Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)June 2006 ARL-TR-3814 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBERS DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited.. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThis study compared a tactile land navigation system to two operational systems with visual information displays. "Front end" workload and task analyses identified land navigation as having high and conflicting workload. The tactile display was expected to ameliorate the high visual and cognitive workload per Multiple Resource Theory (Wickens, 2002). Fifteen infantry Soldiers navigated three equivalent 1800-meter routes using each of three systems: (a) the personal tactile navigator (PTN) tactile system, (b) the U.S. Army precision lightweight GPS (global positioning system) receiver (PLGR), which is a hand-held GPS with an alpha-numeric display, and (c) the traditional compass system. Note: Each soldier traversed each lane with different navigation systems; we counterbalanced the order in which they used the systems and the lanes that were walked with each system in order to control for any effects attributable to order (such as fatigue) or to the lane itself.The PLGR system was predicted to enhance performance relative to the compass system because of reduced cognitive demands. The PTN system was predicted to enhance performance relative to both PLGR and compass systems because of (a) reduced cognitive demand from more intuitive display (e.g., following direction of tactor) and (b) off load from visual attention demand. Soldiers performed more quickly and accurately when using the PLGR and tactile systems, relative to a compass. However, there was no significant difference between GPS and tactile systems. This is likely because of the low need for focal visual attention during navigation in this experiment; there was not as much interference with the occasional use of a visual display. However, visual attention demand increa...

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)April 2012 ARL-TR-5989 SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThis experiment is the third in a series to investigate scaling robotic controllers for use by dismounted warfighters. A 2 × 2 within-subjects design crossing two controllers (game controller [GC] and virtual joystick [VJ]) with two levels of robotic autonomy (manual control [MC] and click to navigate [CN]) was used. Twenty-two Soldiers conducted reconnaissance tasks on a 200-m course. As a secondary task, Soldiers were told to report course times when prompted. Neither the main effects for controller nor autonomy were statistically significant for driving errors or the number of unexploded ordnance rounds detected, nor were the controller and autonomy interactions. There was a significant controller and autonomy interaction regarding secondary task performance. With the CN feature, there was no significant difference in the efficiency of task performance between the GC and VJ. When using MC, the Soldiers' secondary task performance was significantly more efficient with the VJ than with the GC because the GC required two hands for operation. However, the participants generally preferred the GC over the VJ; the VJ required visual attention because it provided no haptic feedback. They also preferred MC to CN. Suggestions are offered for improving the design of both types of controllers. iii SUBJECT TERMS

The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of display type and robotic employment techniques on robotic control during dynamic dismounted Soldier operations. The study took place at Fort Benning, GA, using Soldiers from the Officer Candidate School (OCS) as participants. The employment techniques contrasted stationary bounding operation with operation of the robot while the Soldier was on the move. The two display types were a handheld display (HHD) and a helmet mounted display (HMD). Results indicated that Soldiers performed better with the HHD than they did with the HMD used in this experiment. Their course completion times, driving errors, and the number of times they drove off course were all lower with the HHD. The Soldiers also preferred the HHD to the HMD and rated the workload with the HHD lower. With regard to technique, Soldiers preferred the bounding technique to the continuous movement technique. Fewer driving and off course errors were made and more items were detected with the bounding technique. Finally, until robots become more autonomous in their navigation, robotic control during Soldier movement is beyond the multitasking ability of most Soldiers. 15. SUBJECT TERMS robots, movement techniques, handheld display, head mounted 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT UU 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 72 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

No abstract