Evaluation of Haptic Feedback in the Performance of a Teleoperated Unmanned Ground Vehicle in an Obstacle Avoidance Scenario
- 20 Downloads
This study investigates the effect of haptic feedback on the teleoperation system. The performance of a teleoperated unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) was analyzed in terms of the stability, task performance, and control effort of the operator. The UGV navigation task was performed as a benchmark test for evaluation. The haptic feedback applies a potential function based on an obstacle avoidance algorithm in which the operator receives a repulsive force feedback. Psychophysical experiments were performed with three experimental cases to measure nine performance metrics. A one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc analysis were performed for the statistical analysis. In conclusion, the effect of haptic feedback is superior in terms of stability and task performance, but not in terms of control effort.
KeywordsHaptic feedback obstacle avoidance psychophysical evaluation teleoperation unmanned ground vehicle
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- H. Lee, C. Ju, S. Park, S. Park, and H. I. Son, “Preliminary user evaluation of inaccuracy in haptic guidance for teleoperated maintenance task of nuclear power plant,” Proc. of the 14th International Conf. on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence, pp. 467–469, 2017.Google Scholar
- C. Ju, S. Park, and H. I. Son, “Effects of the position and orientation inaccuracies in haptic guidance on the task performance in teleoperation systems,” Journal of Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 981–989, 2017.Google Scholar
- H. I. Son, L. L. Chuang, J. Kim, and H. H. Bulthoff, “Haptic feedback cues can improve human perceptual awareness in multi–robots teleoperation,” Proc. of the 11th International Conf. on Control, Automation and Systems, pp. 1323.1328, 2017.Google Scholar
- S. Lichiardopol, “A survey on teleoperation,” Technische Universitat Eindhoven, DCT report, 2007.Google Scholar
- S. Lee, G. S. Sukhatme, G. J. Kim, and C. M. Park, “Haptic control of a mobile robot: a user study,” Proc. of the 15th International Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 2867.2874, 2002.Google Scholar
- S. Lee, G. J. Kim, G. S. Sukhatme, and C. M. Park, “Effects of haptic feedback on telepresence and navigational performance,” Proc. of the International Conf. on Artificial Telexistence, 2004.Google Scholar
- A. Hacinecipoglu, E. I. Konukseven, and A. B. Koku, “Evaluation of haptic feedback cues on vehicle teleoperation performance in an obstacle avoidance scenario,” Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on World Haptics, pp. 689–694, 2013.Google Scholar
- I. Farkhatdinov, and J. H. Ryu, “Improving mobile robot bilateral teleoperation by introducing variable force feedback gain,” Proc. of the 10th International Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5812.5817, 2010.Google Scholar
- A. Yamamuro, K. Tanida, and K. Ohnishi, “Evaluation of maneuverability in teleoperation based on operational effort,” Proc. of the IEEE 13th International Conf. on Industrial Informatics, pp. 343–348, 2015.Google Scholar
- S. G. Hart, “NASA–task load index (NASA–TLX); 20 years later,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 904–908, 2006.Google Scholar
- S. Patrinostro, M. Tanzini, M. Satler, E. Ruffaldi, A. Filippeschi, and C. A. Avizzano, “A Haptic–assisted guidance system for working machines based on virtual force fields,” Proc. of the International Conf. on Information, Communication and Automation Technologies, pp. 1–6, 2015.Google Scholar