ISSN 2079-6617 (Print)
ISSN 2309-9828 (Online)
Engineering-psychological problems of unmanned aerial vehicles interface design.

Engineering-psychological problems of unmanned aerial vehicles interface design.

PDF (Rus)

Recieved: 02/06/2020

Accepted: 02/15/2020

Published: 03/31/2020

p.: 31-39

DOI: 10.11621/npj.2020.0103

Keywords: unmanned aerial vehicles; engineering-psychological design; virtual reality; artificial intelligence; projective displays; adaptive automation

Available online: 31.03.2020

To cite this article:

Velichkovsky, Boris B.. Engineering-psychological problems of unmanned aerial vehicles interface design.. // National Psychological Journal 2020. 1. p.31-39. doi: 10.11621/npj.2020.0103

Copied to Clipboard

Issue 1, 2020

Velichkovsky, Boris B. Lomonosov Moscow State University


Background. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are nowadays widely used in various domains. Their use is connected with a broad range of psychological problems, in particular, within engineering psychology.

Objective. In this paper, typical engineering-psychological problems of interface design for UAVs are considered.

Design. Literature survey on topic related to UAV control. Results. Problems of managing sensory isolation, negative effects of automation failures, connection losses and monotony, as well as problems of supporting the work of UAVs operator teams were identified and solutions proposed. We also study methodological and methodical questions within the domain of interface design for controlling UAVs.

Conclusions. Designing interfaces for UAVs is a complex psychological task. There are perspectives of use for virtual reality, AI, predictive displays, and adaptive automation. There is need for general recommendations concerning UAVs interface development.

Table 1. The main psychological problems of UAV control

Sensory isolation

Lack of auditory and proprioceptive flight information, limited visual information, image transmission delays, poor image quality

Automation levels

Significant differences in the level of automation, various automation of different flight segments, automation errors

Poor communication

Poor radio communication

Unusual flight modes

Long monotonous flight

Selection of operator teams

Problems of functions separation between operators, control of several UAVs by one operator

Operator selection and training

Operator training requirements, skills transfer

Stress and emotional problems

Automation errors, UAV loss, erroneous decisions

Table 2. UAV Interface Design Guidelines Requirements (Hobbs & Lyall, 2016).

General requirements

General requirements for HMI - consistency of notation, feedback, error recovery, etc.

Task descriptions

What the operator should do without describing that way

Display Requirements

What information should be presented without a description of the presentation method

Control Requirements

What impacts should an operator have on UAVs without a description of the impact method

Interface Properties

Physical and functional interface requirements


The work was carried out as part of a research project under the RFBR grant «Development of the fundamental principles of building intelligent integrated safety systems for unmanned aerial vehicles in the airspace of the smart city». Contract N19-29- 06091 mk


Armour C., & Ross J. (2017). The Health and Well-Being of Military Drone Operators and Intelligence Analysts: A Systematic Review. Military Psychology, 29, 83–98. doi: 10.1037/mil0000149

Calhoun G., Draper M., Miller C.A., Ruff H., Breeden C., & Hamell J. (2013). Adaptable automation interface for multi-unmanned aerial systems control: preliminary usability evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 57 (San Diego, CA), \ 26–30. doi: 10.1177/1541931213571008.

Cauchard J., E.J., Zhai K., & Landay J. (2015). Drone & Me: an exploration into natural human-drone interaction. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing - UbiComp ‘15. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 361–365. doi: 10.1145/2750858.2805823

Chappelle W.L., Salinas A., & McDonald K. Psychological Health Screening of USAF Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Operators and Supporting Units. Symposium on Mental Health and Well-Being Across the Military Spectrum. Bergen, Norway, 12 Apr. 2011.

Chen J.Y. C., Haas E.C., & Barnes M.J. (2007). Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 37, 1231–1245. doi:10.1109/TSMCC.2007.905819.

Chicaiza F., Gallardo C., Carvajal C., Quevedo W., Morales J., & Andaluz V. (2018). Real–Time Virtual Reality Visualizer for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. AVR 2018: Augmented Reality. Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics, 479–495. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-95282-6_35

Cox J., & Wong K. (2019). Predictive feedback augmentation for manual control of an unmanned aerial vehicle with latency. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicle, 11, 1–9. doi: 10.1177/1756829319869645

Endsley M. (2015). Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 9(1), 4–32. doi: 10.1177/1555343415572631

Fern L., Shively J., Draper M., Cooke N. J., Oron-Gilad T., & Miller C. A. (2011). Human-automation challenges for the control of unmanned aerial systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55, 424–428. doi: 10.1177/1071181311551087.

Fernández R., Sanchez-Lopez J., Sampedro C., Bavle H., Molina M., & Campoy P. (2016). Natural user interfaces for human-drone multi-modal interaction. International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Arlington, VA, 1013–1022. doi: 10.1109/ICUAS.2016.7502665

Funke M., Warm J., Matthews G., Funke G., Chiu P., Shaw T., & Greenlee E. (2017). The Neuroergonomics of Vigilance. Human Factors, 59(1), 62–75. doi: 10.1177/0018720816683121.

Gal S., Shelef L., & Oz I. et al. (2016). The contribution of personal and seniority variables to the presence of stress symptoms among Israeli UAV operators. Disaster and Military Medicine, 2(18). doi: 10.1186/s40696-016-0028-1.

Gander V.D., & Lysakov N.D. (2017). Psychological aspects of controlling unmanned aerial vehicles. [Chelovecheskiy kapital], 3, 41–42.

Gawron, V.J., (1998). Human factors issues in the development, evaluation, and operation of uninhabited aerial vehicles. AUVSI ’98: Proceedings of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, 431–438.

Gunn D., Warm J., Nelson W., Bolia R., Schumsky D., & Corcoran K. (2005). Target acquisition with UAVs: vigilance displays and advanced cuing interfaces. Human Factors, 47(3), 488–497. doi: 10.1518/001872005774859971

Hobbs A., & Lyall B. (2016). Human factors guidelines for unmanned aircraft systems. Ergonomics in Design, 24, 23–28. doi: 10.1177/1064804616640632.

Kot, T., & Novák, P. (2018). Application of virtual reality in teleoperation of the military mobile robotic system TAROS. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 15(1). doi: 10.1177/1729881417751545

Kwak J., & Sung Y. (2017). Gesture-Based User Interface Design for UAV Controls. Advances in Computer Science and Ubiquitous Computing, 985–989. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-7605-3_157

Liu, Y.F., Yang, N., Li, A., Paterson, J., McPherson, D., Cheng, T., & Yang, A.Y. (2018). Usability Evaluation for Drone Mission Planning in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and MixedReality, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; 313–330. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-91584-5_25

Parasuraman R., Sheridan T.B., & Wickens C.D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, 30, 286–297. doi: 10.1109/3468.844354

Pfeil K., Koh S., & LaViola J. (2013). Exploring 3d gesture metaphors for interaction with unmanned aerial vehicles. Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces - IUI 13. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 257. doi: 10.1145/2449396.2449429

Pershin Yu.Yu. (2017). Psycho-emotional disorders in UAV operators (based on foreign sources): issue presentation. [Voprosy bezopasnosti], 3, 17-30. doi: 10.25136/2409-7543.2017.3.23194

Porat T., Oron-Gilad T., Rottem-Hovev M. & Silbiger J. (2016) Supervising and Controlling Unmanned Systems: A Multi-Phase Study with Subject Matter Experts. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(568). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00568

Ruff H.A., Narayanan S., & Draper M.H. (2002). Human interaction with levels of automation and decision-aid fidelity in the supervisory control of multiple simulated unmanned air vehicles. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 11, 335–35. doi: 10.1162/105474602760204264

Safonova A.V., Filonenko L.V., & Kovalev A.P. (2018). Taking into account the psychological aspects of the activities of unmanned aerial vehicle operators in the training of future officers in military universities. [Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal psikhologii i pedagogiki v sluzhebnoy deyatel’nosti], 1, 100–106.

Smolyanskiy N., & Gonzalez-Franco M. (2017). Stereoscopic First Person View System for Drone Navigation. Front. Robot. AI, 20 March 2017. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00011.

Williams, K.W. (2004). A summary of unmanned aerial aircraft accident/incident data: Human factors implications. Technical report.

Wilson G.F., & Russell C.A. (2007). Performance enhancement in an uninhabited air vehicle task using psychophysiologically determined adaptive aiding. Human Factors 49, 1005–1018. doi: 10.1518/001872007X249875.

Watanabe, K. & Takahashi, M. (2019). Head-synced Drone Control for Reducing Virtual Reality Sickness. J Intell Robot Syst . doi: 10.1007/s10846-019- 01054-6

Wohleber R., Matthews G., Lin J., Szalma J., Calhoun G., Funke G., Chiu C., & Ruff H. (2019). Vigilance and Automation Dependence in Operation of Multiple Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS): A Simulation Study. Human Factors, 61(3), 488–505. doi: 10.1177/0018720818799468.

To cite this article:

Velichkovsky, Boris B.. Engineering-psychological problems of unmanned aerial vehicles interface design.. // National Psychological Journal 2020. 1. p.31-39. doi: 10.11621/npj.2020.0103

Copied to Clipboard