skip to main content
10.1145/3171221.3171251acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Improving Collocated Robot Teleoperation with Augmented Reality

Published:26 February 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Robot teleoperation can be a challenging task, often requiring a great deal of user training and expertise, especially for platforms with high degrees-of-freedom (e.g., industrial manipulators and aerial robots). Users often struggle to synthesize information robots collect (e.g., a camera stream) with contextual knowledge of how the robot is moving in the environment. We explore how advances in augmented reality (AR) technologies are creating a new design space for mediating robot teleoperation by enabling novel forms of intuitive, visual feedback. We prototype several aerial robot teleoperation interfaces using AR, which we evaluate in a 48-participant user study where participants completed an environmental inspection task. Our new interface designs provided several objective and subjective performance benefits over existing systems, which often force users into an undesirable paradigm that divides user attention between monitoring the robot and monitoring the robot»s camera feed(s).

References

  1. Ronald Azuma, Yohan Baillot, Reinhold Behringer, Steven Feiner, Simon Julier, and Blair MacIntyre. 2001. Recent Advances in Augmented Reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21, 6 (2001), 34--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Maria Bualat, Jonathan Barlow, Terrence Fong, Christopher Provencher, Trey Smith, and Allison Zuniga. 2015. Astrobee: Developing a Free-flying Robot forthe International Space Station. In AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition. 4643.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Jessie YC Chen, Ellen C Haas, and Michael J Barnes. 2007. Human Performance Issues and User Interface Design for Teleoperated Robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 37, 6 (2007), 1231--1245. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mark Corcoran. 2014. Drone Journalism Takes Off. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02--21/drone-journalism-takes-off/3840616. (February 2014). Accessed: 2018-01-05.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Enrico Costanza, Samuel A Inverso, Elan Pavlov, Rebecca Allen, and Pattie Maes. 2006. Eye-q: Eyeglass Peripheral Display for Subtle Intimate Notifications. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 211--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Mike Daily, Youngkwan Cho, Kevin Martin, and Dave Payton. 2003. World embedded interfaces for human-robot interaction. In System Sciences (HICSS'03), 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 6--pp. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Anca D Dragan and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2013. A Policy-blending Formalism for Shared Control. The International Journal of Robotics Research 32, 7 (2013), 790--805. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jill L Drury, Justin Richer, Nathan Rackliffe, and Michael A Goodrich. 2006. Comparing Situation Awareness for Two Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Human Interface Approaches. Technical Report. DTIC Document.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Steven Feiner, Blair MacIntyre, Marcus Haupt, and Eliot Solomon. 1993. Windows on the World: 2D Windows for 3D Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'93). 145--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. T. Fong, M. Micire, T. Morse, E. Park, C. Provencher, V. To, DW. Wheeler, D. Mittman, R. J. Torres, and E. Smith. 2013. Smart SPHERES: A Telerobotic Free-Flyer for Intravehicular Activities in Space. In Proceedings of AIAA Space'13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Foyle, David C and Andre, Anthony D and Hooey, Becky L. 2005. Situation Awareness in an Augmented Reality Cockpit: Design, Viewpoints and Cognitive Glue. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 3--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Michael A Goodrich, Bryan S Morse, Damon Gerhardt, Joseph L Cooper, Morgan Quigley, Julie A Adams, and Curtis Humphrey. 2008. Supporting Wilderness Search and Rescue using a Camera-equipped Mini UAV. Journal of Field Robotics 25, 1--2 (2008), 89--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Scott A Green, Mark Billinghurst, XiaoQi Chen, and J Geoffrey Chase. 2008. Human-Robot Collaboration: A Literature Review and Augmented Reality Approach in Design. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 5, 1 (2008), 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Scott A Green, J Geoffrey Chase, XiaoQi Chen, and Mark Billinghurst. 2009. Evaluating the Augmented Reality Human-Robot Collaboration System. International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies and Applications 8, 1--4 (2009), 130--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Drew Harwell. 2014. This government rule could cripple commercial drone flight. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/this-government-rule-could-cripple-commercial-drone-flight/. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Keita Higuchi, Katsuya Fujii, and Jun Rekimoto. 2013. Flying Head: A Headsynchronization Mechanism for Flying Telepresence. In International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence (ICAT'13). 28--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Yoshio Ishiguro and Jun Rekimoto. 2011. Peripheral Vision Annotation: Noninterference Information Presentation Method for Mobile Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the ACM Augmented Human International Conference. 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33 (1977), 159--174. Issue 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Paula Lavigne. 2014. Eyes in the Sports Sky. ESPN website. (2014). Accessed: 2018-01-05.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, Hua and Zhang, Xin and Shi, Guangwei and Qu, Hemeng and Wu, Yanxiong and Zhang, Jianping. 2013. Review and Analysis of Avionic Helmet-Mounted Displays. Optical Engineering 52, 11 (2013), 110901--110901.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jeffrey I Lipton, Aidan J Fay, and Daniela Rus. 2018. Baxter's Homunculus: Virtual Reality Spaces for Teleoperation in Manufacturing. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3, 1 (2018), 179--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. M Alejandra Menchaca-Brandan, Andrew M Liu, Charles M Oman, and Alan Natapoff. 2007. Influence of Perspective-taking and Mental Rotation Abilities in Space Teleoperation. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI'07). 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino. 1994. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems 77, 12 (1994), 1321-- 1329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul Milgram, Shumin Zhai, David Drascic, and Julius Grodski. 1993. Applications of Augmented Reality for Human-Robot Communication. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS'93), Vol. 3. 1467--1472.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Masmoudi Mostefa, L Kaddour El Boudadi, A Loukil, Khelf Mohamed, and Dahane Amine. 2015. Design of Mobile Robot Teleoperation System based on Virtual Reality. In IEEE International Conference on Control, Engineering&Information Technology (CEIT'15). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Robin R Murphy. 2014. Disaster Robotics. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Nicholl, Ryan. 2014. Airline Head-up Display Systems: Human Factors Considerations. Available at SSRN:https:// ssrn.com/ abstract=2384101 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Curtis W Nielsen, Michael A Goodrich, and Robert W Ricks. 2007. Ecological Interfaces for Improving Mobile Robot Teleoperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23, 5 (2007), 927--941. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Shahin S Nudehi, Rohan Mukherjee, and Moji Ghodoussi. 2003. A Haptic Interface Design for Minimally Invasive Telesurgical Training and Collaboration in the Presence of Time Delay. In Proceedings. 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 5. 4563--4568.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Allison M Okamura. 2004. Methods for Haptic Feedback in Teleoperated Robotassisted Surgery. Industrial Robot: An International Journal 31, 6 (2004), 499--508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Christos Papachristos and Kostas Alexis. 2016. Augmented Reality-Enhanced Structural Inspection Using Aerial Robots. In IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control (ISIC'16). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. FJ Perez-Grau, R Ragel, F Caballero, A Viguria, and A Ollero. 2017. Semiautonomous Teleoperation of UAVs in Search and Rescue Scenarios. In International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS'17). 1066--1074.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. David Pitman and Mary L Cummings. 2012. Collaborative exploration with a Micro Aerial Vehicle: A Novel Interaction Method for Controlling a MAV with a Hand-Held Device. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2012 (2012), 18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Benjamin Poppinga, Niels Henze, Jutta Fortmann, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2012. AmbiGlasses-Information in the Periphery of the Visual Field. In Mensch&Computer. 153--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Morgan Quigley, Michael A Goodrich, and Randal W Beard. 2004. Semiautonomous human-UAV interfaces for fixed-wing mini-UAVs. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS'04), Vol. 3. IEEE, 2457--2462.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Emanuele Ruffaldi, Filippo Brizzi, Franco Tecchia, and Sandro Bacinelli. 2016. Third Point of View Augmented Reality for Robot Intentions Visualization. In International Conference on Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Computer Graphics. 471--478.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Daniel Szafir. 2015. Human Interaction with Assistive Free-Flying Robots. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Daniel Szafir, Bilge Mutlu, and Terrence Fong. 2017. Designing Planning and Control Interfaces to Support User Collaboration with Flying Robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research 36, 5--7, 514--542. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Russell H Taylor, Arianna Menciassi, Gabor Fichtinger, Paolo Fiorini, and Paolo Dario. 2016. Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery. In Springer Handbook of Robotics. 1657--1684.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. John Thomason, Photchara Ratsamee, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, Pakpoom Kriangkomol, Jason Orlosky, Tomohiro Mashita, Yuki Uranishi, and Haruo Takemura. 2017. Adaptive View Management for Drone Teleoperation in Complex 3D Structures. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'17). ACM, 419--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Improving Collocated Robot Teleoperation with Augmented Reality

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                HRI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
                February 2018
                468 pages
                ISBN:9781450349536
                DOI:10.1145/3171221

                Copyright © 2018 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 26 February 2018

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                HRI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate49of206submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader