Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 555–568 | Cite as

Preliminary Results on Reducing the Workload of Assistive Vehicle Users: A Collaborative Driving Approach

  • Eduardo González
  • Fernando A. Auat CheeinEmail author
Article

Abstract

Nowadays, physically impaired people still struggle with daily tasks when using mobility aid devices, whether for crossing doors, parking or manoeuvring in their homes. In this context, assistive robotics can offer solutions to those problems, thus increasing the users’ quality of life. However, studies must be performed to determine the best architecture for human–robot interaction. In this work, we propose a collaborative navigation strategy for improving users’ skills for driving assistive vehicles. We present four navigation modes: manual, assisted manual, autonomous and assisted autonomous. In particular in the two assisted modes, the system is able to predict the user’s motion intentions, reducing his/her workload. The system was validated in a real world environment with a population of twenty volunteers. Objective and subjective metrics were used to asses the system’s performance and usability, with special consideration to human factors. Results show that the system aids users to perform navigation tasks in a clear and compliant manner using a robotic assistive vehicle, while decreasing their perceived workload by 15% for the assisted manual, 41% for the autonomous and 40% for the assisted autonomous, when compared to the manual mode. Additionally, it is shown that if autonomous navigation sets a lower bound for user workload, the system approximates this bound while improving performance.

Keywords

Rehabilitation robotics Human–robot interaction Workload assessment 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

The authors would like to thank DGIP, the BASAL Project FB0008, CONICYT FONDECYT Grant 1171431, and the Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María for their support.

Informed Consent

In addition, all volunteers that participated in the trials and tested the interface, gave their voluntary consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Census Bureau U S (2014) Americans with disabilities: 2010 [Online], Oct 07. http://www.census.gov/people/disability/
  2. 2.
    Simpson RC (2005) Smart wheelchairs: a literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev 42(4):423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zeng Q, Teo CL, Rebsamen B, Burdet E (2008) A collaborative wheelchair system. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 16(2):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans S, Neophytou C, Souza LD, Frank AO (2007) “Young people’s experiences using electric powered indoor–outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): potential for enhancing users’ development?". Disabil Rehabil 29(16):1281–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlson T, Demiris Y (2012) Collaborative control for a robotic wheelchair: evaluation of performance, attention, and workload. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 42(3):876–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper RA, Boninger ML, Spaeth DM, Ding D, Guo S, Koontz AM, Fitzgerald SG, Cooper R, Kelleher A, Collins DM (2006) Engineering better wheelchairs to enhance community participation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 14(4):438–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruemmer DJ, Few DA, Boring RL, Marble JL, Walton MC, Nielsen CW (2005) Shared understanding for collaborative control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 35(4):494–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ray DN, Mukhopadhyay S, Majumder S (2009) A brief comparison between the subsumption architecture and motor schema theory in light of autonomous exploration by behavior based robots. In: 14th National conference on machines and mechanisms, pp 173–180Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tahboub KA (2001) A semi-autonomous reactive control architecture. J Intell Robot Syst 32(4):445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parikh SP, Grassi V Jr, Kumar V, Okamoto J Jr (2007) Integrating human inputs with autonomous behaviors on an intelligent wheelchair platform. IEEE Intell Syst 22(2):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galindo C, Gonzalez J, Fernández-Madrigal JA (2006) Control architecture for human–robot integration: application to a robotic wheelchair. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 36(5):1053–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leishman F, Monfort V, Horn O, Bourhis G (2014) Driving assistance by deictic control for a smart wheelchair: the assessment issue. IEEE Trans Human Mach Syst 44(1):66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katsura S, Ohnishi K (2004) Human cooperative wheelchair for haptic interaction based on dual compliance control. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 51(1):221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mars F, Deroo M, Hoc J (2014) Analysis of human–machine cooperation when driving with different degrees of Haptic shared control. IEEE Trans Haptics 7(3):324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akce A, Johnson M, Dantsker O, Bretl T (2013) A brain–machine interface to navigate a mobile robot in a planar workspace: enabling humans to fly simulated aircraft With EEG. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21(2):306–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bastos-Filho T, Auat F, Torres S, Cardoso W, de la Cruz C, Cruz D, Sarcinelli-Filho M, Santos P, Perez E, Soria C, Carelli R (2014) Towards a new modality-independent interface for a robotic wheelchair. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 22(3):567–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaupp T, Makarenko A, Durrant-Whyte H (2010) Human-robot communication for collaborative decision making: a probabilistic approach. Robot Auton Syst 58(5):444–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tahboub KA (2006) Intelligent human–machine interaction based on dynamic Bayesian networks probabilistic intention recognition. J Intell Robot Syst 45(1):31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burke JL, Murphy RR, Rogers E, Lumelsky VJ, Scholtz J (2004) Final report for the DARPA/NSF interdisciplinary study on human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C Appl Rev 34(2):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perrin X, Chavarriaga R, Colas F, Siegwart R, Millán JDR (2010) Brain-coupled interaction for semi-autonomous navigation of an assistive robot. Robot Auton Syst 58(12):1246–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yanco HA, Drury JL, Scholtz J (2004) Beyond usability evaluation: analysis of human-robot interaction at a major robotics competition. J Human Comput Interact 19(1–2):117–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steinfeld A, Fong T, Kaber D, Lewis M, Scholtz J, Schultz A, Goodrich M (2006) Common metrics for human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings 2006 ACM conference on human–Robot interaction, pp 33–40Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murphy R R, Schreckenghost D (2013) Survey of metrics for human–Robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 197–198Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meshkati N, Hancock PA, Rahimi M (1989) Techniques in mental workload assessment. In: Wilson J (ed) Evaluation of human work: practical ergonomics methodology. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 606–627Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rubio S, Díaz E, Martín J, Puente JM (2004) Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl Psychol 53(1):61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    MacKenzie I (2013) Human-Computer interaction: an empirical research persepective. Morgan Kaufmann, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pauzié A (2008) A method to assess the driver mental workload: the driving activity load index (DALI). IET Intell Transp Syst 2(4):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Urbano M, Fonseca J, Nunes U, Zeilinger H (2011) Extending a smart wheelchair navigation by stress sensors. In: IEEE 16th conference on emerging technologies and factory automation, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hwang JY, Kim JS, Lim SS, Park KH (2003) A fast path planning by path graph optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 33(1):121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nieto J, Bailey T, Nebot E (2006) Scan-SLAM: combining EKF-SLAM and scan correlation. Field Serv Robot 25:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fox D, Burgard W, Thrun S (1997) The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 4(1):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ulrich I, Borenstein J (1998) Vfh+: reliable obstacle avoidance for fast mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, May 1998, pp 1572–1577Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quinlan S, Khatib O (1993) Elastic bands: connecting path planning and control. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 802–807Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Choset H, Lynch KM, Hutchinson S, Kantor G, Burgard W, Kavraki LE, Thrun S (2005) Principles of robot motion: theory, algorithms, and implementations. MIT Press, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheein FA, Scaglia G (2014) Trajectory tracking controller design for unmanned vehicles: a new methodology. J Field Robot 31(6):861–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tsui KM, Feil-Seifer DJ, Matarić MJ, Yanco HA (2009) Performance evaluation methods for assistive robotic technology. In: Madhavan R, Tunstel E, Messina E (eds) Performance and benchmarking of intelligent systems. Springer, Boston, pp 41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reid GB, Nygren TE (1988) The subjective workload assessment technique: a scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. Adv Psychol 52:185–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Luximon A, Goonetilleke RS (2001) Simplified subjective workload assessment technique. Ergonomics 44(3):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronic EngineeringUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa MaríaValparaisoChile

Personalised recommendations