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

Diagram depicting the experimental procedure. The group on the left represents the “human-aware-first” condition, whereas the group on the right represents the “standard-first” condition.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig3-0018720814565188: Diagram depicting the experimental procedure. The group on the left represents the “human-aware-first” condition, whereas the group on the right represents the “standard-first” condition.

Mentions: The experiment procedure is depicted in Figure 3. First, both groups executed a training round, during which the participants placed the screws without an assistant applying the sealant, to familiarize themselves with the task. Next, all participants performed the task with a human assistant to implicitly prime the subjects to work with a robot in a manner similar to working with a person during subsequent task executions. To prevent any unintentional bias from the experimenter, who acted as the human coworker, this first task execution was conducted in a double-blind fashion, with the experimenter unaware of which of the two conditions each participant had been assigned to.


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

Lasota PA, Shah JA - Hum Factors (2015)

Diagram depicting the experimental procedure. The group on the left represents the “human-aware-first” condition, whereas the group on the right represents the “standard-first” condition.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig3-0018720814565188: Diagram depicting the experimental procedure. The group on the left represents the “human-aware-first” condition, whereas the group on the right represents the “standard-first” condition.
Mentions: The experiment procedure is depicted in Figure 3. First, both groups executed a training round, during which the participants placed the screws without an assistant applying the sealant, to familiarize themselves with the task. Next, all participants performed the task with a human assistant to implicitly prime the subjects to work with a robot in a manner similar to working with a person during subsequent task executions. To prevent any unintentional bias from the experimenter, who acted as the human coworker, this first task execution was conducted in a double-blind fashion, with the experimenter unaware of which of the two conditions each participant had been assigned to.

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