Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper presents our framework for human robot interaction. The framework has been designed to allow non-experts to control and program complex robots in an intuitive way that is both reliable and accurate. The principle mechanism behind our model is Augmented Reality (AR), we use this to provide a diagrammatic service to the user, the service uses a range of diagrammatic markers including marker-less AR objects, which can be created and connected together and used to command and control the robot and engage in two way communications. We report on two case studies where our framework is applied to a set of command and control tasks, we measure performance across situation-awareness, task-completion-time and cognitive-load. Our results show that our model leads to greater situational awareness and improved task completion times, when compared to conventional interaction methods, such as a gamepad controller. Future work will integrate our model into multi-modal hybrids and extend the case studies to compare against other interaction methods.

Keywords

Robotics augmented reality human robot interaction computer vision vision-based navigation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

[1]

Berka and

D.J.

Levendowski, EEG correlates of task engagement and mental workload in vigilance, learning, and memory tasks, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine78 (2007), B231–B244.

[2]

K.A.

Brookhuis and

de Waard, Monitoring drivers’ mental workload in driving simulators using physiological measures, Accident; Analysis and Prevention42(3) (May 2010), 898–903.

[3]

A.-M.

Brouwer,

M.A.

Hogervorst,

J.B.F.

van Erp,

Heffelaar,

P.H.

Zimmerman and

Oostenveld, Estimating workload using EEG spectral power and ERPs in the n-back task, Journal of Neural Engineering9(4) (August 2012), 045008.

[4]C D(University of Illinois) Wickens and J(University of Idaho) Hollands, Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1999.

[5]

Castle,

Klein and

D.W.

Murray, Video-rate localization in multiple maps for wearable augmented reality, in: 2008 12th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 2008, pp. 15–22.

[6]

Cawood,

Fiala and

D.H.

Steinberg, Augmented Reality: A Practical Guide, Pragmatic Programmers, LLC, 2007.

[7]

A.I.

Comport,

É.

Marchand and

Chaumette, A real-time tracker for markerless augmented reality, in: Proc. of the 2nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Tokyo, 2003, pp. 36–45.

[8]International Federation of Robotics, Executive Summary World Robotics 2013 Service Robots, 2013, Technical report.

[9]

L.-T.

Hsieh and

Ranganath, Frontal midline theta oscillations during working memory maintenance and episodic encoding and retrieval, NeuroImage85(Pt.2) (January 2014), 721–729.

10.

[10]

Klimesch, EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis, Brain research. Brain Research Reviews29(2–3) (April 1999), 169–195.

11.

[11]

Lakshantha and

Egerton, Is augmented reality the future middleware for improving human robot interactions: A case study, in: 22nd International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision, 2014.

12.

[12]

Lakshantha and

Egerton, Towards a human robot interaction framework with marker-less augmented reality and visual SLAM, Journal of Automation and Control Engineering2(3) (2014), 250–255.

13.

[13]

Parasuraman,

T.B.

Sheridan and

C.D.

Wickens, A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part A, Systems and Humans: A Publication of the IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society30, (May 2000), 286–297.

14.

[14]

M.S.

Prewett,

R.C.

Johnson,

K.N.

Saboe,

L.R.

Elliott and

M.D.

Coovert, Managing workload in human–robot interaction: A review of empirical studies, Computers in Human Behavior26(5) (September 2010), 840–856.

15.

[15]

L.J.

Prinzel,

F.G.

Freeman,

M.W.

Scerbo,

P.J.

Mikulka and

A.T.

Pope, Effects of a psychophysiological system for adaptive automation on performance, workload, and the event-related potential P300 component, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society45(4) (2003), 601–613.

16.

[16]

Shreiner, OpenGL Programming Guide: The Official Guide to Learning OpenGL, Addison-Wesley, 2004.

17.

[17]

Steinfeld,

Fong and

Kaber, Common metrics for human-robot interaction, in: Proc. of the 1st ACM SIGCHISIGART Conference on Humanrobot Interaction HRI’06 (2006), Vol. 15(2), 2006, p. 33.

18.

[18]

G.F.

Wilson and

C.A.

Russell, Real-time assessment of mental workload using psychophysiological measures and artificial neural networks, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society45(4) (2003), 635–643.

A diagrammatic framework for intuitive human robot interaction

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References