On the Impact of Interruptions During Multi-Robot Supervision Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human supervisors in multi-robot systems are primarily responsible for monitoring robots, but can also be assigned with secondary tasks. These tasks can act as interruptions and can be categorized as either intrinsic, i.e., being directly related to the monitoring task, or extrinsic, i.e., being unrelated. In this paper, we investigate the impact of these two types of interruptions through a user study (N = 39), where participants monitor a number of remote mobile robots while intermittently being interrupted by either a robot fault correction task (intrinsic) or a messaging task (extrinsic). We find that task performance of participants does not change significantly with the interruptions but depends greatly on the number of robots. However, interruptions result in an increase in perceived workload, and extrinsic interruptions have a more negative effect on workload across all NASA-TLX scales. Participants also reported switching between extrinsic interruptions and the primary task to be more difficult compared to the intrinsic interruption case. Statistical significance of these results is confirmed using ANOVA and one-sample t-test. These findings suggest that when deciding task assignment in such supervision systems, one should limit interruptions from secondary tasks, especially extrinsic ones, in order to limit user workload.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".