interaction, Robotics, Project #247870