Planning tools for Mars surface operations: Human-Computer Interaction lessons learned

McCurdy, Michael

doi:10.1109/aero.2009.4839639

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Plans can be presented in textual form (Mellish and Evans, 1989; Biundo et al, 2011; Bercher et al, 2014), and as visualizations (Küpper and Kobsa, 2003; Butler et al, 2007; Brown and Paik, 2009; McCurdy, 2009; Billman et al, 2011; de Leoni et al, 2012) (with some variants somewhere on a continuum). Given that users are variable in terms of their verbal working memory (Toker et al, 2012; Conati et al, 2014), the choice of modality is a candidate for design choice.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This fact has implicitly been taken into consideration in interactive learning environments (Freyne et al, 2007; Jae-Kyung et al, 2008). Color highlighting specifically is a recognized technique for adapting hypertext and hypermedia (Brusilovsky et al, 1996; Bra et al, 1999; Jae-Kyung et al, 2008; Knutlov et al, 2009), and is possibly the most commonly used type of emphasis (Butler et al, 2007; Brown and Paik, 2009; McCurdy, 2009; Billman et al, 2011; de Leoni et al, 2012), however systems also used other visual encodings to distinguish between different types of information such as relative differences in sizes and shapes (c.f., de Leoni et al, 2012). …”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Individual Differences in Working Memory on Plan Presentational Choices

Tintarev

Masthoff

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses research questions that are central to the area of visualization interfaces for decision support: (RQ1) whether individual user differences in working memory should be considered when choosing how to present visualizations; (RQ2) how to present the visualization to support effective decision making and processing; and (RQ3) how to evaluate the effectiveness of presentational choices. These questions are addressed in the context of presenting plans, or sequences of actions, to users. The experiments are conducted in several domains, and the findings are relevant to applications such as semi-autonomous systems in logistics. That is, scenarios that require the attention of humans who are likely to be interrupted, and require good performance but are not time critical. Following a literature review of different types of individual differences in users that have been found to affect the effectiveness of presentational choices, we consider specifically the influence of individuals' working memory (RQ1). The review also considers metrics used to evaluate presentational choices, and types of presentational choices considered. As for presentational choices (RQ2), we consider a number of variants including interactivity, aggregation, layout, and emphasis. Finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of plan presentational choices (RQ3) we adopt a layered-evaluation approach and measure performance in a dual task paradigm, involving both task interleaving and evaluation of situational awareness. This novel methodology for evaluating visualizations is employed in a series of experiments investigating presentational choices for a plan. A key finding is that emphasizing steps (by highlighting borders) can improve effectiveness on a primary task, but only when controlling for individual variation in working memory.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Individual Differences in Working Memory on Plan Presentational Choices

Tintarev

Masthoff

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though the analysis clearly showed coordination was important, our project resource limitations meant that we could not support actual communication tasks; we needed to address work of an individual, while being sensitive to the (asynchronous) communicative context in which individual work is embedded. We showed ADCO experts an existing planning and scheduling tool, developed by an HCI group at NASA Ames for other mission control groups (McCurdy, 2009; McCurdy, Ludowise, Marquez, & Li, 2009). The ADCO experts responded enthusiastically to this planning tool, developed for a different set of Mission Control functions, and we used this existing platform as our basis to enable rapid development of a new prototype for ADCO.…”

Section: Needs Analysis Process and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Needs Analysis and Technology Alignment Method

Billman

Feary

Schreckenghost

et al. 2015

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our research (reported in two parts) improved software for a NASA Mission Controller group for the International Space Station and provided evidence for a key factor we believed contributed to the expected improvement. This factor is the degree of alignment of the technology to the structure of the work it is intended to support, or its fitness-for-purpose. This paper, Part 1, reports our needs analysis and software redesign, which provide specific and more general contributions. The specific contribution was new prototype software for planning work of the Attitude Determination and Control Officer group, who schedules trajectory and orientation changes of the International Space Station, with its Russian counterparts. The general contribution was a new needs analysis method, productdocument analysis, a general design-process benefit. Product document analysis is a method complementary to task analysis and work domain analysis. Our needs analysis method characterized the high-level structure required of acceptable plans in terms of the plan components and their relations and constraints. The redesigned software was better aligned with the structure of work, as captured by needs analysis. We discuss conditions when product-document analysis may be useful.

show abstract

“…During the MER missions, McCurdy observed that the automated planning tools were not used very frequently. 9 McCurdy hypothesized that this was for two reasons: that it was impossible to capture all science constraints in the planning tools, and that the automatically-generated schedules were difficult to understand. In the next generation of Martian planning tools, the Phoenix Science Interface (PSI), changes were made to involve humans more in the decision process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,9 The tools used during these missions are somewhat different from SEXTANT in that they are used for temporal scheduling, and not path planning. However, the lessons learned regarding automation are still very pertinent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrated Traverse Planner and Analysis Tool for Planetary Exploration

Johnson¹,

Hoffman²,

Newman³

et al. 2010

AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference &Amp; Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Future planetary explorations will require surface traverses of unprecedented frequency, length, and duration. As a result, there is need for exploration support tools to maximize productivity, scientific return, and safety. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is currently developing such a system, called the Surface Exploration Traverse Analysis and Navigation Tool (SEXTANT). The goal of this system is twofold: to allow for realistic simulations of traverses in order to assist with hardware design, and to give astronauts an aid that will allow for more autonomy in traverse planning and re-planning. SEXTANT is a MATLAB-based tool that incorporates a lunar elevation model created from data from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter instrument aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft. To assist in traverse planning, SEXTANT determines the most efficient path across a planetary surface for astronauts or transportation rovers between user-specified Activity Points. The path efficiency is derived from any number of metrics: the traverse distance, traverse time, or the explorer's energy consumption. The generated path, display of traverse obstacles, and selection of Activity Points are visualized in a 3D mapping interface. After a traverse has been planned, SEXTANT is capable of computing the most efficient path back home, or "walkback", from any point along the traverse -an important capability for emergency operations. SEXTANT also has the ability to determine shadowed and sunlit areas along a lunar traverse. This data is used to compute the thermal load on suited astronauts and the solar power generation capacity of rovers over the entire traverse. These both relate directly to the explorer's consumables, which place strict constraints on the traverse. This paper concludes by presenting three example traverses, detailing how SEXTANT can be used to plan and modify paths for both explorer types.

show abstract

Planning tools for Mars surface operations: Human-Computer Interaction lessons learned

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Effects of Individual Differences in Working Memory on Plan Presentational Choices

Effects of Individual Differences in Working Memory on Plan Presentational Choices

Needs Analysis and Technology Alignment Method

An Integrated Traverse Planner and Analysis Tool for Planetary Exploration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About