Skip to main content
Log in

Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces

  • Published:
Autonomous Robots Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite advances in autonomy, there will always be a need for human involvement in vehicle teleoperation. In particular, tasks such as exploration, reconnaissance and surveillance will continue to require human supervision, if not guidance and direct control. Thus, it is critical that the operator interface be as efficient and as capable as possible. In this paper, we provide an overview of vehicle teleoperation and present a summary of interfaces currently in use.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amai, W., Fahrenholtz, J., and Leger, C. 2001. Hands-free operation of a small mobile robot. Autonomous Robots, 11(1):67–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, B. 1996. Drones in southeast Asia. 55th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing Association, Inc., Navarre, FL.

  • Ballou, P. 2001. Improving pilot dexterity with a telepresent ROV. In Proceedings of the Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces Workshop, IEEE ICRA, San Francisco, CA.

  • Blackmon, T., Nguyen, L., Neveu, C., Rasmussen, D. et al. 1999. Virtual reality mapping system for Chernobyl accident site assessment. In Proceedings of SPIE, San Jose, CA, Vol. 3644.

  • Cameron, J. et al. 1986. Fusing global navigation with computer-aided remote driving of robotic vehicles. In Proceedings of SPIE Mobile Robots, Cambridge, MA.

  • Canan, J. 1999. Seeing more, and risking less, with UAV's. Aerospace America, 37(10):26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, D. 1992. Soviet rover systems. In Proceedings of the AIAA Space Programs and Technologies Conference, Huntsville, AL.

  • Cooper, B. 1998. Driving on the surface of Mars using the Rover Control Workstation. In Proceedings of SpaceOps 1998, Tokyo, Japan.

  • Draper, M. and Ruff, H. 2001. Multi-sensory displays and visualization techniques supporting the control of unmanned air vehicles. In Proceedings of the Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces Workshop, IEEE ICRA, San Francisco, CA.

  • Fong, T., Pangels, H., Wettergreen, D., Nygren, E., Hine, B., Hontalas, P., and Fedor, C. 1995. Operator interfaces and network-based participation for Dante II. In Proceedings of the SAE 25th ICES, San Diego, CA.

  • Fong, T., Conti, F., Grange, S., and Baur, C. 2000. Novel interfaces for remote driving: Gesture, haptic, PDA. In Proceedings of SPIE Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies VII, Boston, MA.

  • Gage, D. 1995. UGV history 101: A brief history of Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) development efforts. Unmanned Systems Magazine, 13(3):9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glumm, M., Glumm, M., Kilduff, P., and Masley, A. 1992. A study on the effects of lens focal length on remote driver performance. Army Research Laboratory, Technical Report ARL-TR-25.

  • Graves, A. 1997. Enhancement of a direct control teleoperator system. Centre for Computational Intelligence, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK, Working Paper 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainsworth, D. 1993. Mine emergency survey vehicle: Numbat. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of Safety in Mines Research Institutes, Pretoria, South Africa.

  • Hainsworth, D. 2001. Teleoperation user interfaces for mining robotics. Autonomous Robots 11(1):19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. 1997. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS). An assessment of historical operations andfuture possibilities. Air Command and Staff College.

  • Kay, J. 1997. STRIPE: Remote driving using limited image data. Ph.D. Thesis CMU-CS–97–100, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. and Almaula, H. 1988. Sensorimotor requirements for teleoperation. FMC Corporation, San Diego, CA, Report R-6279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, R. et al. 2001. Issues in vehicle teleoperation for tunnel and sewer reconnaissance. In Proc. of the Vehicle Teleoperations Interfaces Workshop, IEEE ICRA, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C. et al. 2001. Advanced operator interface design for complex space telerobots. Autonomous Robots, 11(1):49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGovern, D. 1990. Experiences and results in teleoperation of land vehicles. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Technical Report SAND 90–0299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, L. et al. 2001. Virtual reality interfaces for visualization and control of remote vehicles. Autonomous Robots, 11(1):59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulos, E. and Canny, J. 2001. Designing personal tele-embodiment. Autonomous Robots, 11(1):85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perzanowski, D. et al. 2000. Towards seamless integration in a multimodal interface. In Proceedings of AAAI WIRE, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Sheridan, T. 1992. Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrien, G., Fong, T., Thorpe, C., and Baur, C. 2000. Remote driving with a multisensor user interface. In Proceedings of SAE ICES, Toulouse, France.

  • Whittaker, W. and Champeny, L. 1988. Conception and development of two mobile teleoperated systems for TMI-2. In Proceedings of the International Meeting and Topical Meeting TMI-2 Accident, American Nuclear Society.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fong, T., Thorpe, C. Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces. Autonomous Robots 11, 9–18 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011295826834

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011295826834

Navigation