End-effector velocity defines two types of servomanipulators: operator-paced systems and machine-paced systems. Input frequency limits below human bandwidth may also cause machine-pacing. Two experiments varied end-effector velocity limits (1.01 meters per second, 86.4 centimeters per second, and 76.2 centimeters per second) and input frequency limits (0.16 Hz, 0.32 Hz, 0.64 Hz, and 1.27 Hz). Multivariate analyses of variance found statistically significant input frequency limit effects in one experiment, and significant input frequency and velocity limit effects in the second experiment. Machine-pacing caused by input frequency occurred in the range hypothesized (between 0.32 Hz and 0.64 Hz). The critical velocity limit appeared to be lower than expected (between 76.2 cm and 86.4 cm per second). These results are valuable for future teleoperator designs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CardS. K.MoranT. P.NewellA. (1986). The model human processor. In BoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Volume II: Cognitive Processes and Performance.New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 45–15.
2.
ChesserJ. B.BurgessT. W.DraperJ. V. (1988). Comparative testing of servomanipulator systems for the Compact Ignition Tokamak program (publication ORNL/TM-10859). Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
3.
ClarkeM. M.KreifeldtJ. G. (1984). Elements of an advanced integrated operator control station. In Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society 1984 National Topical Meeting on Robotics and Remote Handling in Hostile Environments (pp. 425–432). Gatlinburg, Tennessee: American Nuclear Society.
4.
DraperJ. V.HandelS. XSchrockS. L. (1989). Performance evaluation of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Advanced Servomanipulator. In Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on Remote Handling and Robotics in Hostile Environments (section 3–5). Charleston, South Carolina: American Nuclear Society.
5.
DraperJ. V.HandelS. J.SundstromE.HerndonJ. N.FujitaYMaedaM. (1987). Final report: Manipulator comparative testing program (publication ORNL/TM-10109). Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
6.
DraperJ. V.HerndonJ. N. (1988). Manual, voice, and automated control of a teleoperator viewing system. In Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society's International Symposium on Teleoperation and Control.Bristol, England: The Ergonomics Society.
7.
DraperJ. V.HerndonJ. N.MooreW. E. (1987). Implications of force reflection for teleoperation in space. In Proceedings of the 1987 Goddard Conference on Space Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (section 7). Greenbelt, Maryland: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
8.
DraperJ. V.HerndonJ. N.WeilB. SMooreW. E. (1987). Effects of force reflection on servomanipulator performance. In Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Remote Handling and Robotics in Hostile Environments (pp. 654–660). Pasco, Washington: American Nuclear Society.
9.
DraperJ. V.SundstromE.HerndonJ. N. (1986). Joint motion clusters in servomanipulator operation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting (pp. 552–555). Dayton, Ohio: Human Factors Society.
10.
FerrellW. R. (1966). Delayed force feedback. Human Factors, October, 449–455.
11.
FittsP. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381–391.
12.
GoertzR. (1964). Some work on manipulator systems at ANL past, present, and a look at the future. In Proceedings of the 1964 Seminars on Remotely Operated Special Equipment (pp. 27–69). Germantown, Maryland: United States Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information.
13.
KnightJ. L. (1987). Manual control and tracking. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 182–218.
14.
KubanD. P.MartinH. L. (1984). An advanced remotely maintainable force-reflecting servomanipulator concept. In Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society 1984 National Topical Meeting on Robotics and Remote Handling in Hostile Environments (pp. 407–415). Gatlinburg, Tennessee: American Nuclear Society.
15.
MartinH. L.HamelW. R.KilloughS. M.SpilleR. F. (1984). Control and electronic subsystems for the Advanced Servomanipulator. In Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society 1984 National Topical Meeting on Robotics and Remote Handling in Hostile Environments (pp. 417–424). Gatlinburg, Tennessee: American Nuclear Society.
16.
MolinoJ. A.LangleyL. J. (1989). Training novice operators to use a teleoperated robot for remote, dexterous operations. In Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on Remote Handling and Robotics in Hostile Environments (section 10–6). Charleston, South Carolina: American Nuclear Society.
17.
O'HaraJ. M. (1987). Telerobotic control of a dexterous manipulator using master and six-DOF hand controllers for space assembly and servicing tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 791–795). New York, New York: Human Factors Society.
18.
Van CottH. P.KinkadeR. G. (Eds.). (1972). Human engineering guide to equipment design, rev. ed.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
WickensC. D. (1984). Engineering psychology and human performance, Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 253.
