Changes for page g. Test CFT4 and the coming IFT's

Last modified by Mark Rinse van Koningsveld on 2026/07/27 10:06

From 1.1 to 2.1 From 7.1 to 8.1

From version 2.1

edited by Rosa Van Tuijn
on 2025/06/19 14:02

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version 7.1

edited by Mark Rinse van Koningsveld
on 2025/07/13 22:30

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (3 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Objects (0 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
- XWiki.XWikiComments[0]

Details

Page properties

Title

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--b. CFT1: Sensor data visualization
++h. Test CFT4

Author

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--XWiki.RosaVanTuijn
++XWiki.MarkVanKoningsveld

Content

@@ -1,80 +1,327 @@
  = 1. Introduction =
--//<include a short summary of the claims to be tested, i.e., the effects of the functions in a specfic use case>//
++This experiment validates multiple human-machine teaming technologies in Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) operations. Four operational modules simulate a full operational storyline across two days: wide area assessment, full-area reconnaissance with health monitoring, indoor drone-assisted search, and precision inspection in confined spaces.
--The goal of this test was to understand what type of information would support each role at different levels (strategic, tactical, operational) in performing their tasks, particularly in decision-making. We focused mainly on the tactical and operational levels.
++The modules test system functions from five use cases, and aim to quantify effects on safety, situation awareness (SA), physical workload, mission effectiveness, and decision-making quality. Results will be compared against expected performance without these technologies, based on either baseline team data, observer input, or known solution benchmarks.
++----
++
  = 2. Method =
--For each technology, a separate questionnaire was prepared. In total, five distinct questionnaires were created in Survalyzer. All the questionnaires included the same types of questions:
++== 2.1 Participants ==
--1. **General Open Questions**: Firstly, the participants were asked how they thought data could be helpful and how it should be visualized to be useful.
--1. **Information Needs**: Next, the questions focused on the different information needs of tactical and operational roles, asking participants which data they would want and need for their roles.
--1. **Visualization Examples**: Lastly, various examples of data visualizations were shown to get an indication of which role would want to see what type of data visualization. The examples included basic traffic lights, raw data, aggregated data, predictions, and advice. See appendix B for all the designs that have been made.
++Approximately 24–30 international first responders, organized in teams. Each team rotates across the four modules. Roles include responders, team leaders, drone/robot operators, analysts, medics, and safety officers.
--== 2.1 Participants ==
++== 2.2 Experimental Design ==
--A total of 12 partners completed questionnaires during the field test in Athens. The health questionnaire was filled out by 5 partners, the communication questionnaire by 2 partners, and the location questionnaire by 4 participants. Although a questionnaire for the gas sensors (also by WEARIN’) was prepared, we decided not to focus on it in Athens since the gas sensor was not used during the exercises. The questionnaires were completed by individuals in various roles, including researchers, drone pilots, paramedics, incident commanders, chief SAR, and firefighters.
++A **within-subject design** is used where all teams go through the four modules. Performance is compared across modules and against predefined baseline criteria. Observers collect data in real time; surveys and biometric data are used to validate subjective and objective measurements.
--== 2.2 Experimental design ==
++----
++== 2.3 Tasks (Per Module) ==
--== 2.3 Tasks ==
++----
++=== **Module 1 – Wide Area Assessment** ===
++**Use Case**: UC03.0
++**Scenario**: Teams arrive at a simulated disaster zone. Structures are unstable. Drone support is requested for external mapping and hazard detection.
++
++**Tested Functions**:
++
++* Drone feed provides real-time visuals to field teams and command
++* Zoom-ins allow inspection of rooftops and entry points
++* Footage used to mark safe approach routes
++
++**Measured Claims**:
++
++* CL1: Improved external SA
++* CL2: Safer movement planning
++* CL3: Faster planning cycle
++* CL4: Reduced mental workload for recon
++* CL5: Improved coordination (shared SA)
++
++**Quantifiable Success Factors**:
++
++* ≥80% of hazards correctly marked on the map (based on preset dummy hazards)
++* ≥90% agreement in SA between team and command (map match)
++* Average planning time ≤ 10 minutes from drone launch
++* NASA-TLX workload score ≤ 50 (moderate) for command roles
++
++**How to Measure**:
++
++* Observer logs & stopwatch for planning time
++* Map test: Compare team-drawn vs. actual map (SAGAT-lite)
++* Count number of correctly identified hazards from drone feed
++* NASA-TLX filled by drone operator and team lead
++* Post-module survey: "How useful was the drone in forming your plan?" (1–5)
++
++----
++
++=== **Module 2 – Health Monitoring & Reconnaissance** ===
++
++**Use Cases**: UC01.1 (Fire) and UC01.2 (USAR)
++**Scenario**: Team performs full-area recon. Wearables measure heart rate, hydration, and simulated gas exposure. Simulated fatigue and alerts escalate to medics or team leads.
++
++**Tested Functions**:
++
++* Alerts for fatigue/gas exposure
++* Remote dashboard monitoring by safety officer
++* Escalation protocols for health interventions
++* Logging and after-action review
++
++**Measured Claims**:
++
++* CL1–CL2: Prevent overexertion and increase responder awareness
++* CL3–CL4: Enable remote intervention and informed medical decision
++* CL5: Enable better rotation/rest planning
++* CL6: Debrief uses health logs
++* CL7: Improve mission success
++
++**Quantifiable Success Factors**:
++
++* ≥90% of health alerts acknowledged within 1 minute
++* ≥80% of interventions judged "timely" in AAR interviews
++* ≥50% of teams adjust tactics or rest cycles based on health data
++* ≥1 health-based lesson identified per team in debrief
++* ≤2 simulated incidents due to unmanaged fatigue/gas exposure
++
++**How to Measure**:
++
++* Log alert timings vs. response time
++* Observer notes + medic reports on intervention
++* Exit survey: "Did alerts help prevent fatigue/injury?"
++* Use of wearable dashboard during debrief (Yes/No)
++* NASA-TLX for responders
++
++----
++
++=== **Module 3 – Indoor Drone Search (Barracks)** ===
++
++**Use Cases**: UC02.1 and UC02.2
++**Scenario**: Collapsed barracks building. Indoor drone used for autonomous scan. Analyst tags victims, hazards, and updates C3I map. Drone does close inspection on request.
++
++**Tested Functions**:
++
++* Pre-entry thermal scan
++* Hazard/victim detection
++* Analyst-supported interpretation and tagging
++* Entry planning based on drone data
++
++**Measured Claims**:
++
++* CL1: Heightened SA before entry
++* CL2: Increased safety (less exposure)
++* CL3–CL5: Faster, more accurate victim detection
++* CL6: Trust in drone data
++* CL7: Increased mission efficiency
++
++**Quantifiable Success Factors**:
++
++* ≥90% of dummy victims detected by drone+analyst
++* ≥2 new hazards marked per team from drone feed
++* Average time-to-first victim ≤ 3 minutes
++* ≥80% of responders rate drone info as “trustworthy” (score ≥4/5)
++* ≤1 injury due to unknown hazard in follow-up entry
++
++**How to Measure**:
++
++* Victim tags placed in known positions for ground truth
++* Observer logs: detection times and analyst confirmations
++* Team SA quiz: "How many victims? Where were they located?"
++* Trust survey: “I would act on this drone data” (1–5)
++* Entry path compared to drone hazard map
++
++----
++
++=== **Module 4 – Precision Inspection with ANYMAL/SNAKE** ===
++
++**Use Case**: UC04.0
++**Scenario**: Teams reach unstable voids. Robots are deployed to inspect inaccessible areas. SNAKE arm is used to look into cracks. Results update team maps and entry plans.
++
++**Tested Functions**:
++
++* Autonomous or manual ANYMAL movement
++* Void inspection using flexible arm
++* Victim/hazard confirmation
++* Decision-making based on robot visuals
++
++**Measured Claims**:
++
++* CL1: Access without risk
++* CL2: Detection in confined space
++* CL3: Safer routing
++* CL4: Trust in robot-assessed visuals
++* CL5: Faster room clearing
++
++**Quantifiable Success Factors**:
++
++* ≥2 hazards or victims confirmed via SNAKE per team
++* ≥80% of voids scanned without human entry
++* ≥70% of teams adjust route based on robot findings
++* ≥80% of participants rate robot visuals as “clear and usable”
++* Average inspection time ≤ 8 minutes per room
++
++**How to Measure**:
++
++* Observer log: robot path vs. human path
++* Detection log compared to known hidden items
++* Survey: “Did robot findings improve your plan?” (Yes/No)
++* Video review of time-per-room
++* Trust in visuals scale (1–5)
++
++
++
  == 2.4 Measures ==
++This section describes how each claim will be measured during each module, using a combination of objective logging, observer annotations, post-task surveys, and scenario-based evaluation.
++----
++
++=== **Module 1 – Wide Area Assessment (UC03.0)** ===
++
++|=**Claim**|=**Metric**|=**Method/Tool**|=**Success Threshold**
++|CL1 – Improved SA|Number of hazards correctly identified on team maps|SAGAT-lite: Pre/post map-drawing task + verbal hazard recall|≥80% match with ground-truth hazard list
++|CL2 – Safer planning|Number of hazard zones avoided during later entry|Observer logs cross-referenced with hazard map|100% of marked hazards avoided
++|CL3 – Faster planning|Time from drone launch to team briefing|Stopwatch & observer notes|≤10 minutes total
++|CL4 – Reduced workload|Mental workload score of command & drone operator|NASA-TLX (short form)|≤50 average score
++|CL5 – Shared SA|Consistency between team and command in map data|Comparison of annotations across roles|≥90% agreement on key features
++
++
++
++----
++
++=== **Module 2 – Health Monitoring & Reconnaissance (UC01.1 / UC01.2)** ===
++
++|=**Claim**|=**Metric**|=**Method/Tool**|=**Success Threshold**
++|CL1 – Prevent overload|HR trend + alert timing vs. pause/extraction|Wearable logs + observer notes|≥90% alerts followed by correct action within 1 minute
++|CL2 – Responder awareness|Survey response on self-adjustment|Post-task Likert: “The alert helped me act”|≥80% rate 4 or 5
++|CL3 – Remote escalation|Alert-to-medic contact time|System log + stopwatch|≤1 minute average
++|CL4 – Medical support|Alignment of alerts with medical assessment|Medic forms + sensor log correlation|≥80% concordance
++|CL5 – Operational planning|Number of rest/rotation decisions based on dashboard|Observer logs + team lead AAR|≥50% of teams adapt plan
++|CL6 – AAR use of health data|Was biometric data used during debrief?|Debrief analysis|Yes, per team
++|CL7 – Mission effectiveness|Task time + incidents avoided|Stopwatch + incident log|Task time not slower than baseline; 0 uncontrolled fatigue/gas incidents
++
++
++
++----
++
++=== **Module 3 – Indoor Drone Search (UC02.1 / UC02.2)** ===
++
++|=**Claim**|=**Metric**|=**Method/Tool**|=**Success Threshold**
++|CL1 – Heightened SA|SA questionnaire + map task|Pre/post: victims, layout, hazard count|≥80% correct recall post-drone
++|CL2 – Increased safety|Hazard zone avoidance rate|Observer vs. ground truth map|≥90% of flagged areas avoided
++|CL3 – Faster victim detection|Time to first detection|Stopwatch from drone entry|≤3 minutes
++|CL4 – Accuracy of detection|Victim detection rate|Drone log vs. planted victims|≥90% detected
++|CL5 – Trust in results|Survey: “I trust the drone data for decision-making”|1–5 Likert scale|≥80% rate 4 or 5
++|CL6 – Efficiency|Entry time after drone plan vs. without drone|Stopwatch; compare with baseline data|10–20% faster planning phase
++
++
++
++----
++
++=== **Module 4 – Robot-Based Precision Inspection (UC04.0)** ===
++
++|=**Claim**|=**Metric**|=**Method/Tool**|=**Success Threshold**
++|CL1 – Extended reach|Percentage of voids explored by robot not human|Observer log + inspection plan|≥80% of voids scanned by robot
++|CL2 – Detection in small spaces|Victim/hazard detection in hidden locations|Camera log vs. planted markers|≥2 findings per team
++|CL3 – Safer routing|Route changes based on robot input|Pre/post plan comparison + observer notes|≥70% of teams adapt plan
++|CL4 – Trust in visuals|Survey on clarity and trust in robot data|Likert: “The robot data was sufficient for decisions”|≥80% rate 4 or 5
++|CL5 – Room clearing speed|Time per room before vs. after robot scout|Stopwatch log|≤8 minutes per room avg.
++
++
++
++----
++
  == 2.5 Procedure ==
++All modules follow a similar four-part procedure, tailored per use case.
--== 2.6 Material ==
++=== **General Daily Timeline** ===
++* **08:30 – 09:00**: Morning briefing, safety, tech setup
++* **09:00 – 12:00**: First module rotation (two parallel teams)
++* **13:00 – 16:00**: Second module rotation (two parallel teams)
++* **16:00 – 17:00**: Shared after-action review
--= 3. Results =
++Each module runs with the following structure:
++=== **Per Module Procedure** ===
--= 4. Discussion =
++1. (((
++**Briefing (10–15 min)**
++* Explain objectives, scenario, roles, safety, success factors
++* Introduce technology and expectations
++)))
++1. (((
++**Execution Phase (45–60 min)**
--= 5. Conclusions =
++* Scenario runs in real time
++* Observer logs events, actions, communications
++* System logs recorded (drone, robot, wearables)
++)))
++1. (((
++**Measurement Phase (15–20 min)**
--**Health data**
++* Paper or tablet surveys: SA, trust, NASA-TLX
++* Sensor data downloaded to central system
++* Short interview or checklist with operator and team lead
++)))
++1. (((
++**Debrief (15–20 min)**
--Types of health data: heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature, blood pressure, and mental health were frequently mentioned as essential.
++* Team reflects on use of technology, decision-making
++* Facilitator prompts discussion of claims (trust, effectiveness, awareness)
++* Recorded notes for final reporting
++)))
--Reasoning given for roles
++For cross-checking performance without the tech, one team per module may be assigned a simplified "control" version of the scenario, using conventional tools only (where feasible).
--* Team Lead - Important for monitoring the overall safety of teams.
--* Medical Personnel - Essential for making critical decisions.
--* Paramedic (Operational) - Necessary for directly treating team members.
--* First Responder - Relevant for personal health and well-being.
++----
--Conclusion: Health data is essential for a wide range of roles, but the requirements vary greatly. Medical personnel and paramedics request detailed and contextual data, while team leaders and first responders value summaries and simple alerts more. Transparency in predictive models is necessary to build trust.
++== 2.6 Material ==
++Each module requires scenario-specific equipment, environmental props, logging tools, and survey forms:
--**Location data**
++=== **Common Materials (all modules)** ===
--Types of Location data: Location data such as GPS coordinates, building heights, and paths to victims were frequently mentioned.
++* Observer logbooks (standardized per module)
++* Stopwatch or time-tracking app
++* Participant role badges and checklists
++* Data collection station with tablets/laptops
++* Printed Likert-scale surveys (SA, trust, workload)
++* SAGAT-lite map templates
--Reasoning given for roles
++=== **Module-Specific Materials** ===
--* Team Lead - Essential for team coordination.
--* Squad leader (Operational) - Necessary for instructing team members.
--* First Responder - Helps with orientation and finding victims.
++**Module 1 – Wide Area Assessment**
--Conclusion: Location data plays a crucial role in both tactical and operational decisions. Tactical team leaders want aggregated and sector-based data, while operational roles such as squad leaders and first responders need detailed and real-time information. 3D maps and interactive elements are valuable tools to improve navigation and coordination.
++* Outdoor drones with RTK GPS and live zoom cameras
++* Command screen with drone feed
++* Large printed site maps with hazard zones (for scoring)
++* Structural hazard props (collapsed façades, signs)
++**Module 2 – Health Monitoring**
--**Communication data**
++* Wearable sensors (HR, hydration, gas; real or simulated)
++* Dashboard software for live feed + logging
++* Incident trigger devices (e.g., CO2 canisters, alarms)
++* Medic checklist sheets
++* Alert simulation software (optional)
--Types of communication data: Respondents emphasized the importance of RSSI (signal strength), signal speed, and interference detection.
++**Module 3 – Indoor Drone Search**
--Reasoning given for roles
++* Thermal indoor drone with autonomous mode
++* C3I-compatible map annotation system
++* Dummy victims with heat packs or QR markers
++* Printed room layouts for SA testing
++* Indoor hazard props (rubble, fake smoke, blocked doors)
--* Team Lead - Important for monitoring team connectivity.
--* IT Specialist - Crucial for troubleshooting.
--* Squad leader (Operational) - Relevant for field communication.
--* First Responder - Only needed for personal connectivity.
++**Module 4 – ANYMAL and SNAKE**
--Conclusion: Communication plays a central role at all levels of USAR operations. Tactical users need extensive analyses to monitor team status, while operational roles such as IT specialists focus on technical troubleshooting. Advisory functions and visual simplicity could contribute to effectiveness in the field.
++* ANYMAL robot (legged) and SNAKE articulated arm
++* Confined space mockups (voids, crawlspaces, stairs)
++* Hidden hazard/victim tags inside small cavities
++* Robot operator station + external monitor
++* Scenario map with route overlays

XWiki.XWikiComments[0]

Author

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+XWiki.MarkVanKoningsveld

Comment

@@ -1,0 +1,25 @@
++= 1. Introduction[[Edit>>url:https://wisce.synergise-project.eu/bin/edit/3.%20Evaluation/h.%20Test/WebHome?section=1&form_token=ThxE4oHo2FgcrNOPAkA8sw]] =
++
++//<include a short summary of the claims to be tested, i.e., the effects of the functions in a specfic use case>//
++
++Claims uit [[UC01.1: Health and environmental monitoring (Firefighters)>>url:https://wisce.synergise-project.eu/bin/view/2.%20Specification/b.%20Use%20Cases/UC01.0%3A%20Health%20Sensors/Usecase%3A%20Health%20sensors%20%28Firefighters%29/]] die getest worden:
++
++* Weten ze waar tocix gas is?
++* commander weet wat de situatie van zijn personeel is?
++* Reddingsmedewerk heeft SA over hun eigen status (genoeg dat ze optijd kunnen reageren) (d.m.v. communicatie met commander of d.m.v. trillen sensor)?
++* HQ krijgt voldoende (en op het juiste moment) informatie over de situatie in het veld om ondersteuning te kunnen bieden?
++
++Claims uit UC01.2:Health and environmental monitoring (USAR) die getest worden:
++
++* Zelfde als hierboven maar dan iets aangepast voor USAR
++
++Claims uit UC02.2: Indoor Drone Exploration and Victim Detection (USAR) die getest worden:
++
++* Weten first responders (genoeg) wat er binnen is om veilig naar binnen te gaan? hebben ze verhoogde SA van de binnenkant van een gebouw? SA/reliance
++* Kunnen er beter en sneller victims worden gevonden? > speed, task performance
++* Kunnen er meer betrouwbare analyses worden gemaakt van de binnenkant van een gebouw door bijv. een plan maken voor een veilige/ begaanbare route > SA
++* Task performance: kunnen er sneller en meer gestroomlijnd victim reports worden gemaakt en gedeeld (essentie = gaat victim assessement beter)?
++
++Claims uit UC02.1: Indoor Drone Exploration and Victim Detection (Firefighters) die getest worden:
++
++* zelfde als hierboven maar dan iets meer aangepast voor Firefighters

Date

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2025-07-13 22:23:32.283

Changes for page g. Test CFT4 and the coming IFT's

Summary

Details

Welcome

Navigation

Recently Modified