Piloting aSAAB Seaeye Panther-XT Plus

workclass underwater ROV

presented by:

Vikram RazdanAdvanced Engineering Design

Brunel UniversityDec 2013

Human Factors Design Review

Pages 1 – 15: Human Factors ReviewAppendix A: Transcript of phone interview with Seaeye’s Technical Sales Engineer

Appendix B: List of Tables and Figures

IntroductionWhat is an ROV?• A Remote Operated Vehicle, commonly referred to as an ROV, is a tethered underwater vehicle, and is

quite common in underwater/subsea industries. ROVs are unoccupied, highly manoeuvrable and operated by a person aboard a vessel or ashore. (www.rovs.eu, ROV Training Center).

• ROVs have found increasing use within the subsea oil&gas industry over the last 10 years as oil&gas exploration and production has entered deep waters (> 500 metres depth), where it is not possible for air and saturation divers to operate.

• The ROV Pilot is responsible for manual control of the ROV (submersible) based on video feedback from cameras and sonar.

The ROV System and Piloting

Controller ControlConsole

Cable

Tether

Submersible (ROV)

Video Monitor

Fig. 1: Basic ROV Layout (Christ and Wernli, 2007)

ROV

Tether

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Human Factors involved in the Piloting Panther XTP and suggest design changes, if any.

Fig. 2: Computer generated image depicting The ROV World, www.cqci.org

1

3281 feet (1000 metres)

Panther-XT Plus ROV

Panther XTP is a robot with autopilot and obstacle avoidance sonar. A complex machine operated by the ROV Pilot in a harsh underwater environment, based on work on the concept of Augmented Reality (Vasilijevic et al. 2013). The complexity increases since the ocean restricts the transmission of electromagnetic waves, including visible light (Ho et al. 2011)

Technical Information

(Fig. 3: History of ROVs, Oceaneering, 2013)

Forward (Surge)

Lateral

(Sway)

Heading or Depth (Heave)

Yaw

x

y

zRoll

Pitch

<= 4 knots

Six degrees

of freedom

Fig. 4: Six degrees of freedom of an ROV

Manipulator arms

Thrusters (8 horizontal

and 2 vertical)

2 Buoyancy tanks

Pan and Tilt for cameras

4 LED Lights

Additional tooling bolted to chassis

Compass, Gyro and Depth Sensors

Umbilical/Tether

2 Electronics Pods

Fig. 5: Key details of Panther-XT Plus ROV

2

ROV Pilot’s operating environment

Fig. 6: A typical Seaeye Panther-XT Plus Control Cabin

For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the ROV Pilot has the minimum required competency in operating an ROV from a sea going vessel, and all tooling, fitments and auxiliary services are as per the International Marine Contractors Association code of practice (ROV Mobilisation, Sept 2013, IMCA R 009 Rev. 1).

External Environment

Offshore Sea Vessel

Tether Management

System (TMS)

Seating

Multiple Video

Monitors

Surface Control Unit

ROV Hand Control Unit

Manipulator Controller

Keyboard

2D Visual Display

Manual Control

Posture

Internal Environment

Footswitch for TMS

Majority of the 12 hour shift time is

spent in Piloting the ROV (Fugro, 2013)

Power Supply Units

Fig. 7 : Panther-XT Plus ROV’s Pilot’s operating environment

3

ROV Launch and Recovery

System (LARS)

ROV Piloting issues

Risk to ROV from support vessel’s

thrusters and propellers

(IMCA Code of Practice, 2009)

Low visibility due to fouling of cameras by

pollutants (IMCA Code of Practice, 2009)

Maintain top, bottom and side clearances

when ROV is in close spaces

(BS EN ISO 13628-8:2006)

Lag in sonar signal propagation underwater

(Ho et al., 2011)

Effect on ROV buoyancy from water salinity / density variation

(Ho et al. 2011 and IMCA Code of Practice, 2009)

Poorly designed automation can negatively

impact operators (Parasuraman and Riley,

1997).

Multiple Low visibility due to

fouling of cameras by pollutants (IMCA Code of Practice, 2009)

Potential from information overload from multiple display

screens (Parasuraman, 2000)

Insufficient pan angle for the cameras

during work tasks

Risk of umbilical entanglement

(in free swimming ROVs)

ROV pitch (nose-up/nose-down) and roll adjustment

errors

Manipulator position control / accuracy

Acoustic interference if several vessels are operating in the area

(IMCA Code of Practice, 2009)

• ROV Pilot’s objective is to complete the allotted task with a high degree of accuracy and within the scheduled time.

• ROV Piloting is a difficult task mainly due to reduced sensory cues and poor spatial awareness from being physically removed from the operating environment (Ho et al., 2011).

ROV Pilot

Piloting a work class ROV like Panther-XT Plus involves a high degree of complexity

4

Evaluation of the Human FactorsHuman Factors involved

In ROV PilotingImportance

Rank Physical considerations

1. Situation Awareness 5 • Hand Control Unit with Joystick, Rotary knobs and Toggles

• Manipulator Master Controller• Footswitch for TMS (Tether

Management System) shut off

2. Mental workload 5

3. Trust in automation 4

4. Design of controls 4

5. Posture 4 • Seated for long hours with constant visual input from displays while using hand control

6. Anthropometric dimensions for Seating and Control Desk

4

7. Visual Display Layout 4• Multiple video monitors (2 to

6, depending upon cameras installed)

8. Task workload 3 • 12 hour shift• Pilot is part of 3 person crew• Deployed offshore 9. Communication 3

Tasks ToolingObservation Cameras

Inspection Sensors

Survey Sonar

Construction/ Intervention

Robotic arms/Special attachments

Burial/ Trenching Trenching equipment

Technical considerationsType of tooling

Free swimming or Tethered

Work or Observation

Shallow or Deepwater

Higher the technical consideration, higher the

complexity, leading to LOWER PERFORMANCE

and HUMAN ERRORS!

Task workload and Communication are operational Human Factor issues which depend upon several external factors (type/size of company, workforce culture, work contract, regulations) and are beyond the scope of this study.

By incorporating Human Factors based design changes in the Panther-XT Plus ROV, the Pilot performance can be improved and human errors minimised.

These are Human Factors which directly influence the design of the ROV and its Piloting, and will be the focus of this study

5

Importance rankings (High:5, Low:1) are based on literature review

1. Situation AwarenessEndsley (1995), defined Situation Awareness as "the perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.“. The crucial issue is the assimilation of the relevant sensory inputs, the processing of information pertinent to specified user goals, and the translation of the user’s subsequent decisions into effective action (Oron-Gilad et al. 2006). Jones and Endsley (1996) found out that 76% of errors happen due to shortcomings in perception of the needed information.

The term ‘Perception Enhancement System’ can be used to describe any device which optimises the feedback of environmental or vehicle stimuli to the driver (Giacomin, 2013)

Fig. 8: Schema, Mental Models and SA (Jones and Endsley, 2000)

Situation Awareness in Piloting Panther XTP ROV• In ROV Piloting, situation awareness is essentially

cognition of perception and data cues of the situation received from visual displays, comprehension of this situational information, and ability to project future status, with a view to achieve the desired goal based on underlying mental models/schema.

• The Panther XTP ROV Pilot performs the task based on a stream of sensory feedback delivered almost exclusively through visual displays augmented with location, depth and orientation information, just like Visual Augmented Reality (Visual AR).

Factors affecting SA in Piloting the Panther XTP ROV• The Pilot has to undertake tasks in a 3D environment based on visual 2D video feedback, which severely limits

spatial awareness/perception.• Insufficient pan angle for the cameras during work tasks when ROV is in locked/stationary position• Inadequate lighting/illumination essentially during observation tasks.• Lack of other sensory cues from the real world underwater (hearing, touch, ambient visual information, kinesthetic

and vestibular input - Flaherty et al. 2012)

6

Calhoun et al. 2006, presents the findings in the Table 1 on the right hand side, of research conducted over a few years at AFRL, Patterson Air Force Base, USA.

Sensory Interfaces with strong potential• Synthetic augmented view (using synthetic vision

technology, where images not captured by the camera are generated synthetically)

• Force feedback control sticks (such joysticks involve the use of haptic technology, by applying artificially generated forces, vibrations, and motions to the user - Flaherty et al. 2012)

• Speech-based input (for invoking simple buttons. Results showed that speech input was significantly better than manual input in terms of task completion time, task accuracy, flight/navigation measures, and pilot subjective ratings)

1(a). Situation Awareness: Assessment of Multi-Sensory Interfaces

Table 1: Results of the AFRL research at Patterson Air Force Base, USA

7

Use of speech-based input can reduce mental workload on the ROV Pilot significantly

Recommendations for Improving Situation Awareness in Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot

• Introduce 3D High Definition cameras to improve visual perception

• Introduce direct voice input (speech recognition) commands as replacement for the existing ‘keyboard’. The text from the voice input should be displayed on the Video monitor.

• Explore use of Force Feed Joysticks for sense of ‘touch’ while improving tactile perception

• Explore use of Audio Augmented Reality (Audio AR) in tandem with Visual AR to improve comprehension

• Explore the use of Synthetic Vision Technology for underwater imagery, especially for ROV observation work in areas of low visibility due to pollutants/debris.

2. Mental WorkloadCurry et al. 1979, cited defined mental workload as the mental effort that the human operator devotes to control or supervision relative to his capacity to expend mental effort. The workload is never greater than unity.

During a 12 hours shift, the ROV Pilot has to undertake long duration supervisory control tasks with heavy mental workload (approaching unity).

CBFV simulation for mental workload analysis

• Satterfield et al. (2012) have used Transcranial Doppler Sonography (TCD) for measuring Cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) during supervisory control of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in a simulated test with varying taskloads (transitions).

• CBFV results demonstrated that as task demands increased, operators expended more cognitive resources to meet this increase in task demand and vice versa.

• Tests also revealed two important cues: that the performance degraded significantly between transitions (change in taskloads) but improved after transition was completed.

Recommendations for reducing Mental Workload in Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot

• Explore ways of reducing dual or multiple task handling by ROV Pilots, since performance degradation is maximum during task transitions.

• Introduce a ‘switchover mechanism’ between the ROV Hand Control Unit and the Manipulator Master Controller so that the ROV Pilot can only operate one Control unit at a time (Emphasis on task completion to reduce mental workload and improve performance)

Fig. 9: Graphs showing results of study in Measuring workload during dynamic supervisory control (Satterfield et al. 2012)

8

3. Trust in Automation(Madsen and Gregor, 2000): “Trust is the extent to which a user is confident in, and willing to act on the basis of the recommendations, actions, and the decisions of a computer-based tool or decision aid.” Trust declines immediately after observing a malfunction in automation. whereas the growth or recovery of trust occurs relatively slowly (Lee and Moray, 1994). It has been argued (Itoh 2011) that an automated system should provide information on the purpose of the system and the limit of its capability in a clear manner.

System Trust issue System shortcomings Recommendations for Panther-XT Plus

Autopilot (AHRS/DVL) Overtrust Position errors in mid-waters (not highlighted by Seaeye)

Introduce ‘out of range’ audio warnings

Obstacle Avoidance Sonar

Undertrust Acoustic lag/disturbance underwater (pre-known to Pilots)

Provide audio warning as soon as there is a ‘drop in signal’

Manipulators Overtrust Position accuracy and control (no data available)

Explore the possibility of intelligent data capture and mining system to establish manipulator’s performance limits

Factors affecting ROV Pilot’s Trust in Automation• Panther XTP ROV pilot has to trust automatic systems (autopilot) and

semi-automatic systems (obstacle avoidance sonar, cameras, sensors, and manipulators) to perform the task underwater. If the autopilot, the sonar or the manipulator fails to perform satisfactorily even once, there would be a tendency to override/reject these systems.

• Panther XTP’s autopilot and navigation system (flux-gate compass and rate sensor) utilises Attitude and Heading Reference System (AHRS) and optional Doppler Velocity Logs (DVL) to establish a relative or dead reckoned position. This system is subject to time and distance based position errors and only operates accurately close to the seabed. This means that mid-water operations are conducted via manual control so real world or relative coordinates cannot be easily used by the ROV pilot (Sonardyne, 2012).

• Propagation delay of underwater acoustic communications is approx. 10 seconds at a distance of 7 km (Sayers et al., 1998)

Fig. 10, shows results of study involving impact of Robot failures and Feedback on Real-Time Trust (Desai et al. 2013). It confirms findings by Itoh, 2011 that Humans overtrust automation.

Fig. 10

9

4. Design of ControlsKnobs and switches: Observations, Trends and Standards

• LED lighted push button switches are being preferred again in the aviation industry since touch screens do not provide tactile feedback (Tech Report, Avionics Magazine, Aug 2005).

• Influence of backlash is negligible in knob control when error tolerance is around (0.18 mm) 0.007’’ (Jenkins and Connor, 1948)

• NASA (2008) has developed standards and recommendations for design of controls, as under:i. Continuous position rotary knobs are good for precise settings, but develop a parallax error. Clockwise

movement should indicate increase / ascending order.ii. Push buttons make efficient use of space, but state of activation is not always obvious. A square x-section is

recommended and surface of the push button should be concave to prevent slippage, and activation should be indicated by an audible click

iii. Toggle switches make efficient use of space, but require guards or shields to prevent accidental activation. Length of toggle should be between 19 and 25 mm for single finger operation. Toggle displacement should not exceed 80°. Spacing between toggles should be at least 15 mm for a toggle switchbank.

iv. 2- position Legend switches are good in low illumination (if self illuminated) and make efficient use of space.v. 2-position rocker switches make efficient use of space and do not snag clothing, but susceptible to

accidental activation.

Joystick (3-axis)

Push button Toggle switches

Rotary knob (big)

Rotary knob (small)

Fig. 11: Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit

Inadequacies in Existing Layout of the Hand Control Unit: Panther-XT Plus ROV

• Toggle switch On/Off positions not consistent (one switch has reverse On and Off position).

• Positioning of toggle switches is vertical instead of horizontal.• 6 Rotary knobs (small) positioned around Joystick are

susceptible to accidental movement.• Status of activation is not obvious on push-button switches.• Push-button surface is round which cannot prevent slipping of

finger.• Joystick location is improper since the user can inadvertently

move the toggle switches or the rotary switches

10

4(a). Design of ControlsProposed Layout of the Hand Control Unit of Panther-XT Plus

Recessed On/Off toggle

with guard

Rotary knob (25 mm ϕ) with serrations and digital

counter at bottom

Guards

Square push button switch

with concave top

3-axis Joystick

6 Rotary knobs (12 mm ϕ) with serrations and

digital counter at bottom

Fig. 12: Proposed Layout of the Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit

Recommendations / Proposed changes in Layout of Hand Control Unit

• Displays and/or controls that are functionally related located to be in proximity of one another.

• Discrete position switches to be on the left hand side.

• All rotary knobs except one (big) to be on the right hand side (right handed ROV Pilot).

• Provide recessed toggles with guards to prevent any accidental/inadvertent activation.• Ensure consistency in On/Off labels on toggles, with Off (up) and On (down).• Provide square push button switches with concave top surface to prevent finger from slipping.• Move Joystick to lower centre position towards the ROV Pilot for easy access while standing as well as sitting• Position the 6 Rotary knobs (small) on a staggered basis with 25 mm clearance between knobs to prevent

accidental/inadvertent activation

11

Postural issues and considerations when seated for long hours• Posture in seating is a static posture (Jones and Barker, 1996). A relaxed sitting posture is when the pelvis is tilted

backwards and lordosis (lumbar curvature) is maintained (Jones and Barker, 1996)• About 33% of visual display terminal (VDT) users experience back and neck pain (Yoo and Kim, 2006 cited in Daian

et al. 2007)• Lumbar pain is the most influential on seating comfort, followed by neck and dorsal pain. A key factor

influencing lumbar and dorsal pain is mobility: static postures provoke more pain, while small and quick movements alleviate it. (Vergara and Page, 2002)

• A minimum trunk-thigh angle of 105° is necessary to preserve lumbar lordosis (Harrison et. Al 2000), whereas the optimum seat-back angle appears to be 120° from horizontal. The seat height should be less than the distance from knee to feet to eliminate pressure on the posterior popliteal area, and the lumbar support optimum appears to be 5 cm of protrusion from the seat back (Harrison et al. 1999).

• Harrison et.al (2007) concluded that a 0 to 10° seat bottom, posteriorly inclined, gives the best comfort.

5. Posture

Fig. 13: Group of postures for 6 participants when sitting in a chair (Vergara and Page, 1999)Fig. 14: Participant with electrodes measuring contact with backrest

Analysis of the Posture results from Table 2• Group 3 is the best sitting posture since its gives

the least discomfort for lumbar and neck pain.• Group 2 sitting posture gives the least dorsal

pain.Table 2: % Frequency of body part discomfort (Vergara and Page, 1999)

12

Head position• A 30° declined gaze as a result of the horizontal nasion-

opisthion reference line is recommended by ergonomists as a good working position (Vital and Senegas 1986, cited in Harrison et al. 1999).

• There should be minimal anterior translation and/or flexion of the head, since it has been shown to reduce sitting stress (Harrison et al. 1999)

• By changing the backrest-horizontal angle from 120° to 105° and thigh-horizontal angle (seat bottom inclination) from 10° to 0°, head flexion can be reduced from 30° to 15°.

5(a). Posture: Head position and Optimal Seating

Fig. 15: Representation of optimal sitting posture for an ROV Pilot Optimal seating posture considering lumbar,

dorsal, thigh and head positions

Recommendations for ROV Pilot Posture and Seating • ROV Pilots should be advised to shift posture at an interval of around 5 minutes.• The seat backrest should have a limit in flexibility between 105° and 120°.• The seat bottom should be inclined backwards between 0° and 10°.• Arm-rests to be provided, and should be adjustable up-down, depending upon the ROV Pilot’s size.• Lumbar support of 5 cm protrusion to be provided with up-down adjustment as for arm-rests.• Seat height should be adjustable.• There should be space below seat bottom to allow backward movement of legs during shifting of posture

13

Inadequacies in Seating and Control desk: Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot• The Seaeye Panther-XT Plus ROV Pilot sits on a standard ‘operator seat’ with castors, fixed arm rests, adjustable

height and reclining backrest (see Fig. 7, Page 5). Since arm-rests are not adjustable and backrests do not have adjustable lumbar support with a reclining limit of 120°, there is a likelihood of ROV Pilots developing back and neck pain.

• The control desk has a flat top surface onto which the Hand Control Unit and/or the Manipulator Master Control Unit are placed without fixtures, thereby raising the effective working height for the ROV Pilot with no use of arm-rests and increased discomfort.

• The control desk front side has not been standardised and has a flat panel for some fitments. This hinders free movement of the Pilot’s legs during shifting of posture.

Table 3: Anthropometric dimensions for chairs (Applied Ergonomics, 1970)

6. Anthropometric dimensions for Seating and Control desk

Seating and Desk height dimensions recommended (Refer to Table 3)

• Seat width (F) to be 415 mm (95th percentile women)

• Seat bottom length (B) to be 420 mm (5 th percentile women)

• Seat height (A) adjustable from 360 mm to 450 mm (5 th percentile women to 95th percentile men)

• Backrest height (D) to be 635 mm (95th percentile men)

• Arm-rest height (C) adjustable between 180 mm to 265 mm (5th percentile women to 95th percentile men)

• Footrest height to be 60 mm (difference between 50 th percentile women and 95th percentile men)

• The control desk underside height to be 765 mm (95 th percentile men) i.e. be (A + C) plus 50 mm clearance. Adjustable footrests to be provided for <95th percentile

14

7. Visual Display LayoutEyes: blind spot

• Each eye has a large blind region, about 4° of visual angle (Scholarpedia, 2013).

• The blind spot measure in the left eye is around 10° to the left of optic axis, and the one in the right eye, equally far out on the other side (Scholarpedia, 2013)

Fig. 17: Blind spot in Human Eye

The Human Eye has visual acuity up to 9° Visual Angle for each eyeScovil et al. 2009, mention that the human eye focuses incoming light rays most accurately on the fovea, the retinal area of the greatest visual acuity (visual angle <2.5°). The surrounding macula (visual angle <9°) also provides high acuity, beyond which the visual acuity decreases.

586 mm

Recommendations / Proposed Changes in Layout of Visual Displays

• It is important that the centre of the ROV main Video LCD Monitor be at height lower than the eyes considering the 30° inclination of gaze angle. Additional Monitors should be installed at the same height as the main monitor on either side.

• For a 15 inch LCD Monitor (vertical screen height = 186 mm), the ideal viewing distance is 586 mm

• Ensure that any textual data on the Video Monitors in not line with the blind spots of either eye.

Hand Control Unit

ManipulatorMaster Controller

3 Video LCD Monitors at same level

Fig. 19: Proposed layout of the Video Monitors

70 mm recess in the Control

Desk

586 mm

Fig. 18: Recommended distance of the Video Monitor from ROV Pilot’s eye

15 inch Video LCD Monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio

(Screen height 186 mm)

Visual Angle 18°

Arm-rest

15

Transcript of phone Interview(page 1 of 2)

 Q1: Is Seaeye involved in Research with Universities?Ans: No. However, Seaeye were recently contacted by a UK University to do studies on buoyancy control using Seaeye Falcon ROV Q2: How many Video Displays are provided with the Panther-XP Plus ROV?Ans: It depends on the number of Cameras. Two cameras are normally supplied by us (one colour and one black & white with wide angle). Q3: Has Seaeye conducted any studies on the Orion 7P and Orion 4R Manipulators to ascertain their accuracy limits?Ans: No. Schilling Orion 7P (position type) manipulator is recommended by Seaeye instead of Orion 4R (rate type) since positional control is easier to manage than rate control. Seaeye have only supplied Orion 7P manipulators till date. Q4: How is the Orion 7P Manipulator powered hydraulically?Ans: For the manipulators, there is a dedicated HPU (powered by thrusters) which supplies hydraulic power. The sledge-mounted auxiliary HPU is not used for manipulators. Q5: What type of functions are controlled by the Hand Control Unit? and Is the Manipulator Master Control Unit linked to the Hand Control Unit?Ans: The Hand Control Unit has a Joystick (knob type), some rotary switches (0 to 180 °) as standard (for pan and tilt control, lighting) and switches for safety thruster. The Manipulator Master Control Unit is not controlled by the Hand Control Unit, and is operated separately. The Manipulator Controller is placed side-by-side to the Hand Control Unit. Seaeye expects two operators (Pilots) to work at the same time, one for manoeuvring the ROV and the other for to manipulate the arm (Orion 7P).

Appendix AGary Burrows (Technical Sales Engineer, Seaeye). 2013. Panther-XT Plus ROV Piloting. Interviewed by Vikram Razdan. [Phone] Fareham, Hampshire, 3rd December 2013.

Transcript of phone Interview(page 2 of 2)

Q6: What type of lighting is supplied and are there any options?Ans: Seaeye supplies ‘white’ light LED lamps with the ROV. Only on one occasion, Seaeye have supplied ‘green’ light LED lamps to a customer. We have had a customer who mentioned about using ‘blue’ LED lighting on other ROVs. Q7: What the range of the Avoidance Sonar?Ans: Cannot remember. Will have to look up the datasheet. Q8: Have there been any issues with regards to controls on the Hand Control Unit?Ans: We have had an issue with one ROV Pilot not happy after the ‘lighting intensity’ control was changed recently from a ‘press-switch’ to ‘rotary knob’ on the Hand Control Unit.

Appendix A

Appendix BTables

Table 1: Results of the AFRL research at Patterson Air Force Base, USA (Calhoun et al. 2006) ………. Page 7

Table 2: % Frequency of body part discomfort (Vergara and Page, 1999) ………. Page 12

Table 3: Anthropometric dimensions for chairs (Applied Ergonomics, 1970) ………. Page 14

FiguresFig. 1: Basic ROV Layout (Christ and Wernli, 2007) ………. Page 1

Fig. 2: Computer generated image depicting The ROV World, www.cqci.org ………. Page 1

Fig. 3: History of ROVs, Oceaneering, 2013 ………. Page 2

Fig. 4: Six degrees of freedom of an ROV ………. Page 2

Fig. 5: Key details of Panther-XT Plus ROV ………. Page 2

Fig. 6: A typical Seaeye Panther-XT Plus Control Cabin ………. Page 3

Fig. 7 : Panther-XT Plus ROV’s Pilot’s operating environment ………. Page 3

Fig. 8: Schema, Mental Models and SA (Jones and Endsley, 2000) ………. Page 6

Fig. 9: Graphs showing results of study in Measuring workload during dynamic supervisory control (Satterfield et al. 2012) ………. Page 10

Fig. 10: The robot’s perceived performance rating and self performance rating on a semantic differential scale (7=excellent and 1=poor)………. Page 11

Fig. 11: Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit ………. Page 12

Fig. 12: Proposed Layout of the Panther-XT Plus Hand Control Unit ………. Page 11

Fig. 13: Group of postures for 6 participants when sitting in a chair (Vergara and Page, 1999) ………. Page 12

FiguresFig. 14: Participant with electrodes measuring contact with backrest ………. Page 12

Fig. 15: Representation of optimal sitting posture for an ROV Pilot ………. Page 13

Fig. 16: Center of mass and neutral resting head posture ………. Page 13

Fig. 17: Blind spot in Human Eye ………. Page 15

Fig. 18: Recommended distance of the Video Monitor from ROV Pilot’s eye ………. Page 15

Fig. 19: Proposed layout of the Video Monitors ………. Page 15

Appendix B

Bibliography• BP. 2012. ROV Operations – Tools and Resources (pdf). Available at:

<http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/sustainability/safety/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/ROV_Operations_Tools_Resources.pdf> [Accessed: 28 th November 2013]

• Calhoun, G.L., Draper, M.H., 2006. Multi-sensory interfaces for Remotely Operated Vehicles, UAV Human Factors. In: E. Salas. ed. 2006. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research: Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, Volume 7. London: Emerald Publishing Group. [e-book] pp. 21 – 33. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2 nd December 2013]

• Christ, R.D., Wernli Sr, R.S., 2007. The ROV Manual: A User Guide for Remotely Operated Vehicles. 1st ed. London: Elsevier.

• Daian, I., van Ruiten, A., Visser, A., Zubic, S., 2007. Sensitive chair: a force sensing chair with multimodal real-time feedback via agent. Proceedings of the 14th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, [e-journal] pp. 163 – 166. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 6th December 2013]

• De Souza, E.C; De Souza, E.C; Maruyama, N; Maruyama, N., 2007. Intelligent UUVs: Some issues on ROV dynamic positioning. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, [e-journal] Volume 43, Issue 1, pp. 214 – 226. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 23rd November 2013]

• Desai, M., Kaniarasu, P., Medvedev, M., Steinfeld, A., Yanco, H., 2013. Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), [e-journal] pp. 251 – 258. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2nd December 2013]

• Endsley, M. R., Jones, D. G, (2011), Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design. 2nd ed. GB: CRC Press

• Flaherty, S. R., Fern, L., Turpin, T., Scheff, S., 2012. Universal Ground Control Station (UGCS) joystick evaluation. IEEE Aerospace Conference, [e-journal] pp. 1 – 15. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 10 th December 2013].

• Giacomin, J,. 2013. Perception enhancement for Automotive Steering Systems. 7th Annual Conference Steering Systems 2013, Frankfurt, Germany (pdf). Available at: http://www.perceptionenhancement.com/docs/seminar/Steering%20Systems%202013.pdf [Accessed: 8 th December 2013]

• Giacomin., J., 2013). Human Factors in Design course notes. Brunel University.• Gurari, N., Okamura, A.M., 2007. Human Performance in a Knob-Turning Task. Second Joint EuroHaptics

Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC'07), [e-journal] pp. 96 – 101. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 10 th December 2013]

• Harrison, D.D., Harrison, S.O., Croft, A.C., Harrison, D.E., Troyanovich, S.J.,1999. Sitting biomechanics Part I: Review of the Literature. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, [e-journal] Volume 22, Issue 9, Pages 594–609. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5 th December 2013]

• Harrison, D.D., Harrison, S.O., Croft, A.C., Harrison, D.E., Troyanovich, S.J., 2000. Sitting Biomechanics, Part II: Optimal Car Driver’s Seat and Optimal Driver’s Spinal Model. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, [e-journal] Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 37–47. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5 th December 2013]

• Ho, G., Pavlovic, N., Arrabito, R., 2011. Human factors issues with operating unmanned underwater vehicles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, [e-journal] vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 429– 433. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 30th November 2013]

• Itoh, M., 2011. A model of trust in automation: Why humans over-trust? SICE Annual Conference, [e-journal] pp. 198 – 201. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 1st December 2013]

• Jasiobedzki, P., Se, S., Bondy, M., Jakola, R. (2008). Underwater 3D mapping and pose estimation for ROV operations. OCEANS 2008, [e-journal] pp. 1 – 6. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5 th December 2013]

Bibliography

• Jenkins, L.J., Connor, M.B., 1948. Some design factors in making settings on a Linear scale. In: N. Moray, ed. 2005. Ergonomics, Volume II. Skills, Displays, Controls and Mental Workload. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis. pp. 345-359.

• Jones, K., Barker, K. 1996. Human Movement Explained.1sr ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

• Kreuzer, E., and Pinto, F.C., 1996. Controlling the position of a remotely operated underwater vehicle. Applied Mathematics and Computation, [e-journal] Volume 78, Issue 2, pp. 175 – 185. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 23 rd November 2013]

• LED Push-Button Switch Lighting: A Successor to Incandescent. 2005. The Tech Report, Avionics Magazine (pdf). Available at: http://www.aviationtoday.com/Assets/AVS_0805_Aerospace_Tech.pdf [Accessed: 10 th December 2013)

• Lee, J.D., Moray, N., 1994. Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, [e-journal] Volume 40, Issue 1, pp. 153 – 184. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2nd December 2013]

• Liu H., Costa, R.R., Lizarralde, F., Da Cunha, J.P.V.S., 2000. Dynamic positioning of remotely operated underwater vehicles. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, [e-journal] Volume 7, Issue 3, pp. 21 – 31. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 24 th November 2013]

• Marine Advanced Technology Education Center. 1999. ROV Technicians, Remotely Operated Vehicles’, Knowledge and Skill Guidelines for Marine Science and Technology, Volume 3 (pdf). Available at:<http://www.marinetech.org/files/marine/files/Workforce/KSG_ROV%20techFINAL.pdf> [Accessed: 30 th November 2013].

• Menon, M., Dixon, T., Tena, I. ,2013. Resolving subsea navigation, tracking and positioning issues by utilising Smart ROV Control system software. MTS/IEEE OCEANS – Bergen, [e-journal] pp. 1 – 8. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 22 nd November 2013]

• Merritt, S.M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., Lee, D., 2013. I trust it, but I don't know why: effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human factors, [e-journal] Volume 55, Issue 3, pp. 520 – 534. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 1st December 2013]

Bibliography

• Moray, N., Inagaki, T., 1999. Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement & Control, [e-journal] Volume 21, Issue 4-5, pp. 203 – 211. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2 nd December 2013]

• NASA, 2008. Man-System Integration Standards, [online]. Available at http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section09.htm [Accessed 9th December 2013].

• Oceaneering. nd. History of ROVs [Online]. Available at: http://www.oceaneering.com/oceanmedia/rov/rovtutorial/index.html [Accessed: 24 th October 2013]

• Oron-Gilad, T., Chen, J.Y.C., Hancock, P.A. (2006).Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) from the Top-Down and the Bottom-Up. In: E. Salas. ed. 2006. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research: Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, Volume 7. London: Emerald Publishing Group. [e-book] Volume 7, pp. 37 – 47. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 4 th December 2013]

• Parsuraman, R., 2000. Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models. Ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 43, Issue 7, pp. 931 – 951. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 1st December 2013]

• ROV Pilots / Technicians. Fugro Offshore Survey Career Opportunities [Online]. Available at http://www.fugro.com/careers/msdrovpilots.asp [Accessed: 5 th December 2013]

• Satterfield, K., Ramirez, R., Shaw, T., Parasuraman, R., 2012. Measuring workload during a dynamic supervisory control task using cerebral blood flow velocity and the NASA-TLX. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting [e-journal] 56: 163-167. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 1st December 2013]

• Scovil, C.Y., Scovil, C.Y., King, E.C., King, E.C., Maki, B.E., Maki, B.E., 2009. Determining the Visual Angle of Objects in the Visual Field: An Extended Application of Eye Trackers. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, [e-journal] Volume 56, Issue 3, pp. 910 – 912. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 8 th December 2013]

Bibliography

• Seating in industry (1970), In: Carayon. P and Parsons K.C. ed.nd. Applied Ergonomics: Human Factors in Technology and Society. London: McGraw-Hill. [e-book] Volume 1, Issue 3, pp. 159 – 165. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5 th December 2013]

• Sniderman, Z., 2011. How Does 3D Technology Work? [Online]. Available at <http://mashable.com/2011/02/07/how-does-3d-work/>[Accessed: 5 th December 2013]

• Snyder, J.,2010. Doppler Velocity Log (DVL) navigation for observation-class ROVs . Oceans 2010, [e-journal] pp. 1 – 9. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 2nd December 2013].

• Sonardyne and Oceaneering demonstrate ROV dynamic positioning capabilities [Online]. Available at: http://www.sonardyne.com/news-a-events/all-news-articles/992-sonardyne-and-oceaneering-demonstrate-rov-dynamic-positioning-capabilities.html [Accessed 3rd December 2013]

• The Blind Spot [Online]. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/The_Blind_Spot [Accessed: 7 th December 2013]

• Vasilijevic, A,, Miskovic, N., Vukic, Z., 2013. Comparative assessment of human machine interfaces for ROV guidance with different levels of secondary visual workload. 21st Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, [e-journal] pp. 1292 – 1297. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 29 th November 2013]

• Vergara, M., Page, A., 2000. System to measure the use of the backrest in sitting-posture office tasks. Applied ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 31, Issue 3, pp. 247 – 254. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 6 th December 2013]

• Vergara, M., Page, A., 2002. Relationship between comfort and back posture and mobility in sitting-posture. Applied Ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 1–8. Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 6 th December 2013]

• Verver, M.M. , de Lange, R., van Hoof, J., Wismans, J.H.S.M., 2005. Aspects of seat modelling for seating comfort analysis. Applied Ergonomics, [e-journal] Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 33–42. . Available through: Brunel University Library website <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library> [Accessed: 5 th December 2013]

• What are ROVs? [Online]. Available at:<http://www.rovs.eu/#!what-are-rovs/c9ys> [Accessed: 29th November 2013]

Bibliography