Augmenting Robot Behaviors Using Physiological Measures

  • Daniel Barber
  • Lauren Reinerman-Jones
  • Stephanie Lackey
  • Irwin Hudson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6780)


In recent years, advancements in Unmanned Systems have allowed Human Robot Interaction (HRI) to transition from direct remote control to autonomous systems capable of self-navigation. However, these new technologies do not yet support true mixed-initiative solider-robot teaming where soldiers work with another agent as if it were another human being. In order to achieve this goal, researchers must explore new types of multi-modal and natural communication strategies and methods to provide robots improved understanding of their human counterparts’ thought process. Physiological sensors are continuously becoming more portable and affordable leading to the possibility of providing new insight of team member state to a robot team member. However, steps need to be taken to improve how affective and cognitive states are measured and how these new metrics can be used to augment the decision making process for a robot team member. This paper describes current state of the art and next steps needed for accurate profile creation for improved human robot team performance.


Multi-Modal Communion Implicit Communication Human Robot Interaction Physiological Measures for State Measurement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    DARPA: URBAN Challenge. In: DARPA. HYPERLINK, (accessed February 3, 2011)
  2. 2.
    Hearst, M., Allen, J., Guinn, C., Horvitz, E.: Mixed-Initiative Interaction: Trends & Controversies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14–23 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnes, M., Jentsch, F. (eds.): Human-Robot Interactions in Future Military Operations. Ashgate (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grey, A., Redden, E., Coovert, M., Elliot, L.: Empowering followers in virtual teams: Guiding principles from theory and practice. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 1884–1906 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cosenzo, K., Capstick, E., Pomranky, R., Dungrani, S., Johnson, T.: Soldier Machine Interface for Vehicle Formations: Interface Design and an Approach Evaluation and Experimentation. Technical Report ATRL-TR-4678, Aberdeen Proving Ground (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pettitt, R.A., Carsten, E.S.R., Scalablity, C.B.: of Robotic Controllers: Speech-based Robotic Controller Evaluation (ARL-TR-4858). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army Research Laboratory, 1-46 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kruegar, G.P.: Sustained work, fatigue, sleep loss, and performance: A review of the issues. Work & Stress, 129–141 (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradley, M., Miccoli, L., Escrig, M., Lang, P.: The pupil diameter as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic aviation. Psychophysiology 45, 602–607 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marshall, S.: The index of measuring cognitive workload. IEEE 7th Human Factors Meeting, Scottsdale, AZ, 7.5–7.9(2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berka, C., Levendowski, D., Lumicao, M.A.Y., Davis, G., Zivkovic, V., Olmstead, R., Tremoulet, P., Craven, P.: EEG correlates of engagement and mental workload in vigilance, learning, and memory tasks. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 78, B231–B244 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Camilli, M.: ASTEF: A simple tool for examining fixations. Behavior Research Methods, 373–382 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rani, P., Sims, J., Brackin, R., Nilanjan, S.: Online stress detection using psychophysiological signals for implicit human-robot coorperation. Robotica, 673–685 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rani, P., Sarkar, N.: Operator Engagement Detection and Robot Behavior Adaptation in Human-Robot Interaction. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2051–2056 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rani, P., Sarkar, N., Smith, C., Kirby, L.: Anxiety Detecting Robotic System-Towards Implicit Human-Robot Collaboration. Robotica 22, 85–95 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hart, S., Wickens, C.: Workload assessment and prediction. In: Booher, H.R. (ed.) MANPRINT: An approach to systems integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and performance prediction, pp. 159–177 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kramer, A.: Physiological measures of workload: A review of recent progress. In: Damos, D. (ed.) Multiple Task Performance. Taylor and Francis, London (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parasuraman, R.: Event-related brain potentials and human factors research. In: Rohrbaugh, J., Parasuraman, R., Johnson, R. (eds.) Event-related Brain Potentials: Basic and Applied Issues. Oxford University Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCarley, J.S., Kramer, A.F.: Cerebral hemodynamics and vigilance performance. In: Parasuraman, R., Rizzo, A.M. (eds.) Neuroergonimcs: The Brain at Work, pp. 95–112. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clark, P.J., Evans, F.C.: Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35, 445–453 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Di Nocera, F., Camilli, M., Terenzi, M., Nacchia, R.: Cognitive aspects and behavioral effects of transitions between levels of automation. Technical Report FA8655-05-1-3021, EOARD (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Barber
    • 1
  • Lauren Reinerman-Jones
    • 1
  • Stephanie Lackey
    • 1
  • Irwin Hudson
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Simulation and Training Applied Cognition and Training in Immersive Virtual Environments LaboratoryUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando
  2. 2.U.S. Army Research Laboratory, SFC Paul Ray SmithSimulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)Orlando

Personalised recommendations