An Advanced Teleoperation Testbed

  • Bill Ross
  • John Bares
  • David Stager
  • Larry Jackel
  • Mike Perschbacher
Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 42)


Due to the technology available, most previous work in teleoperated robotics used relatively low-resolution video links and provided limited perceptual feedback to the teleoperator. In most cases, these projects reported only limited teleoperator success compared to vehicles with human drivers on-board. We set out to build a high-fidelity teleoperation system which takes advantage of recent technological advances. This system permits highly capable teleoperation and has allowed us to begin to investigate the minimum system requirements for effective teleoperation.


Motion Sickness Situational Awareness Defense Advance Research Project Agency Human Driver Lower Frame Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ellis, S.R., Mania, K., Adelstein, B.D., Hill, M.: Generalizeability of Latency Detection in a variety of Virtual Environments. In: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual meeting, New Orleans, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellis, S.R., Young, M.J., Adelstein, B.D., Ehrlich, S.M.: Discrimination of changes in latency during head movement. In: Proceedings of the HCI International 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holloway, R.L.: Registration error analysis for augmented reality. Presence, 6, 4, 413–432 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellis, S.R., Young, M.J., Adelstein, B.D., Ehrlich, S.M.: Discrimination of changes of latency during voluntary hand movement of virtual objects. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Houston, Texas, September 27-October 2 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vries, S., Padmos, P.: Steering a Simulated Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Using a Head-Slaved Camera and HMD. In: ECCV/HCI 2004, vol. 3058, pp. 24–33 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kasper, E., Haworth, L., Szoboszlay, Z., King, R., Halmos, Z.: Effects of in-flight field of view restriction on rotorcraft pilot head movement. In: SPIE, vol. 3058, pp. 34–45 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLean, G.F., Prescott, B., Podhorodeski, R.: Teleoperated system performance evaluation. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on 24(5), 796–804 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Volbracht, S., Shahrbabaki, K., Domik, G., Fels, G.: Perspective viewing, anaglyph stereo or shutter glass stereo? Visual Languages, 1996. In: Proceedings, IEEE Symposium, pp. 192–193. September 3-6 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adlin, T.: Human Factors Issues Associated with Image-Compression for Low Data Rate Remote Driving. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 1700, pp. 489–502 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Douglas, E.M.: Experiences and Results in Teleoperation of Land Vehicles. SANDIA REPORT SAND90–0299 UC–515 (printed, April 1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bill Ross
    • 1
  • John Bares
    • 1
  • David Stager
    • 1
  • Larry Jackel
    • 2
  • Mike Perschbacher
    • 3
  1. 1.The Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.DARPA TTO Project Manager 
  3. 3.RovnoTech 

Personalised recommendations