Multi-robot systems that combine the complementary capabilities of specialised platforms are critical for complex missions in challenging, inaccessible environments. Current deployments assign an operator or operator team to each robot, with collaboration relying on operator-to-operator communication to manually coordinate heterogeneous platforms with incompatible interfaces. This operator-dependent approach increases cognitive load and limits scalability across robots from different manufacturers. This study designs and evaluates a shared-visualisation collaborative teleoperation interface to improve operator coordination, situational awareness, and the task performance in multi-operator, multi-robot systems. A comparative user study with 16 participants compared three teleoperation conditions: co-located operators with a shared interface, remote operators with a shared interface, and co-located operators with individual interfaces. Participants controlled two simulated robots in a nuclear power plant digital twin to complete disaster response tasks. Performance metrics, physiological data, and behavioural measures were recorded to assess task performance, cognitive load, and operator awareness across conditions. The co-located shared-interface condition achieved the fastest mission completion (292.8 s), outperforming remote operation (351.6 s) and individual interfaces (385.1 s), with the fewest collisions (0.9 per trial) and highest situational awareness accuracy (91.1 %). Physical co-presence was associated with reduced cognitive load, with NASA-TLX scores increasing from 38.2 in co-located to 57.7 in remote operation, supported by consistent physiological indicators. These results demonstrate that co-presence and shared interfaces provide complementary benefits, supporting workload regulation and mutual awareness respectively in multi-operator, multi-robot teleoperation.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.