The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 75, Issue 4, pp 1849–1868 | Cite as

Human–computer cooperation platform for developing real-time robotic applications

  • Carlos Domínguez
  • Juan-Miguel Martínez
  • Jose V. Busquets-MataixEmail author
  • Houcine Hassan


This paper presents a human–computer cooperation platform, which permits the coordination between the user and the tool to improve the development of real-time control applications (e.g., mobile robots). These applications have functional (robot objectives) and temporal requirements to accomplish (deadlines guarantee of tasks). The simulation tool has been designed in order to permit the testing and validation of these two requirements. To this end, the tool is composed of two independent simulators interconnected through a shared memory: the robot simulator (functional level) and the real-time task scheduler simulator (task execution level). Robotic applications can be defined with the robot simulator while the real-time scheduler simulator permits to analyze the schedulability of the robotic tasks. The real-time task simulator incorporates a flexible task model where the task temporal parameters (e.g., computation time) adapt to the requirements of the application (e.g., number of objects in scenes); thus, the use of the CPU is not overestimated. A key issue of the framework is the human–computer interface, which allows the monitoring of different parameters of the application: robot objectives, task schedule, robot speed, computation time, CPU utilization, deadline misses. The usefulness of the simulation tool is shown through different robotic navigation experiments. Finally, the simulation tool has been used to evaluate the proposed flexible model of tasks compared to a traditional fixed temporal parameters task model. Results show that the robot fulfills the objectives earlier, about 32% on average, and consumes on average about 15% less CPU to accomplish the objectives.


Human–computer cooperation Real-time systems Mobile robots Scheduling Simulation tool Graphical user interface Object oriented programming Schedulability analysis 


  1. 1.
    Dominguez C, Hassan H, Crespo A (2007) Real-time embedded architecture for pervasive robots. In: The 2007 International Conference on Intelligent Pervasive Computing (IPC 2007), pp 531–536Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Audsley NC, Burns A, Davis RI, Tindell KW, Wellings AJ (1995) Fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling: an historical perspective. Real Time Syst 8(2–3):173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stankovic JA, Lee I, Mok A, Rajkumar R (2005) Opportunities and obligations for physical computing systems. Computer 38(11):23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhen Z, Qixin C, Lo C, Lei Z (2009) A CORBA-based simulation and control framework for mobile robots. Robotica 27(3):459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferretti G, Magnani G, Porrati P, Rizzi G, Rocco P, Rusconi A (2008) Real-time simulation of a space robotic arm. In: IROSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Qadi A, Goddard S, Huang J, Farritor S (2005) A performance and schedulability analysis of an autonomous mobile robot. In: 17th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS’05), pp 239–248Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goud GR, Sharma N, Ramamritham K, Malewar S (2006) Efficient real-time support for automotive applications: a case study. In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA’06), pp 335–341Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pedreiras P, Luis A (2003) The flexible time-triggered (FTT) paradigm: an approach to QoS management in distributed real-time systems. In: Proceedings International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, p 9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li H, Sweeney J, Ramamritham K, Grupen R, Shenoy P (2003) Real-time support for mobile robotics. In: The 9th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium. Proceedings, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chetto H, Chetto M (1989) Some results of the earliest deadline scheduling algorithm. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 15(10):1261–1269MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu R, Zhang X (2017) Systems of natural-language-facilitated human-robot cooperation: a review. arXiv:1701.08269v2
  12. 12.
    Tsarouchi P, Makris S, Chryssolouris G (2016) Human–robot interaction review and challenges on task planning and programming. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 29(8):916–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moniz A (2013) Organizational concepts and interaction between humans and robots in industrial environments. In: IEEE-RAS-IARP Joint Workshop on Technical Challenges for Dependable Robots in Human Environment, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer MP, Odenthal B, Faber M, Winkelholz C, Schlick CM (2014) Cognitive engineering of automated assembly processes. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 24(3):348–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agostini A, Torras C, Wörgötter F (2011) Integrating task planning and interactive learning for robots to work in human environments. In: IJCAIGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kwon W, Suh I (2014) Planning of proactive behaviors for human–robot cooperative tasks under uncertainty. Knowl Based Syst 72:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen F, Sekiyama K, Sasaki H, Huang J, Sun B, Fukuda T (2011) Assembly strategy modeling and selection for human and robot coordinated cell assembly. In: 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp 4670–4675Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gombolay M, Wilcox R, Diaz A, Yu F (2013) Towards successful coordination of human and robotic work using automated scheduling tools: an initial pilot study. In: Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Human–Robot Collaboration WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gombolay MC, Gutierrez RA, Clarke SG, Sturla GF, Shah JA (2015) Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams. Auton Robots 39(3):293–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frontoni E, Mancini A, Caponetti F, Zingaretti P (2006) A framework for simulations and tests of mobile robotics tasks. In: 2006 14th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Embarcadero Technologies, C++ Builder 10.2.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering (DISCA)Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV)ValènciaSpain

Personalised recommendations