Human–Robot Shared Control for Path Generation and Execution

  • Hadjira BelaidiEmail author
  • Abdelfetah Hentout
  • Hamid Bentarzi


A telerobotic system consists of integrating an operator into the control loop of a remote robot. Due to safety considerations, it is very important sometimes that the operator be able to remotely take control of the task and the robot. In this paper, a shared control mode for mobile robots is defined according to the operator ability to control the robot and the autonomy level of the robot itself. In this mode, the task execution is simultaneously accomplished by the operator and the robot, according to the percentage of the task-share coefficient. This depends on several factors such as robot autonomy, user ability, environment accessibility and task difficulty. An experimental application of the developed shared control for path generation task execution is planned for a non-holonomic mobile robot evolving inside a workspace cluttered with static obstacles. In this case, Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines curves are used to generate the robot path linking the Starting point I and the Target point F. The operator can control the robot even by selecting or inserting new control points on the initial feasible path, or by directly moving the robot via the developed Human/Robot Interface or the joystick.


Shared control Mobile robot Path generation and execution Static obstacles NURBS 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Papanikolopoulos NP, Khosla PK (1992) Shared and traded telerobotic visual control. In: ICRA’92, France, May 1992, pp 878–885Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson SJ, Peters SC, Iagnemma KD, Pilutti TE (2009) A unified approach to semi-autonomous control of passenger vehicles in hazard avoidance scenarios. In: SMC’09, USA, Oct 2009, pp 2032–2037Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chong NY, Kotoku T, Ohba K, Komoriya K, Matsuhira N, Tanie K (2000) Remote coordinated controls in multiple telerobot cooperation. In: ICRA’00, USA, Apr 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg K, Song D, Khor Y, Pescovitz D, Levandowski A, Himmelstein J, Donath J (2002) Collaborative online teleoperation with spatial dynamic voting and a human ‘Tele-actor’. In: ICRA’02, USA, May 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fong, T, Thorpe Ch, Baur Ch (2001) A safeguarded teleoperation controller. In: The international conference on advanced robotics (ICAR2001), Budapest, Hungary, Aug 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ong KW, Seet G, Sim SK (2008) An implementation of seamless human-robot interaction for telerobotics. Int J Adv Robot Syst 5(2):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim HK, Biggs J, Schloerb W, Carmena M, Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MA, Srinivasan MA (2006) Continuous shared control for stabilizing reaching and grasping with brain-machine interfaces. IEEE T Bio-Med Eng 53(6):1164–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Malley MK, Gupta A, Gen M, Li Y (2006) Shared control in haptic systems for performance enhancement and training. J Dyn Syst T ASME 128(1):75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Urdiales C, Peula JM, Fdez-Carmona M, Barrué C, Pérez EJ, Sánchez-Tato I, Caltagirone C (2011) A new multi-criteria optimization strategy for shared control in wheelchair assisted navigation. Auton Robot 30(2):179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chipalkatty R, Droge G, Egerstedt MB (2013) Less is more: mixed-initiative model-predictive control with human inputs. IEEE Trans Robot 29(3):695–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saeidi H, Wagner JR, Wang Y (2017) A mixed-initiative haptic teleoperation strategy for mobile robotic systems based on bidirectional computational trust analysis. IEEE Trans Robot 33(6):1500–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belaidi H, Hentout A, Bouzouia B, Bentarzi H, Belaidi A (2014) NURBS trajectory generation and following by an autonomous mobile robot navigating in 3d environment. In: CYBER2014, Hong Kong, pp 168–173Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anzai Y (2013) Human-robot interaction by information sharing. In: The 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI’13), USA, Mar 2013, pp 65–66Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pineau J, Atrash A (2007) Smart-wheeler: a robotic wheelchair test-bed for investigating new models of human–robot interaction. In: AAAISS2007, USA, pp 59–64Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belaidi H, Bentarzi H, Belaidi M (2017) Implementation of a mobile robot platform navigating in dynamic environment. In: MATEC web of conferences, 95, 08004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reina G, Underwood J, Brooker G, Durrant-Whyte H (2011) Radar-based perception for autonomous outdoor vehicles. J Field Robot 28(6):894–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Belaidi H, Bentarzi H, Belaidi A, Hentout A (2014) Terrain traversability and optimal path planning in 3d uneven environment for an autonomous mobile robot. Arab J Sci Eng 39(11):8371–8381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dragan AD, Srinivasa SS (2013) A policy-blending formalism for shared control. Int J Robot Res 32(7):790–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Pearman A, Greenhalgh J, Long A, Dowding D (2016) Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams. Cognit Technol Work 18(2):423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li Y, Tee KP, Chan WL, Yan R, Chua Y, Limbu DK (2015) Continuous role adaptation for human-robot shared control. IEEE Trans Robot 31(3):672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chiou M, Hawes N, Stolkin R, Shapiro KL, Kerlin JR, Clouter A (2015) Towards the principled study of variable autonomy in mobile robots. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), 2015, pp 1053–1059Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lemaignan S, Warnier M, Sisbot EA, Clodic A, Alami R (2017) Artificial cognition for social human-robot interaction: an implementation. Artif Intell 247:45–69MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chiou M, Stolkin R, Bieksaite G, Hawes N, Shapiro KL, Harrison TS (2016) Experimental analysis of a variable autonomy framework for controlling a remotely operating mobile robot. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), Korea, 9–14 Oct 2016, pp 3581–3588Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Signals and Systems Laboratory (SisyLab), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IGEE)University M’hamed Bougara of Boumerdès (UMBB)BoumerdèsAlgeria
  2. 2.Division Productique et Robotique (DPR)Centre de Développement des Technologies Avancées (CDTA)AlgiersAlgeria

Personalised recommendations