Advertisement

The Impact of Field of View on Robotic Telepresence Navigation Tasks

  • Federica BazzanoEmail author
  • Fabrizio Lamberti
  • Andrea Sanna
  • Marco Gaspardone
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 983)

Abstract

Telepresence interfaces for navigation tasks involving remote robots are generally designed for providing users with sensory and/or contextual feedback, mainly through onboard camera video stream or map-based localization. This choice is motivated by the fact that operating a mobile robot from distance may be mentally challenging for the users when they do not possess a proper awareness of the environment. However, fixed or narrow field of view cameras often available on these robots may lead to lack of awareness or worse navigation performance due to missing or limited peripheral vision. The aim of this paper is to investigate, through a comparative analysis, how an augmented field of view and/or a pan-tilt camera can impact on users’ performance in remote robot navigation tasks. Thus, a user study has been carried out to assess three different experimental configurations, i.e., a fixed camera with narrow (45\(^{\circ }\)) field of view, a pan-tilt camera with a wide-angle (180\(^{\circ }\)) horizontal field of view, and a fixed camera with a wide-angle (180\(^{\circ }\)) diagonal field of view. Results showed a strong preference for the wide-angle field of view navigation modality, which provided users with greater situational awareness by requiring a lower cognitive effort.

Keywords

Telepresence Remote teleoperation Navigation Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) 

References

  1. 1.
    Bazzano, F., Lamberti, F., Sanna, A., Paravati, G., Gaspardone, M.: Comparing usability of user interfaces for robotic telepresence. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 2: HUCAPP, VISIGRAPP 2017, pp. 46–54. INSTICC, SciTePress (2017).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0006170300460054
  2. 2.
    Cain, B.: A review of the mental workload literature. Technical report, Defence Research And Development Toronto, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, J.Y., Haas, E.C., Barnes, M.J.: Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 37(6), 1231–1245 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Barros, P.G., Linderman, R.W.: A survey of user interfaces for robot teleoperation. Technical report Series, WPI-CS-TR-09-12 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endsley, M.R.: Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 32, pp. 97–101. SAGE Publications (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endsley, M.R.: Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 65–84 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giuliano, L., Ng, M.E.K., Lupetti, M.L., Germak, C.: Virgil, robot for museum experience: study on the opportunity given by robot capability to integrate the actual museum visit. In: 7th International Conference on Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment, INTETAIN, pp. 222–223. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hone, K.S., Graham, R.: Towards a tool for the subjective assessment of speech system interfaces (SASSI). Nat. Lang. Eng. 6(3–4), 287–303 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson, S., Rae, I., Mutlu, B., Takayama, L.: Can you see me now?: How field of view affects collaboration in robotic telepresence. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2397–2406. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keyes, B.: Evolution of a telepresence robot interface. Ph.D. thesis. Citeseer (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiselev, A., Kristoffersson, A., Loutfi, A.: The effect of field of view on social interaction in mobile robotic telepresence systems. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 214–215. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., Loutfi, A.: A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2013, 3 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lund, A.M.: Measuring usability with the use questionnaire12. Usability Interface 8(2), 3–6 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minsky, M.: Telepresence. Omni, pp. 45–51 (1980)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagahara, H., Yagi, Y., Kitamura, H., Yachida, M.: Super wide view tele-operation system. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems, MFI 2003, pp. 149–154. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, C.W., Goodrich, M.A.: Comparing the usefulness of video and map information in navigation tasks. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 95–101. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potenza, A., Kiselev, A., Loutfi, A., Saffiotti, A.: Towards sliding autonomy in mobile robotic telepresence: a position paper. In: European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, ECCE 2017, 20–22 September 2017. Umeå University, Sweden (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rae, I., Venolia, G., Tang, J.C., Molnar, D.: A framework for understanding and designing telepresence. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 1552–1566. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J., Puente, J.M.: Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl. Psychol. 53(1), 61–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Teleoperation, telerobotics and telepresence: a progress report. Control Eng. Pract. 3(2), 205–214 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shiroma, N., Sato, N., Chiu, Y.h., Matsuno, F.: Study on effective camera images for mobile robot teleoperation. In: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2004, pp. 107–112. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steinfeld, A., et al.: Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 33–40. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tittle, J.S., Roesler, A., Woods, D.D.: The remote perception problem. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 46, pp. 260–264. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toris, R., et al.: Robot Web Tools: efficient messaging for cloud robotics. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS, pp. 4530–4537. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vaughan, J., Kratz, S., Kimber, D.: Look where you’re going: visual interfaces for robot teleoperation. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN, pp. 273–280. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woods, D.D., Tittle, J., Feil, M., Roesler, A.: Envisioning human-robot coordination in future operations. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 34(2), 210–218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yanco, H.A., Drury, J.: “Where Am I?” Acquiring situation awareness using a remote robot platform. In: 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 3, pp. 2835–2840. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federica Bazzano
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabrizio Lamberti
    • 1
  • Andrea Sanna
    • 1
  • Marco Gaspardone
    • 2
  1. 1.Dip. di Automatica e InformaticaPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.TIM JOL Connected Robotics Applications LaBTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations