Publication statistics
Pub. period:1987-1989
Pub. count:5
Number of co-authors:8
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
Mark A. Stuart:4Steven T. Smith:1Karl U. Smith:1 Productive colleagues
Randy L. Smith's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
Douglas J. Gillan:31Thomas J. Smith:21Mark A. Stuart:8
“
Computer programs emerge as the outcome of complex human processes of cognition, communication and negotiation, which serve to establish the meaningful embedding of the computer system in its intended use context.
”
-- Floyd, 1992, p. 24
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Latest books
The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad
Start reading
The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam
Start reading
Randy L. Smith
Publications by Randy L. Smith (bibliography)
Edit |
Del
Bierschwale, John M., Sampaio, Carlos E., Stuart, Mark A. and Smith, Randy L. (1989): Speech versus Manual Control of Camera Functions during a Telerobotic Task. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 134-138.
“Voice input for control of camera functions was investigated in this study. Objectives were to (1) assess the feasibility of a voice-commanded camera control system, and (2) identify factors that differ between voice and manual control of camera functions. Subjects participated in a remote manipulation task that required extensive camera-aided viewing. Each subject was exposed to two conditions, voice and manual input, with a counterbalanced administration order. Voice input was found to be significantly slower than manual input for this task. However, in terms of remote manipulator performance errors and subject preference, there was no difference between modalities. Voice control of continuous camera functions is not recommended. It is believed that the use of voice input for discrete functions, such as multiplexing or camera switching, could aid performance. Hybrid mixes of voice and manual input may provide the best use of both modalities. This report contributes to a better understanding of the issues that affect the design of an efficient human/telerobot interface.”
© All rights reserved Bierschwale et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Edit |
Del
Smith, Randy L. and Stuart, Mark A. (1989): The Effects of Spatially Displaced Visual Feedback on Remote Manipulator Performance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1430-1434.
“The objective of this preliminary investigation was to quantify the effects of spatially displaced visual feedback on the operation of a camera-viewed remote manipulation task. Operators performed a remote manipulation task while exposed to the following different viewing conditions: direct view of the work site (baseline condition); normal camera view (zero-degree displacement); reversed camera view (180-degree lateral displacement); inverted/reversed camera view; and inverted camera view. The task completion performance times were statistically analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance and it was determined that there was statistical significance (p < 0.05) due to the main effect of the viewing conditions. A Newman-Keuls pairwise comparison test was then administered to the data and it was revealed that the performance times for the inverted camera view condition was significantly (p < 0.05) worse than all of the other viewing condition times. The results obtained in this study were not quite as would be expected based upon the review of the direct manipulation/displaced visual feedback literature. The difference observed in this evaluation was that the reversed camera view was ranked third out of the four camera viewing conditions while previously conducted studies have stated that the inversion/reversal was ranked third. The reversed viewing condition not only took over a minute longer, on the average, to complete than the inversion/reversal performance time, but it was also significantly worse than the normal viewing condition performance time. The differences obtained in this evaluation could be due to the fact that the remote manipulation task used in the present study involved the use of axes of movement different from those involved in the direct manipulation tasks reported in the literature. An informal analysis was conducted on the direct and normal viewing condition data and it was determined that the normal viewing condition was significantly slower than the direct viewing condition. This study clearly illustrates the deleterious effects that can accompany the performance of remote manipulation tasks when viewing conditions are less than optimal. An important finding in this evaluation is concerned with the extent to which results from previously performed direct manipulation studies can be generalized to remote manipulation studies. This evaluation has demonstrated that generalizations to remote manipulation applications based upon the results of direct manipulation studies are quite useful, but they should be made cautiously.”
© All rights reserved Smith and Stuart and/or Human Factors Society
Edit |
Del
Smith, Thomas J., Smith, Randy L., Stuart, Mark A., Smith, Steven T. and Smith, Karl U. (1989): Interactive Performance in Space -- The Role of Perturbed Sensory Feedback. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 1989. pp. 484-495.
“This report addresses the phenomenon of perturbed sensory feedback as a potentially serious obstacle to optimal performance and safety of interactive human-computer and telerobotic tasks in extraterrestrial environments. Human-factors considerations suggest that spatiotemporal perturbations plus other types of distortions in sensory feedback will arise during use of interactive telerobots for space station assembly, maintenance, and servicing. Potential consequences for the performance of the extraterrestrial operator include reduced fidelity of visual-manual tracking, impaired visual perception, problems with speech production and recognition, memory and learning decrements, impaired decision-making, and elevated behavioral-physiological stress, with a concomitant increase in the risk of performance errors and accidents. Findings from laboratory research documenting these effects are summarized, followed by a discussion of how such effects may contribute in a major way to variability of interactive performance in space.”
© All rights reserved Smith et al. and/or Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Edit |
Del
Stuart, Mark A., Smith, Randy L. and Moore, Ervette P. (1988): Guidelines for the Use of Programmable Display Pushbuttons on the Space Station's Telerobot Control Panel. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 44-48.
“This investigation focused on the establishment of guidelines concerning the use of programmable display pushbuttons (PDPs) on a telerobot control panel. The method taken was to study two groups of subjects performing a simulated Remote Manipulator System (RMS)-like task on micro computer prototypes. Subjects were divided between those who has RMS-simulator experience and those who didn't. The computer prototypes contained simulations of two different control panels -- one which used PDPs and one which used single-function pushbuttons. Data analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase in the number of commands issued in the non-PDP control panel and that subjects rated the PDP control panel significantly higher on two of five scaled questionnaire items. Based on these findings, as well upon the results of responses to open-ended questionnaire items, a preliminary list of guidelines concerning the use of PDPs was developed.”
© All rights reserved Stuart et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Edit |
Del
Smith, Randy L. and Gillan, Douglas J. (1987): Human-Telerobot Interactions: Information, Control, and Mental Models. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 806-810.
“NASA is currently working on the Space Station which will be a permanently manned orbiting space laboratory when it becomes operational in the mid 1990's. A part of the Space Station will be a teleoperated robot (telerobot) with arms for grasping and manipulation, feet for holding onto objects, and television cameras for visual feedback. The objective of the work described in this paper is to develop the requirements and specifications for the user-telerobot interface and to determine through research and testing that the interface results in efficient system operation. The focus of the development of the user-telerobot interface is on the information required by the user, user inputs, and design of the control workstation. Closely related to both the information required by the user and the user's control of the telerobot is the user's mental model of the relation of the control inputs and the telerobot's actions.”
© All rights reserved Smith and Gillan and/or Human Factors Society
Show list on your website
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)
28 Jun 2007: Modified26 Jun 2007: Modified26 Jun 2007: Modified
25 Jun 2007: Modified
25 Jun 2007: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/randy_l__smith.html
Log in !
Warning: Large file