Advertisement

Initial Results from Using Preference Ranking Organization Methods for Enrichment of Evaluations to Help Steer a Powered Wheelchair

  • Malik HaddadEmail author
  • David Sanders
  • Giles Tewkesbury
  • Alexander Gegov
  • Mohamed Hassan
  • Favour Ikwan
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1037)

Abstract

Research is presented that uses PROMETHEE II to determine a direction for a powered wheelchair. This is the only time that PROMETHEE II has been employed for this sort of use. A wheelchair driver proposes a preferred speed and direction, and PROMETHEE II recommends a reliable and trustworthy bearing. The two directions are combined so that the wheelchair safely avoids obstacles. Ultrasonic sensors and joysticks provide the inputs and the final direction is a combination of the preferred bearing and a route that safely avoids obstacles. The systematic decision-making process assists the user with steering safely. Sensitivity analysis explores the potential directions and an appropriate direction is chosen. A driver can reject or cancel a decision suggestions by holding their joystick in a fixed place.

Keywords

Preference ranking PROMETHEE Wheelchair Disabled Steer 

References

  1. 1.
    Haddad, M.J.M., Sanders, D.: Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty. Oper. Res. Perspect. 5, 357–370 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2018.10.003MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ishizaka, A., Siraj, S.: Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. EJOR 264, 462–471 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haddad, M., Sanders, D.: Selecting a best compromise direction for a powered wheelchair using PROMETHEE II. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27(2), 228–235 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2892587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haddad, M., Sanders, D.A., Bausch, N., Tewkesbury, G., Gegov, A., Hassan, M.G.: Learning to make intelligent decisions using an expert system for the intelligent selection of either PROMITHEE II or the analytical hierarchy process. In: IEEE Proceedings of the SAI Conference on Intellisys, London, UK, pp. 662–668 (2018). And in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing published by Springer, vol. 868, pp. 1303–1316 (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stott, I., Sanders, D.: A new prototype intelligent mobility system to assist powered wheelchair users. Ind. Robot. 26(6), 466–475 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodwin, M.J., Sanders, D.A., Poland, G.A.: Navigational assistance for disabled wheelchair-users. In: Euromicro Conference 95, vol. 43, pp. 73–79 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stott, I., Sanders, D.: New powered wheelchair systems for the rehabilitation of some severely disabled users. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 23(3), 149–153 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanders, D., Langner, M., Tewkesbury, G.E.: Improving wheelchair-driving using a sensor system to control wheelchair-veer and variable-switches as an alternative to digital-switches or joysticks. Ind. Robot. 37(2), 157–167 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stott, I., Sanders, D.: The use of virtual reality to train powered wheelchair users and test new wheelchair systems. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 23(4), 321–326 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanders, D.A., Bausch, N.: Improving steering of a powered wheelchair using an expert system to interpret hand tremor. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Wheelchairics and Applications (ICIRA 2015), Pt Ii, vol. 9245, pp. 460–471 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sanders, D.A.: Using self-reliance factors to decide how to share control between human powered wheelchair drivers and ultrasonic sensors. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25(8), 1221–1229 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanders, D., Tewkesbury, G.E., Stott, I.J., Robinson, D.C.: Simple expert systems to improve an ultrasonic sensor-system for a tele-operated mobile-robot. Sens. Rev. 31(3), 246–260 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanders, D.A., Graham-Jones, J., Gegov, A.: Improving ability of tele-operators to complete progressively more difficult mobile robot paths using simple expert systems and ultrasonic sensors. Ind. Robot. Int. J. 37(5), 431–440 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanders, D.A.: Non-model-based control of a wheeled vehicle pulling two trailers to provide early powered mobility and driving experiences. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26(1), 96–104 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanders, D.A., Sanders, H.M., Gegov, A., Ndzi, D.: Rule-based system to assist a tele-operator with driving a mobile robot. In: Proceedings of the SAI Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys) 2016. IntelliSys 2016 and in Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 16, pp. 599–615. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erwin-Wright, S., Sanders, D., Chen, S.: Predicting terrain contours using a feed-forward neural network. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 16(5–6), 465–472 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanders, D.A., Baldwin, A.: X-by-wire technology. In: Total Vehicle Technology Conference, pp. 3–12 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanders, D.A.: The modification of pre-planned manipulator paths to improve the gross motions associated with the pick and place task. Robotica 13, 77–85 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanders, D.: Comparing ability to complete simple tele-operated rescue or maintenance mobile-robot tasks with and without a sensor system. Sens. Rev. 30(1), 40–50 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sanders, D.A., Langner, M., Gegov, A., Ndzi, D., Sanders, H.M., Tewkesbury, G.E.: Tele-operator performance and their perception of system time lags when completing mobile robot tasks. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Systems Interaction, pp. 236–242 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanders, D.: Comparing speed to complete progressively more difficult mobile robot paths between human tele-operators and humans with sensor-systems to assist. Assem. Autom. 29(3), 230–248 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanders, D.A., Stott, I., Robinson, D.C., Ndzi, D.: Analysis of successes and failures with a tele-operated mobile robot in various modes of operation. Robotica 30, 973–988 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanders, D.A., Ndzi, D., Chester, S., Malik, M.: Adjustment of tele-operator learning when provided with different levels of sensor support while driving mobile robots. In: Proceedings SAI Intelligent Systems Conference 2016, vol. 2–16, pp. 548–558 (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanders, D.A., Tewkesbury, G.E.: A pointer device for TFT display screens that determines position by detecting colours on the display using a colour sensor and an artificial neural network. Displays 30(2), 84–96 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanders, D.: Environmental sensors and networks of sensors. Sens. Rev. 28(4), 273–274 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stott, I.J., Sanders, D.A., Goodwin, M.J.: A software algorithm for the intelligent mixing of inputs to a tele-operated vehicle. In: Euromicro Conference 95, vol. 43, pp. 67–72 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanders, D.: Analysis of the effects of time delays on the teleoperation of a mobile robot in various modes of operation. Ind. Robot. 36(6), 570–584 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tewkesbury, G.E., Sanders, D.A.: The use of distributed intelligence within advanced production machinery for design applications. In: Total Vehicle Technology Conference, pp. 255–262 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sanders, D., Gegov, A.: Using artificial intelligence to share control of a powered-wheelchair between a wheelchair user and an intelligent sensor system. EPSRC Project 2019 – 2022 (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanders, D., Gegov, A.: AI tools for use in assembly automation and some examples of recent applications. Assem. Autom. 33(2), 184–194 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gegov, A., Sanders, D.A., Vatchova, B.: Aggregation of inconsistent rules for fuzzy rule base simplification. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 21(3), 135–145 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanders, D.A., Gegov, A., Ndzi, D.: Knowledge-based expert system using a set of rules to assist a tele-operated mobile robot. In: Bi, Y., Kapoor, S., Bhatia, R. (eds.) Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 751, pp. 371–392. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gegov, A., Petrov, N., Sanders, D., Vatchova, B.: Boolean matrix equations for node identification in fuzzy rule based networks. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 21(2), 69–83 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sanders, D.: Recognizing shipbuilding parts using artificial neural networks and Fourier descriptors. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 223(3), 337–342 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gegov, A., Gobalakrishnan, N., Sanders, D.A.: Rule base compression in fuzzy systems by filtration of non-monotonic rules. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 27(4), 2029–2043 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gegov, A., Arabikhan, F., Sanders, D., Vatchova, B., Vasileva, T.: Fuzzy networks with feedback rule bases for complex systems modelling. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 21(4), 211–225 (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gegov, A., Petrov, N., Sanders, D., Vatchova, B.: Modular rule base fuzzy networks for linguistic composition based modelling. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 21(2), 53–67 (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanders, D.: New method to design large-scale high-recirculation airlift reactors. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 12(3), 62–78 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sanders, D.A., Hudson, A.D.: A specific blackboard expert system to simulate and automate the design of high recirculation airlift reactors. Math. Sand Comput. Simul. 53(1–2), 41–65 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sanders, D.A., Hudson, A.D., Tewkesbury, G.E.: Automating the design of high-recirculation airlift reactors using a blackboard framework. Expert Syst. Appl. 18(3), 231–245 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sanders, D., Tan, Y.C., Rogers, I., Tewkesbury, G.E.: An expert system for automatic design-for-assembly. Assem. Autom. 29(4), 378–388 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hudson, A.D., Sanders, D.A., Golding, H., Tewkesbury, G.E., Cawte, H.: Aspects of an expert design system for the wastewater treatment industry. J. Syst. Arch. 43(1–5), 59–65 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sanders, D.A., Lambert, G., Pevy, L.: Pre-locating corners in images in order to improve the extraction of Fourier descriptors and subsequent recognition of shipbuilding parts. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 223(9), 1217–1223 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanders, D.A., Haynes, B.P., Tewkesbury, G.E., Stott, I.J.: The addition of neural networks to the inner feedback path in order to improve on the use of pre-trained feed forward estimators. Math. Comput. Simul. 41(5–6), 461–472 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malik Haddad
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Sanders
    • 1
  • Giles Tewkesbury
    • 1
  • Alexander Gegov
    • 2
  • Mohamed Hassan
    • 3
  • Favour Ikwan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Design EngineeringUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.School of ComputingUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  3. 3.School of Energy and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations