Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SPRinT: A Mixed Approach to a Hand-Held Robot Interface for Telepresence

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we present SPRinT, a control interface design for a telepresence robot that uses only a smart phone without any external sensors. In addition to basic controllability, we focus on providing a reasonable level of spatial understanding as well as a feeling of telepresence through the interaction. The central idea of SPRinT is to have the operator control and interact with the system by “posing” as the robot in the remote area in order to elicit a sense of telepresence, promote spatial task performance, and improve the overall interactive experience. We have applied the proposed interaction design principle to remote robot control, and compared it to a nominal touch-button based interface in terms of the controllability, the level of user-felt telepresence, and spatial understanding. Our experiments showed that the proprioceptive and spatial nature of the motion-based rotational control was critical in eliciting the sense of telepresence and spatial understanding, and this in turn was also important to ensure effective exploration and awareness of remote spaces. On the other hand, the traditional touch-button interface was more appropriate for translation for which a proper proprioceptive metaphoric command could not be designed. Overall, the mixed approach (body/motion based for rotation and touch based for translation) proved to offer a good middle ground since the interaction method was familiar and easy to use with a reasonable level of telepresence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.aldebaran.com.

  2. http://www.irobot.com.

  3. http://www.willowgarage.com.

  4. Oculus Rift http://www.oculus.com.

  5. Myo armband http://www.myo.com.

References

  1. Benyon D, Smyth M, Helgason I (2009) Presence for everyone: a short guide to presence research. Centre for interaction design

  2. Berthoz A (2002) The brain’s sense of movement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boff KR, Kaufman LE, Thomas JP (1986) Handbook of perception and human performance, vol. 2: cognitive processes and performance. Wiley, New York

  4. Boulic R, Maupu D, Peinado M, Raunhardt D (2010) Spatial awareness in full-body immersive interactions: where do we stand?. Springer, Berlin, pp 59–69

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bruemmer DJ, Marble JL, Few DA, Boring RL, Walton MC, Nielsen CW (2005) Let rover take over: a study of mixed-initiative control for remote robotic search and detection. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 35(4):494–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bulich C, Klein A, Watson R, Kitts C (2004) Characterization of delay-induced piloting instability for the triton undersea robot. In: IEEE aerospace conference, vol 1, pp 409–423

  7. Casper J, Murphy RR (2003) Human-robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the world trade center. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 33(3):367–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chong NY, Kotoku T, Ohba K, Sasaki H, Komoriya K, Tanie K (2002) Multioperator teleoperation of multirobot systems with time delay: part ii—testbed description. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 11(3):292–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chua CWLK, Foo FCH, Lee LYS (2011) Interactive methods of tele-operating a single unmanned ground vehicle on a small screen interface. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 121–122

  10. Evans AW, Gray JP, Rudnick D, Karlsen RE (2012) Control solutions for robots using android and IOS devices. In: SPIE defense, security, and sensing, international society for optics and photonics, pp 83870M–83870M-10

  11. Fong T, Thorpe C (2001) Vehicle teleoperation interfaces. Auton Robots 11(1):9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Groenegress C (2010) Whole-body interaction for the enhancement of presence in virtual environments. A Ph.D. Thesis, University of Barcelona

  13. Hu H, Li J, Xie Z, Wang B, Liu H, Hirzinger G (2005) A robot arm/hand teleoperation system with telepresence and shared control. In: Proceedings of the advanced intelligent mechatronics, pp 1312–1317

  14. Hwang J, Jung J, Kim GJ (2006) Hand-held virtual reality: a feasibility study. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology. ACM, pp 356–363

  15. Insko BE (2003) Measuring presence: subjective, behavioral and physiological methods. Emerg Commun 5:109–120

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson S, Rae I, Mutlu B, Takayama L (2015) Can you see me now? How field of view affects collaboration in robotic telepresence. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2397–2406

  17. Johnston J, Wilson R, Birch M (2002) Training for the operation of semi-autonomous systems—interim report. In: Human system information analaysis center, Wright Patterson AFB, OH, Tech Rep HSIAC-TR-2002002

  18. Kratz S, Vaughan J, Mizutani R, Kimber D (2015) Evaluating stereoscopic video with head tracking for immersive teleoperation of mobile telepresence robots. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 43–44

  19. Lee S, Kim GJ (2008) Effects of haptic feedback, stereoscopy, and image resolution on performance and presence in remote navigation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 66(10):701–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu HY, Wang WJ, Wang RJ, Tung CW, Wang PJ, Chang I (2012) Image recognition and force measurement application in the humanoid robot imitation. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 61(1):149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McGovern DE (1991) Experience and results in teleoperation of land vehicles. In: Ellis S, Kaiser M, Grunwald A (eds) Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 182–195

  22. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moon SW, Kim YJ, Myeong HJ, Kim CS, Cha NJ, Kim DH (2011) Implementation of smartphone environment remote control and monitoring system for android operating system-based robot platform. In: 8th international conference on ubiquitous robots and ambient intelligence (URAI). IEEE, pp 211–214

  24. Murphy RR (2004) Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 34(2):138–153

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Muszynski S, Stckler J, Behnke S (2012) Adjustable autonomy for mobile teleoperation of personal service robots. In: RO-MAN. IEEE, pp 933–940

  26. Nguyen LA, Bualat M, Edwards LJ, Flueckiger L, Neveu C, Schwehr K, Wagner MD, Zbinden E (2001) Virtual reality interfaces for visualization and control of remote vehicles. Auton Robots 11(1):59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nilsson NC, Serafin S, Laursen MH, Pedersen KS, Sikstrom E, Nordahl R (2013) Tapping-in-place: increasing the naturalness of immersive walking-in-place locomotion through novel gestural input. In: IEEE Symposium on 3D user interfaces, pp 31–38

  28. Pahuja R, Kumar N (2014) Android mobile phone controlled bluetooth robot using 8051 microcontroller. In: International journal of scientific engineering and research (IJSER), pp 2347–3878

  29. Peer A, Pongrac H, Buss M (2010) Influence of varied human movement control on task performance and feeling of telepresence. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 19(5):463–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Peterson B (1998) The influence of whole-body interaction on wayfinding in virtual reality. Ph. D. thesis

  31. Pongrac H, Leupold J, Behrendt S, Frber G (2007) Human factors for enhancing live video streams with virtual reality: performance, situation awareness, and feeling of telepresence. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 16(5):488–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Saraiji MY, Fernando CL, Mizushina Y, Kamiyama Y, Minamizawa K, Tachi S (2014) Enforced telexistence: teleoperating using photorealistic virtual body and haptic feedback. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2014 emerging technologies. ACM, p 7

  33. Seo YH, Kwak SS, Yang TK (2011) Mobile robot control using smart phone and its performance evaluation. In: Advanced communication and networking communications in Computer and Information Science. pp 362–369

  34. Slater M, Wilbur S (1997) A framework for immersive virtual environments (five): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 6(6):603–616

  35. Stone RJ (2001) Haptic feedback: a brief history from telepresence to virtual reality. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–16

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Waller D, Loomis JM, Haun DB (2004) Body-based senses enhance knowledge of directions in large-scale environments. Psychon Bull Rev 11(1):157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Woods DD, Tittle J, Feil M, Roesler A (2004) Envisioning human–robot coordination in future operations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 34(2):210–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Xiao Y, Zhang Z, Beck A, Yuan J, Thalmann D (2014) Human–robot interactio understanding upper body gestures. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 23(2):133–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yang U, Kim GJ (2004) Increasing the effective egocentric field of view with proprioceptive and tactile feedback. In: IEEE proceedings of the virtual reality, pp 27–34

  40. Zhu D, Gedeon T, Taylor K (2011) Exploring camera viewpoint control models for a multi-tasking setting in teleoperation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 53–62

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (No. 2011-0030079) and Institute for Information and communications Technology Promotion (IITP) Grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2015-0-00565, Development of Vulnerability Discovery Technologies for IoT Software Security.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Korea

    Jonggil Ahn & Gerard Jounghyun Kim

Authors
  1. Jonggil Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerard Jounghyun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard Jounghyun Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahn, J., Kim, G.J. SPRinT: A Mixed Approach to a Hand-Held Robot Interface for Telepresence. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 537–552 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0463-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0463-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation