Teleoperation in extreme robotics

Teleoperation in extreme robotics

Boris A. Spassky
PhD in Technical Sciences, Russian State Scientific Center for Robotics and Technical Cybernetics (RTC), Head of Section, 21, Tikhoretsky pr., Saint-Petersburg, 194064, Russia, tel.: +7(812)552-13-25, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., ORCID: 0000-0002-5210-5408

Received 27 April 2020

Abstract
Robots designed to work in extreme conditions and situations are characterized mainly by remote interaction with humans, in which humans are assigned the role of operator or, less commonly, supervisor. In the general case, the operator has to simultaneously solve the tasks of mission planning, target identification, navigation and control of the robot. Obviously, the level of autonomy of the robot is one of the most important elements, which determine human-robot interaction. The objective of this review is to consider the control capabilities of such robots, having in mind their level of autonomy.

Key words
Extreme robotics, mobile robot, mobile robotic system, UGV, teleoperation, level of robot autonomy, LOA.

DOI
https://doi.org/10.31776/RTCJ.8202

Bibliographic description
Spassky, B., 2020. Teleoperation in extreme robotics. Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 8(2), pp.101-111.

UDC identifier:
004.896:007.52: 62-5

References

  1. Yurevich, E.I., 2017. Robotics Fundamentals. Saint-Petersburg: BKhV-Peterburg Publ., p.368. (In Russian).
  2. Lopota, A. and Spassky, B., 2020. Mobile ground-based robot systems for professional use. Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 8(1), pp.5-17. (In Russian).
  3. Carnegie University, 2017. Shell Deploys Sensabot, A Mobile Inspection And Monitoring Robot Developed Together With NREC - National Robotics Engineering Center - Carnegie Mellon University. [online] Nrec.ri.cmu.edu. Available at: <https://www.nrec.ri.cmu.edu/nrec/media/success-story-pages/shell-deploys-sensabot.html> [Accessed 17 March 2020].
  4. MIT Technology Review. 2020. Boston Dynamics’ Dog Robot Spot Is Going To Patrol An Oil Rig In Norway. [online] Available at: <https://www.technologyreview.com/f/615194/boston-dynamics-spot-dog-robot-is-going-to-patrol-an-oil-rig-in-norway/> [Accessed 17 March 2020].
  5. Sheremet, I.B., Rudianov, N.A., Ryabov, A.V. and Khruschev, V.S., 2016. About need of the concepts development of construction and application of military autonomous robotic systems. Extreme Robotics, 1(1), pp.35-39. (In Russian).
  6. Spassky, B.A., 2015. Foreign robotics roadmaps. Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 1(6). Pp.6-11. (In Russian).
  7. Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N.R., 1995. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, pp.115–152.
  8. Franklin, S. and Graesser, A., 1997. Is it an agent, or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Intelligent Agents III. Pp.21-35.
  9. Alami, R., Chatila, R., Fleury, S., Ghallab, M. and Ingrand, F., 1998. An architecture for autonomy. International Journal of Robotics Research, 17(4), pp.315-337.
  10. Murphy, R.R., 2000. Introduction to AI Robotics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pp.1-40.
  11. Russell, S.J. and Norvig, P., 2003. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  12. Huang, H.-M., Messina, E.R., Wade, R.L., English, R.W., Novak, B. and Albus, J.S., 2004. Autonomy measures for robots. In: Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress (IMECE). Pp.1-7.
  13. Thrun, S., 2004. Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1–2), pp.9-24.
  14. Bekey, G.A., 2005. Autonomous Robots: From Biological Inspiration to Implementation and Control. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  15. Ermolov, I.L., 2009. Providing autonomy in mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the XX International Scientific and Technical Conference on Extreme Robotics. Nano-, Micro and Macro Robots (ER-2009). (In Russian).
  16. Klimov, R.S., Lopota, A.V. and Spassky, B.A., 2015. Trends of military unmanned ground vehicles. Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 3(8), pp.3-10. (In Russian).
  17. 2012. ISO 8373:2012, Robots and Robotic Devices – Vocabulary. IDT.
  18. Spassky, B.A., 2017. Robot control: from assisted teleoperation and mixed initiative to full automation. Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 1(14), pp.69-76. (In Russian).
  19. Hearst, M.A., 1999. Mixed-initiative interaction: Trends and controversies. In: IEEE Intelligent Systems. Pp. 14–23.
  20. Sheridan, T.B. and Verplank W.L., 1978. Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators (Man-Machine Systems Laboratory Report). Cambridge: MIT.
  21. Beer, J.M., Fisk, A.D. and Rogers, W.A., 2014. Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J Hum Robot Interact., 3(2), pp.74-99.
  22. Steinfeld, A., Fong, T., Kaber, D., Lewis, M., Scholtz, J., Schultz, A. and Goodrich, M., 2006. Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In: 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2006. New York, pp.33-40.
  23. Chiou, M., Stolkin, R., Bieksaite, G., Hawes, N., Shapiro, K. and Harrison, T., 2016. Experimental analysis of a variable autonomy framework for controlling a remotely operating mobile robot. 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).
  24. Ji Liang, Ge Yu and Lili Guo, 2018. Human-Robot Collaborative Semi-Autonomous Teleoperation with Force Feedback. In: 5th International Conference on Soft Computing and Machine Intelligence.
  25. Drury, J.L., Scholtz, J. and Yanco, H.A., 2003. Awareness in human-robot interaction. In: SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Vol. 1, pp.912-918.
  26. Chiou, M., Hawes, N. and Stolkin, R., 2019. Mixed-Initiative variable autonomy for remotely operated mobile robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.04848.
  27. Spassky, B.A., 2016. Review of modern human-robot interface systems of unmanned ground vehicles. Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 4(13), pp.21-31. (In Russian).
  28. Corujeira, J., Silva, J.L. and Ventura, R., 2018. Effects of haptic feedback in dual-task teleoperation of a mobile robot. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 267-286.
  29. Takayama, L. et al., 2011. Assisted Driving of a Mobile Remote Presence System: System Design and Controlled User Evaluation. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.
  30. Polovko, S., Smirnova, E. and Yurevich, E., 2014. Qualitative control of mobile robots. Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 3(4), pp.30-33.
  31. Kheddar, A., Neo, E., Tadakuma, R. and Yokoi, K., 2007. Enhanced Teleoperation Through Virtual Reality Techniques. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, 31, pp.139-159.
  32. Sergeev, A.V. and Sergeev, S.F., 2018. Induced environment of the immersive interface of a mobile space robot with force moment sensation In: Proceedings of III International Conference on the Human Factor in Complex Technical Systems and Environments (Ergo-2018). (In Russian).
  33. Gromoshinskii, D.A., Zhukov, A.M., Popov, A.V. and Smirnova, E.Yu., 2018. Providing safe ground sampling inside the working zone of a manipulator with computer vision. Extreme Robotics, 1(1), pp.185-193. (In Russian).
  34. Ghalamzan, E.A.M. et al., 2017. Human-in-the-loop optimisation: Mixed initiative grasping for optimally facilitating post-grasp manipulative actions. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS-2017).
Editorial office address: 21, Tikhoretsky pr., Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 194064, tel.: +7(812) 552-13-25 e-mail: zheleznyakov@rtc.ru