©1990, 1995 General contents
Appendix B  

Appendix C: Analysis of concurrent sub-tasks in ROV control

The analysis of the second sea-searching experiment invited an attempt to consider the stage of ROV control in terms of the sub-tasks of control of height, direction, and speed.

Table C.1:ROV visual context, height control, for MT

Table C.2:ROV visual context, direction control, for MT

Table C.3:ROV visual context, speed control, for MT

Table C.4:ROV direction context, height control, for MT

Table C.5:ROV direction context, direction control, for MT

Table C.6:ROV direction context, speed control, for MT

Table C.7:ROV non-graphic context, height control, for MT

Table C.8:ROV non-graphic context, direction control, for MT

Table C.9:ROV non-graphic context, speed control, for MT

This analysis of the separate ROV functions is done here in Tables C.1 to C.9, for the three major ROV contexts of subject MT. Since it is only a comparison with previous figures (in Tables 7.11 to 7.13), only the last two intervals are shown, the others being less reliable and informative. A similar analysis was also done reversing the roles of the 0 and 1 sets. This generally confirms the impressions given by the tables here, and adds little to the argument, except to note that variations of up to 10% in the difference of performance over default seems to be quite common in this collection of data: this may be at least partly due to the sample size, which is not very large for data as noisy and ill-understood as here.

Within the ROV visual context speed control (C.3) and direction control (C.2) appear to be well established. The overall accuracy figures are higher than in the original ROV visual context, but the difference over the default rule does not appear to be a very substantial improvement over the difference in the earlier table. The height control results (C.1) admit the possible explanation that a ruly approach to height control was only gained in the last interval: however there is not enough data to have great confidence in this.

The ROV direction context was so named because the two principle sensors defining this context for subject MT are the heading of the ROV and the bearing of the target. The figures (C.4 to C.6) suggest that rules for direction control are more evident than other rules within this context. None of the rules, however, have impressive accuracy figures. The ROV non-graphic context (C.7 to C.9) appears no less unruly than in the original tables, 7.13 and 7.21.

This analysis offers no firm conclusions.

General Contents Copyright