Limits...
Analyzing the effects of human-aware motion planning on close-proximity human-robot collaboration.

Lasota PA, Shah JA - Hum Factors (2015)

Bottom Line: The objective of this work was to examine human response to motion-level robot adaptation to determine its effect on team fluency, human satisfaction, and perceived safety and comfort.People respond well to motion-level robot adaptation, and significant benefits can be achieved from its use in terms of both human-robot team fluency and human worker satisfaction.Our conclusion supports the development of technologies that could be used to implement human-aware motion planning in collaborative robots and the use of this technique for close-proximity human-robot collaboration.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this work was to examine human response to motion-level robot adaptation to determine its effect on team fluency, human satisfaction, and perceived safety and comfort.

Background: The evaluation of human response to adaptive robotic assistants has been limited, particularly in the realm of motion-level adaptation. The lack of true human-in-the-loop evaluation has made it impossible to determine whether such adaptation would lead to efficient and satisfying human-robot interaction.

Method: We conducted an experiment in which participants worked with a robot to perform a collaborative task. Participants worked with an adaptive robot incorporating human-aware motion planning and with a baseline robot using shortest-path motions. Team fluency was evaluated through a set of quantitative metrics, and human satisfaction and perceived safety and comfort were evaluated through questionnaires.

Results: When working with the adaptive robot, participants completed the task 5.57% faster, with 19.9% more concurrent motion, 2.96% less human idle time, 17.3% less robot idle time, and a 15.1% greater separation distance. Questionnaire responses indicated that participants felt safer and more comfortable when working with an adaptive robot and were more satisfied with it as a teammate than with the standard robot.

Conclusion: People respond well to motion-level robot adaptation, and significant benefits can be achieved from its use in terms of both human-robot team fluency and human worker satisfaction.

Application: Our conclusion supports the development of technologies that could be used to implement human-aware motion planning in collaborative robots and the use of this technique for close-proximity human-robot collaboration.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Photograph of the task setup used in the human subject experiments.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359211&req=5

fig2-0018720814565188: Photograph of the task setup used in the human subject experiments.

Mentions: The task used in the experiment is depicted in Figure 2. During this task, human participants placed eight screws at designated locations on a table, while the robot simulated the application of a sealant to each screw by dipping a brush in a centrally positioned container and then moving the brush over the screw. Each participant was instructed to twist the screw one full rotation before moving on to the next one. The task, from the placement of the first screw to the sealant of the last, took 52 s on average.


Analyzing the effects of human-aware motion planning on close-proximity human-robot collaboration.

Lasota PA, Shah JA - Hum Factors (2015)

Photograph of the task setup used in the human subject experiments.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359211&req=5

fig2-0018720814565188: Photograph of the task setup used in the human subject experiments.
Mentions: The task used in the experiment is depicted in Figure 2. During this task, human participants placed eight screws at designated locations on a table, while the robot simulated the application of a sealant to each screw by dipping a brush in a centrally positioned container and then moving the brush over the screw. Each participant was instructed to twist the screw one full rotation before moving on to the next one. The task, from the placement of the first screw to the sealant of the last, took 52 s on average.

Bottom Line: The objective of this work was to examine human response to motion-level robot adaptation to determine its effect on team fluency, human satisfaction, and perceived safety and comfort.People respond well to motion-level robot adaptation, and significant benefits can be achieved from its use in terms of both human-robot team fluency and human worker satisfaction.Our conclusion supports the development of technologies that could be used to implement human-aware motion planning in collaborative robots and the use of this technique for close-proximity human-robot collaboration.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this work was to examine human response to motion-level robot adaptation to determine its effect on team fluency, human satisfaction, and perceived safety and comfort.

Background: The evaluation of human response to adaptive robotic assistants has been limited, particularly in the realm of motion-level adaptation. The lack of true human-in-the-loop evaluation has made it impossible to determine whether such adaptation would lead to efficient and satisfying human-robot interaction.

Method: We conducted an experiment in which participants worked with a robot to perform a collaborative task. Participants worked with an adaptive robot incorporating human-aware motion planning and with a baseline robot using shortest-path motions. Team fluency was evaluated through a set of quantitative metrics, and human satisfaction and perceived safety and comfort were evaluated through questionnaires.

Results: When working with the adaptive robot, participants completed the task 5.57% faster, with 19.9% more concurrent motion, 2.96% less human idle time, 17.3% less robot idle time, and a 15.1% greater separation distance. Questionnaire responses indicated that participants felt safer and more comfortable when working with an adaptive robot and were more satisfied with it as a teammate than with the standard robot.

Conclusion: People respond well to motion-level robot adaptation, and significant benefits can be achieved from its use in terms of both human-robot team fluency and human worker satisfaction.

Application: Our conclusion supports the development of technologies that could be used to implement human-aware motion planning in collaborative robots and the use of this technique for close-proximity human-robot collaboration.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus