Miller Robotic Interface II Manual de usuario descargar pdf (Pagina 55)

The number of victims found was also compared between the two interfaces. We had

hypothesized that the emphasis on the video window and other sensor displays such as the FLIR

and CO

sensor of the UML interface would help users find more victims in the arena.

However, this hypothesis was not borne out by the data because there was an insignificant

difference (p=.35) in the number of victims found. Using the INL system, participants found an

average of .63 (.74) victims. With the UML system, participants found an average of 1.0 (1.1)

victims. In general, victim placement in the arena was sparse and the victims that were in the

arena were well hidden. Using the number of victims found as an awareness measure might have

been improved by having a larger number of victims in the arena, with some easier to find than

others.

At the end of the runs, each user was asked a series of Likert scale questions. The users were

asked to rank the ease of use of each interface, with 1 being extremely difficult to use and 5

being very easy to use. In this subjective evaluation, operators found the INL interface more

difficult to use: 2.6 for INL vs 3.6 for UML (p =.0185).

Users were also asked to rank how the controls helped or hindered them in performing their

task, with 1 being “hindered me” and 5 being “helped me tremendously.” Operators felt that the

UML controls helped them more: 4.0 for UML and 3.2 for INL (p=.0547).

Users were also asked what features on the robots helped them and which features did not. We

performed an analysis of these positive and negative statements, clustering them into the

following groups: video, mapping, sensors, input devices and autonomy. The statements

revealed insights into the features of the systems that the users felt were most important.

In the mapping category, there were a total of 10 positive mapping comments and one negative

for the INL system and 2 negative mapping comments overall for the UML system. We believe

that the number of comments showed that the participants recognized the emphasis on mapping

within the INL interface and showed that the three-dimensional maps were preferred to the

two-dimensional map of the UML interface. Furthermore, the preference of the INL mapping

display and the improved average percentage of the environment covered by the INL robot

suggested that the user preferences were correlated with performance. Interestingly, two of the

1 2 ... 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 79 80

Sin comentarios

Miller Robotic Interface II Manual de usuario Pagina 55