Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:07:10.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validating extended neglect tolerance model for human robot interactions in humanoid soccer robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2010

R. E. Mohan ,
W. S. Wijesoma ,
C. A. A. Calderon  and
C. J. Zhou
R. E. Mohan*
Affiliation:
Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Control Centre, Singapore Polytechnic, 500 Dover Road, Singapore Division of Control & Instrumentation, School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. E-mail: [email protected]
W. S. Wijesoma
Affiliation:
Division of Control & Instrumentation, School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. E-mail: [email protected]
C. A. A. Calderon
Affiliation:
Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Control Centre, Singapore Polytechnic, 500 Dover Road, Singapore
C. J. Zhou
Affiliation:
Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Control Centre, Singapore Polytechnic, 500 Dover Road, Singapore
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Estimating robot performance in human robot teams is a vital problem in human robot interaction community. In a previous work, we presented extended neglect tolerance model for estimation of robot performance, where the human operator switches control between robots sequentially based on acceptable performance levels, taking into account any false alarms in human robot interactions. Task complexity is a key parameter that directly impacts the robot performance as well as the false alarms occurrences. In this paper, we validate the extended neglect tolerance model for two robot tasks of varying complexity levels. We also present the impact of task complexity on robot performance estimations and false alarms demands. Experiments were performed with real and virtual humanoid soccer robots across tele-operated and semi-autonomous modes of autonomy. Measured false alarm demand and robot performances were largely consistent with the extended neglect tolerance model predictions for both real and virtual robot experiments. Experiments also showed that the task complexity is directly proportional to false alarm demands and inversely proportional to robot performance.

Keywords

Human robot teamsRobot performanceTask complexityFalse alarm demandHumanoid soccer robotsAutonomy modes
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , May 2011 , pp. 421 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Hudock, B. M., Bishop, B. E. and Crabbe, F. L., Development of a novel urban search and rescue robot, United States Naval Academy Trident Scholar Report, USA (2003).Google Scholar
2.Fischer, G. S., Iordachita, I., Csoma, C., Tokuda, J., DiMaio, S. P., Tempany, C. M., Hata, N. and Fichtinger, G., “MRI-compatible pneumatic robot for transperineal prostate needle placement,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 3, 295–305 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Kyoungchul, K. and Doyoung, J., “Design and control of an exoskeleton for the elderly and patients,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 11, 428–432 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Stein, M., Behavior-Based Control for Time-Delayed Tele-Operation Ph. D dissertation (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 1994).Google Scholar
5.Alise, M., Roberts, R. G., Repperger, D. W., CAM, Jr and Tosunoglu, S., “On extending the wave variable method to multiple-DOF teleoperation systems,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 14, 55–63 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Ong, K. W., Seet, G. and Sim, S. K., “An Implementation of Seamless Human-Robot Interaction for Telerobotics,” J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 5 (2), (2008).Google Scholar
7.Paul, M. and Peter, A., “Shared Autonomy in a Robot Hand Teleoperation System,” Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Robotics Systems, Munich, Germany (1994).Google Scholar
8.Wang, J., Wang, H., Lewis, M., Scerri, P., Velagapudi, P. and Sycara, K., “Experiments in Coordination Demand for MultiRobot Systems,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Distributed Human-Machine Systems, Athens, Greece (2008).Google Scholar
9.Crandall, J. W., Goodrich, M. A., Olsen, D. R. and Nielsen, C. W., “Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multi-tasking environments,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. – Part-A 35 (4), 438–449 (July 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Crandall, J. W. and Cummings, M. L., “Identifying predictive metrics for supervisory control of multiple robots,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 23 (5), (Oct. 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Crandall, J. W. and Goodrich, M. A., “Measuring the Intelligence of a Robot and its Interface”, Proceedings of NIST's Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD (2003).Google Scholar
12.Bruemmer, D. J. and Walton, M., “Collaborative Tools for Mixed Teams of Humans and Robots,” Proceedings of International Workshop on Multi-robot Systems, Washington, DC (2003).Google Scholar
13.Hexmoor, H., “A Model of Absolute Autonomy and Power: Toward Group Effects,” Proceedings of AAAI Workshop Autonomy, Delegation, and Control: From Inter-Agent to Groups, Alberta, Canada (2002).Google Scholar
14.Wang, J., Human Control of Cooperating Robots Ph. D dissertation (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 2008).Google Scholar
15.Mohan, R. E., Wijesoma, W. S., Calderon, C. A. A. and Zhou, C., “Experimenting false alarm demand for human robot interactions in humanoid soccer robots,” Int. J. Soc. Robot. (Jan. 2009).Google Scholar
16.Mohan, R. E., Wijesoma, W. S., Calderon, C. A. A. and Zhou, C., “Redefining Fan Out Metric: Estimating Human Capability in Controlling Multiple Robots,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO (Oct. 2009).Google Scholar
17.Mohan, R. E., Wijesoma, W. S., Calderon, C. A. A. and Zhou, C., “Validating Extended Neglect Tolerance Model for Human Robot Interaction in Search & Rescue Missions,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Kobe, Japan (May 2009).Google Scholar
18.Goodrich, M. A., Crandal, J. W. L. and Stimpson, J. L., “Neglect Tolerant Teaming: Issues and Dilemmas,” Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Human Interaction with Autonomous Systems in Complex Environments, Stanford, CA (2003).Google Scholar
19.Steinfeld, , Fong, T., Kaber, D., Lewis, M., Scholtz, J., Schultz, A. and Goodrich, M. A., “Common Metrics for Human Robot Interaction,” Proceedings International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Salt Lake City, UT (2006).Google Scholar
20.Oslen, D. R. and Wood, S. B., “Fan Out – Measuring Human Control of Multiple Robots,” Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria (2004).Google Scholar
21.Olsen, D. and Goodrich, M., “Metrics for Evaluating Human Robot Interactions,” Proceedings of NIST Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD (2003).Google Scholar
22.Zhou, C. and Yue, P. K., Robo-Erectus: A low Cost Autonomous Humanoid Soccer Robot (Brill, Japan, 2004).Google Scholar
23.Mohan, R. E., Calderon, C. A. A., Zhou, C. and Yue, P. K., “Extending NGMOSL model for human humanoid robot interaction in soccer robotics domain,” Appl. Bionics Biomech. 5 (4), (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Calderon, C. A. A., Mohan, R. E., Zhou, C., Hu, L. and Hu, H., “Generating human-like soccer primitives from human data,” Robot. Autonom. Syst. 57 (8), (2009).Google Scholar
25.Calderon, C. A. A., Zhou, C.Yue, P. K., Wong, M. and Mohan, R. E., “A distributed embedded control architecture for humanoid soccer robots,” Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Climbing and Walking Robots, Singapore (2007).Google Scholar
26.Calderon, C. A. A., Mohan, R. E. and Zhou, C., “Virtual-RE: A humanoid Robotic Soccer Simulator,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Cyberworlds, Hangzhou, China (2008).Google Scholar
27.Smith, R. (Jan. 23, 2009). Open dynamics engine [Online]. Available: http://www.ode.orgGoogle Scholar
28.Crandall, J. W. and Goodrich, M. A., “Principles of Adjustable Interactions,” Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on Human Robot Interactions, Cambridge, MA (2002).Google Scholar