Effects of incremented auditory feedback on remote vehicle operator task performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote vehicle operators (RVO) work in a sensory-deprived environment. A reduction or absence of sensory cueing like auditory feedback, combined with variable workload, has been attributed to a number of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) accidents. Therefore, this research sought to understand the relationship between workload and dynamic auditory feedback on RVO task performance. Twenty-four participants completed a counterbalanced series of decision-making (spatial orientation accuracy) and perception (spotting accuracy) tasks in an automated beyond visual line of sight environment, under varying workload and auditory volume levels. The management style employed by participants in dealing with the auditory information was also measured and compared with decision-making performance. A relative decline in spatial orientation accuracy was evident when auditory feedback was considered “soft” or “loud” (±10 dBA) compared with a participant-defined comfortable volume level, but contingent on an adequate level of workload experienced concurrently. From an applied perspective, these findings support the inclusion of adaptive auditory systems in future Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) designs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".