The Effects of Predictive Displays on Performance in Driving Tasks with Multi-Second Latency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tele-operation of a Lunar rover from a control station on Earth involves a latency of several seconds due primarily to the finite speed (light-speed) of command and sensor signals, and this latency creates a difficult control task for the human operator. Two predictive displays, which seek to aid viewer perception of present events, were designed and evaluated for the specific task of driving a rover with multi-second latency. These displays provided visual information to the human operator on the rover’s real-time locomotion, as predicted from control inputs executed by the operator. A human-subject experiment with 12 participants was conducted in which the participants navigated an actual rover through obstacle courses. There were four experimental conditions repeated by each participant: (1) delayed video feed only, (2, 3) two predictive displays based on delayed video feed, and (4) a reference condition of video feed with no delay. Inferential statistics show that both predictive displays significantly improved performance in terms of time taken to complete the courses, and one of the displays facilitated performance approaching that with no delay. No trends were observed in terms of collisions with or encroachments near obstacles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".