Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Operator Interaction with Centralized Versus Decentralized UAV Architectures

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Abstract

There has been significant recent research activity attempting to streamline Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operations and reduce staffing in order to invert the current many-to-one ratio of operators to vehicles. Centralized multiple UAV architectures have been proposed where a single operator interacts with and oversees every UAV in the network. However, a centralized network requires significant operator cognitive resources. Decentralized multiple UAV networks are another, more complex possible architecture where an operator interacts with an automated mission and payload manager, which coordinates a set of tasks for a group of highly autonomous vehicles. While a single operator can maintain effective control of a relatively small network of centralized UAVs, decentralized architectures are more scalable, particularly in terms of operator workload, and more robust to single points of failure. However, in terms of operator workload, the ultimate success of either a centralized or decentralized UAV architecture is not how many vehicles are in the network per se but rather how many tasks the group of vehicles generates for the operator and how much autonomy is onboard these vehicles. Task-based control of UAV architectures with higher degrees

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,399.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • A. Andre, C. Wickens, When users want what's not best for them. Ergon. Des. 3, 10–14 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • A.S. Clare, M.L. Cummings, Task-based interfaces for decentralized multiple unmanned vehicle control, in AUVSI Unmanned Systems North America, Washington, D.C., 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Cummings, S. Guerlain, Developing operator capacity estimates for supervisory control of autonomous vehicles. Hum. Factors 49(1), 1–15 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Cummings, P.J. Mitchell, Automated scheduling decision support for supervisory control of multiple UAVs. AIAA J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun. 3(6), 294–308 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Cummings, P.J. Mitchell, Predicting controller capacity in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 38(2), 451–460 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Cummings, C.E. Nehme, J. Crandall, Predicting operator capacity for supervisory control of multiple UAVs, in Innovations in Intelligent Machines, vol. 70, ed. by J.S. Chahl, L.C. Jain, A. Mizutani, M. Sato-Ilic (Springer, Berlin/New York, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Cummings, A. Clare, C. Hart, The role of human-automation consensus in multiple unmanned vehicle scheduling. Hum. Factors 52(1), 17–27 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Cummings, J. How, A. Whitten, O. Toupet, The impact of human-automation collaboration in decentralized multiple unmanned vehicle control. Proc. IEEE 100(3), 660–671 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Cummings, C. Mastracchio, K.M. Thornburg, A. Mkrtchyan, Boredom and distraction in multiple unmanned vehicle supervisory control. Interact. Comput. 25(1), 34–47 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Defense Science Board, The role of autonomy in DoD systems. Department of Defense, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • S.R. Dixon, C.D. Wickens, D. Chang, Comparing quantitative model predictions to experimental data in multiple-UAV flight control, in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting, Denver, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Dixon, C. Wickens, D. Chang, Mission control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles: a workload analysis. Hum. Factors 47, 479–487 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Donmez, C. Nehme, M.L. Cummings, Modeling workload impact in multiple unmanned vehicle supervisory control. IEEE Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 99, 1–11 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • R.D. Dunlap, The evolution of a distributed command and control architecture for semi-autonomous air vehicle operations, in Moving Autonomy Forward Conference, Grantham (Muretex, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • M.R. Endsley, Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.R. Endsley, D.J. Garland, Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Hilburn, P.G. Jorna, E.A. Byrne, R. Parasuraman, The effect of adaptive air traffic control (ATC) decision aiding on controller mental workload, in Human-Automation Interaction: Research and Practice, ed. by M. Mouloua, J.M. Koonce (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 1997), pp. 84–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instruction 6212.01D. DoD, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Lewis, J. Polvichai, K. Sycara, P. Scerri, Scaling-up human control for large UAV teams, in Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, ed. by N. Cooke, H. Pringle, H. Pedersen, O. Connor (Elsevier, New York, 2006), pp. 237–250

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • K.L. Mosier, L.J. Skitka, Human decision makers and automated decision aids: made for each other? in Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, Human Factors in Transportation, ed. by R. Parasuraman, M. Mouloua (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 1996), pp. 201–220

    Google Scholar 

  • C.E. Nehme, Modeling human supervisory control in heterogeneous unmanned vehicle systems. Doctor of philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • C.E. Nehme, J. Crandall, M.L. Cummings, Using discrete-event simulation to model situational awareness of unmanned-vehicle operators, in 2008 Capstone Conference, Norfolk, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • D.R. Olsen, S.B. Wood, Fan-out: measuring human control of multiple robots, in SIGCHI conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Parasuraman, T.B. Sheridan, C.D. Wickens, A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 30(3), 286–297 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.D. Rodgers, R.H. Mogford, B. Strauch, Post hoc assessment of situation awareness in air traffic control incidents and major aircraft accidents, in Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, ed. by M. Endsley, D.J. Garland (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 2000), pp. 73–112

    Google Scholar 

  • W.B. Rouse, Systems Engineering Models of Human-Machine Interaction (North Holland, New York, 1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Ruff, S. Narayanan, M.H. Draper, Human interaction with levels of automation and decision-aid fidelity in the supervisory control of multiple simulated unmanned air vehicles. Presence 11(4), 335–351 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D.K. Schmidt, A queuing analysis of the air traffic controller's workload. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 8(6), 492–498 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T.B. Sheridan, W. Verplank, Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  • H.A. Simon, R. Hogarth, C.R. Piott, H. Raiffa, K.A. Schelling, R. Thaier, A. Tversky, S. Winter, Decision making and problem solving, in Research Briefings 1986: Report of the Research Briefing Panel on Decision Making and Problem Solving (National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • K.W. Williams, A summary of unmanned aircraft accident/incident data: human factors implications. Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Oklahoma City, 2004

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    M. L. Cummings

Authors
  1. M. L. Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. L. Cummings .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA

    Kimon P. Valavanis

  2. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    George J. Vachtsevanos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Cummings, M.L. (2015). Operator Interaction with Centralized Versus Decentralized UAV Architectures. In: Valavanis, K., Vachtsevanos, G. (eds) Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1_117

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation