Human operators in human-robot teams are commonly perceived to be critical for mission success. To explore the direct and perceived impact of operator input on task success and team performance, 16 real-world missions (10hrs) were conducted based on the DARPA Subterranean Challenge. Missions involved deploying a heterogeneous team of robots to locate and identify artifacts such as climbing rope, drills and a mannequin representing a human survivor. Two conditions were evaluated: human operators that could control the robot team with state-of-the-art autonomy (Human-Robot Team) compared to autonomous missions without human operator input (Robot-Autonomy). Human interventions included creating waypoints to prioritise high-yield areas, and to navigate through error-prone spaces. Human-Robot Teams were often in directed autonomy mode (70% of mission time), found more items (+10.52%), traversed more distance (+12.71%), covered more unique ground (+10.56%), and longer time between safety-related events (34%). In routine conditions, both condition scores were comparable for artifacts, distance, and coverage. Human-Robot Teams were faster at finding the first artifact, but slower to respond to information from the robot team. Overall, operators contribute to mission-based outcomes, help to overcome environmental situations that can impede progress, and can assist robots to recover faster from difficult events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robinson et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: