Usability Evaluation of Warning Cues for Remotely Supervised Autonomous Agricultural Machines.

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Anita C Ezeagba, Sebastian Lorenz, Cheryl M Glazebrook, Danny D Mann
{"title":"Usability Evaluation of Warning Cues for Remotely Supervised Autonomous Agricultural Machines.","authors":"Anita C Ezeagba, Sebastian Lorenz, Cheryl M Glazebrook, Danny D Mann","doi":"10.13031/jash.16543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Compared visual-auditory and visual-tactile modalities for AAM supervision. Both modalities are highly usable, with preferences shaped by farming experience. Non-farming participants responded faster to visual-auditory cues. User background influenced warning design effectiveness and interface needs.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>As autonomous agricultural machines (AAMs) become more prevalent, effective communication through warning systems is essential for safe and efficient remote supervision. This study evaluated the usability and cue effectiveness of two bimodal warning modalities (visual-auditory (VA) and visual-tactile (VT)) during a simulated remote supervision task. Usability was assessed from the supervisor's perspective using the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ). Cue effectiveness was examined through objective performance-based measures aligned with three situation awareness levels: (1) noticeability and response time as measures of perception, (2) accuracy and comprehension time as measures of comprehension, and (3) accuracy and projection time as measures of projection. Thirty participants (5 with farming experience and 25 without farming experience) interacted with a simulated human-machine interface (HMI). Both modalities received high usability ratings, although the visual-tactile was rated more favorably by farming participants. Projection accuracy was significantly lower for farming participants using visual-auditory cues (86.7%), χ²(3, N = 540) = 5.37, p = .147. Although comprehension accuracy differed slightly across modalities-particularly among farming participants-these differences were minimal and not statistically significant. In contrast, non-farming participants exhibited significantly faster saccadic and manual response times to visual-auditory warnings, t(24) = 3.16, p = .004 and t(24) = 3.56, p = .002, respectively. Comprehension and projection times did not differ significantly by modality. Subjective preferences aligned with performance trends; non-farming participants favored visual-auditory cues, while farming participants preferred visual-tactile cues. Correlation analyses indicated that faster comprehension strongly predicted higher usability, and task accuracy was perfectly correlated with usability ratings. These findings underscore the influence of user experience on multimodal warning efficacy and support the need for adaptive, user-informed interface designs in AAM supervision.</p>","PeriodicalId":45344,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","volume":"32 1","pages":"17-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.16543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Highlights: Compared visual-auditory and visual-tactile modalities for AAM supervision. Both modalities are highly usable, with preferences shaped by farming experience. Non-farming participants responded faster to visual-auditory cues. User background influenced warning design effectiveness and interface needs.

Abstract: As autonomous agricultural machines (AAMs) become more prevalent, effective communication through warning systems is essential for safe and efficient remote supervision. This study evaluated the usability and cue effectiveness of two bimodal warning modalities (visual-auditory (VA) and visual-tactile (VT)) during a simulated remote supervision task. Usability was assessed from the supervisor's perspective using the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ). Cue effectiveness was examined through objective performance-based measures aligned with three situation awareness levels: (1) noticeability and response time as measures of perception, (2) accuracy and comprehension time as measures of comprehension, and (3) accuracy and projection time as measures of projection. Thirty participants (5 with farming experience and 25 without farming experience) interacted with a simulated human-machine interface (HMI). Both modalities received high usability ratings, although the visual-tactile was rated more favorably by farming participants. Projection accuracy was significantly lower for farming participants using visual-auditory cues (86.7%), χ²(3, N = 540) = 5.37, p = .147. Although comprehension accuracy differed slightly across modalities-particularly among farming participants-these differences were minimal and not statistically significant. In contrast, non-farming participants exhibited significantly faster saccadic and manual response times to visual-auditory warnings, t(24) = 3.16, p = .004 and t(24) = 3.56, p = .002, respectively. Comprehension and projection times did not differ significantly by modality. Subjective preferences aligned with performance trends; non-farming participants favored visual-auditory cues, while farming participants preferred visual-tactile cues. Correlation analyses indicated that faster comprehension strongly predicted higher usability, and task accuracy was perfectly correlated with usability ratings. These findings underscore the influence of user experience on multimodal warning efficacy and support the need for adaptive, user-informed interface designs in AAM supervision.

远程监督自主农业机械预警线索的可用性评估。
重点:比较视觉-听觉和视觉-触觉方式对AAM的监督。这两种模式都是高度可用的,其偏好取决于农业经验。非农业参与者对视觉-听觉线索的反应更快。用户背景影响警告设计的有效性和界面需求。摘要:随着自主农业机械(AAMs)的日益普及,通过预警系统进行有效的通信对于安全高效的远程监控至关重要。本研究评估了两种双峰预警模式(视觉-听觉(VA)和视觉-触觉(VT))在模拟远程监督任务中的可用性和提示有效性。可用性评估从主管的角度使用计算机系统可用性问卷(CSUQ)。线索有效性是通过客观的基于表现的测量方法来检验的,这些测量方法与三个情境意识水平相一致:(1)知觉的注意性和反应时间,(2)理解的准确性和理解时间,以及投射的准确性和投射时间。30名参与者(5名有农业经验,25名没有农业经验)通过模拟人机界面(HMI)进行交互。这两种方式都获得了很高的可用性评价,尽管视觉触觉的评价更受农业参与者的欢迎。使用视觉-听觉线索的农业参与者投影准确率显著低于86.7%,χ 2 (3, N = 540) = 5.37, p = 0.147。尽管不同模式的理解准确度略有不同,尤其是在农业参与者中,但这些差异很小,没有统计学意义。相比之下,非农业参与者对视觉-听觉警告表现出更快的眼动和手动反应时间,t(24) = 3.16, p = 0.004和t(24) = 3.56, p = 0.002。理解和投射时间在模态上没有显著差异。主观偏好与业绩趋势一致;非农业参与者更喜欢视觉-听觉线索,而农业参与者更喜欢视觉-触觉线索。相关分析表明,理解速度越快预测可用性越高,任务准确度与可用性评分完全相关。这些发现强调了用户体验对多模态预警效果的影响,并支持在AAM监督中需要自适应的、用户知情的界面设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书