Autonomous Robots

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 51–69 | Cite as

Generating Multi-Level Linguistic Spatial Descriptions from Range Sensor Readings Using the Histogram of Forces

  • Marjorie Skubic
  • Pascal Matsakis
  • George Chronis
  • James Keller


In this paper, we show how linguistic expressions can be generated to describe the spatial relations between a mobile robot and its environment, using readings from a ring of sonar sensors. Our work is motivated by the study of human-robot communication for novice robot users. The ultimate goal is to exploit these linguistic expressions for navigation of the mobile robot in an unknown environment, where the expressions represent the qualitative state of the robot in terms that are easily understood by humans. The notion of the histogram of forces was presented in previous work and used to generate linguistic descriptions of relative positions in digital images. Here, we demonstrate that it also permits fast processing of vector data and can be applied to a robot with range sensors moving in a dynamic environment. We introduce a new method for detecting partially and completely surrounded conditions, and we show that detailed descriptions can be obtained as well as coarse ones. Numerous examples are included, illustrating a variety of situations.

human-robot communication robot navigation histograms of forces linguistic spatial descriptions spatial relationships surroundedness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bloch, I. 1999. Fuzzy relative position between objects in image processing: New definition and properties based on a morphological approach. Int. J. Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 7(2):99–133.Google Scholar
  2. Cutnell, J.D. and Johnson, K. 2001. Physics, 5th edn., Wiley & Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  3. Dubois, D. and Prade, H. 1980. Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications, Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  4. Freeman, J. 1975. The modelling of spatial relations. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 4:156–171.Google Scholar
  5. Gapp, K.P. 1995. Angle, distance, shape, and their relationship to projective relations. In Proceedings, 17th Conf. of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  6. Gribble, W., Browning, R., Hewett, M., Remolina, E., and Kuipers, B. 1998. Integrating vision and spatial reasoning for assistive navigation. In Assistive Technology and Artificial Intelligence, V. Mittal, H. Yanco, J. Aronis, and R. Simpson (Eds.), Springer Verlag: Berlin, Germany, pp. 179–193.Google Scholar
  7. Klatzky, R. 1998. Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: Definitions, distinctions, and interconnections. In Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Representing and Processing Spatial Knowledge, C. Freksa, C. Habel, and K. Wender (Eds.), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  8. Klir, G. and Folger, T. 1988. Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Krieg-Brückner, B., Röfer, T., Carmesin, H.-O., and Müller, R. 1998. A taxonomy of spatial knowledge for navigation and its application to the Bremen autonomous wheelchair. In Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Representing and Processing Spatial Knowledge, C. Freksa, C. Habel, and K. Wender (Eds.), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 373–397.Google Scholar
  10. Krishnapuram, R., Keller, J.M., and Ma, Y. 1993. Quantitative analysis of properties and spatial relations of fuzzy image regions. IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, 1(3):222–233.Google Scholar
  11. Kuipers, B. 1998. A hierarchy of qualitative representations for space. In Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Representing and Processing Spatial Knowledge, C. Freksa, C. Habel, and K. Wender (Eds.), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 337–350.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, M.C. and Moravec, H.P. 1996. Robot evidence grids. Technical Report #CMU-RI-TR–96–06, Carnegie Mellon University, March.Google Scholar
  13. Matsakis, P. 1998. Relations spatiales structurelles et interprétation d'images. Ph.D. Thesis, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  14. Matsakis, P., Keller, J., and Wendling, L. 1999. F-histograms and fuzzy directional spatial relations. In Proceedings, LFA'99 (French-Speaking Conference on Fuzzy Logic and Its Applications), Valenciennes, France.Google Scholar
  15. Matsakis, P., Keller, J.M., Wendling, L., Marjamaa, J., and Sjahputera, O. 2001. Linguistic description of relative positions in images. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, 31(4):573–588.Google Scholar
  16. Matsakis, P. and Wendling, L. 1999. A new way to represent the relative position between areal objects. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21(7):634–643.Google Scholar
  17. Miyajima, K. and Ralescu, A. 1994. Spatial organization in 2D segmented images: Representation and recognition of primitive spatial relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 65(2/3):225–236.Google Scholar
  18. Moratz, R. and Fischer, K. 2000. Cognitively adequate modeling of spatial reference in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Int. Conf. On Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 222–228.Google Scholar
  19. Morik, K., Kaiser, M., and Klingspor, V. (Eds.) 1999. Making Robots Smarter, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston.Google Scholar
  20. Perzanowski, D., Schultz, A., Adams, W., and Marsh, E. 1999. Goal tracking in a natural language interface: Towards achieving adjustable autonomy. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Int. Symp. on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation, Monterey, CA, pp. 208–213.Google Scholar
  21. Previc, F.H. 1998. The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychological Review, 124(2):123–164.Google Scholar
  22. Retz-Schmidt, G. 1988. Various views on spatial prepositions. AI Magazine, 9(2):95–105.Google Scholar
  23. Rosenfeld, A. and Klette, R. 1985. Degree of adjacency or surroundedness. Pattern Recognition, 18(2):169–177.Google Scholar
  24. Schunn, C. and Harrison, T. 2001. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  25. Shibata, F., Ashida, M., Kakusho, K., Babaguchi, N., and Kitahashi, T. 1996. Mobile robot navigation by user-friendly goal specification. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Int. Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 439–444.Google Scholar
  26. Skubic, M., Chronis, G., Matsakis, P., and Keller, J. 2001. Generating linguistic spatial descriptions from sonar readings using the histogram of forces. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2001 Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Seoul, Korea, pp. 485–490.Google Scholar
  27. Skubic, M., Perzanowski, D., Schultz, A., and Adams, W. 2002. Using spatial language in a human-robot dialog. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2002 Int. Conf. On Robotics and Automation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. Skubic, M. and Volz, R.A. 2000. Acquiring robust, force-based assembly skills from human demonstration. IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, 16(6):772–781.Google Scholar
  29. Stopp, E., Gapp, K.-P., Herzog, G., Laengle, T., and Lueth, T. 1994. Utilizing spatial relations for natural language access to an autonomous mobile robot. In Proceedings of the 18th German Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Germany, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
  30. Wang, X. and Keller, J.M. 1997. Fuzzy surroundedness. In Proceedings, Sixth IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 1173–1178.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marjorie Skubic
    • 1
  • Pascal Matsakis
    • 1
  • George Chronis
    • 1
  • James Keller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations