A Study on Direct Teleoperation Device Kinematics

  • Robert PastorEmail author
  • Aleš Vysocký
  • Petr Novák
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11472)


Teleoperation using a controller with the same kinematics as the controlled robotic agent has the potential to be more effective than using a universal joystick. With direct teleoperation, the operator is restricted by the same workspace as the controlled robot, thus making the process more intuitive. In this study we compare controllers with various kinematic configurations and degrees of freedom. The performance of the controllers is tested in sample situations where users directly teleoperate a slave manipulator model matching the real master device kinematics.


Teleoperation HMI Kinematics 



This article has been elaborated under support of the project Research Centre of Advanced Mechatronic Systems, reg. no. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000867 in the frame of the Operational Program Research, Development and Education. This article was also supported by the specific research project SP2018/86 and financed by the state budget of the Czech Republic.


  1. 1.
    Borkar, S., Pande, H.: Application of 5G next generation network to Internet of Things. In: 2016 International Conference on Internet of Things and Applications (IOTA), Pune (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xu, X., Cizmeci, B., Schuwerk, C., Steinbach, E.: Model-mediated teleoperation: toward stable and transparent teleoperation systems. IEEE Access 4, 425–449 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ford. Mobility experiment: remote repositioning, Atlanta, 6 January 2015. (Přístup získán 2018)
  4. 4.
    Phantom Auto. Teleoperation safety solution for autonomous vehicles. (Přístup získán 2018)
  5. 5.
    Morris, B.: Robotic surgery: applications, limitations, and impact on surgical education (2005).
  6. 6.
    Chen, X., Nishikawa, S., Tanaka, K., Niiyama, R., Kuniyoshi, Y.: Bilateral teleoperation system for a musculoskeletal robot arm using a musculoskeletal exoskeleton. In: EEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Macau (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Némethy, K., Gáti, J., Kártyás, G., Hegyesi, F.: Exoskeleton and the remote teleoperation projects. In: 2018 IEEE 16th World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI), Kosice, pp. 000073–000080 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kron, A., Schmidt, G., Petzold, B., Zah, M.I., Hinterseer, P., Steinbach, E.: Disposal of explosive ordnances by use of a bimanual haptic telepresence system. In: 2004 Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2004, New Orleans, LA, USA, vol. 2, pp. 1968–1973 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamam, A., Eid, M., El Saddik, A.: Effect of kinesthetic and tactile haptic feedback on the quality of experience of edutainment applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 67, 455–472 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mae, Y., Inoue, T., Kamiyama, K., Kojima, M., Horade, M., Arai, T.: Direct teleoperation system of multi-limbed robot for moving on complicated environments. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Macau (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of RoboticsVŠB-Technical University OstravaOstravaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations