Enhanced Teleoperation Through Virtual Reality Techniques

  • Abderrahmane Kheddar
  • Ee-Sian Neo
  • Riichiro Tadakuma
  • Kazuhito Yokoi
Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 31)


Teleoperation effectiveness was almost stagnant during several decades since the discovery of the master-slave structure by Goertz in the 50s; in spite of some technical improvements and computer developments [1]. Recent advances on virtual reality (VR) techniques can be considered as the additional ingredient to the total telerobotic renewal, and novel architectures could be developed. Its efficiency is reaching now a considerable level of achievements. It allows a clear improvement in traditional applications such as nuclear or space activities and it also opens many new fields of application, where teleoperation represents a major percentage of robotic development. Build on previous state-of-the-art reports [2, 3, 4], this chapter reviews up-to-date achievements applying virtual reality techniques to teleoperation: we recall some relevant achievements of VR in solving difficult teleoperation problems such as time delay, operator assistance and sharing robot autonomy by combining different supervision strategies or allowing new human-centred teleoperation schemes. The chapter also discusses new robotic applications that have currently appeared which require additional research efforts and call additional investigations on virtual reality techniques. Among them we can find micro- and nano-teleoperation eventually of livings such us cells and DNA molecules, teleoperation of humanoids and animaloids, teleoperation of unmanned air or terrestrial vehicles, hi-fidelity telepresence, multi-operator multirobots teleoperation, etc. These are exemplified along with their specific challenges.

Virtual reality techniques paved a path in telerobotics thanks to its potential in solving classical problems of early master-slave bilateral coupling schemes. Fortunately, it has been surprisingly noticed that these techniques can offer different solutions in solving a certain problem. For instance, teleoperation time delay has been solved using either predictive displays or teleprogramming; both methods are devised from VR techniques. Moreover, there are several styles and approaches to implement each method. This variety of VR applications makes difficult to infer standard VR-assisted teleoperation architecture. Nevertheless, this difficulty constitutes paradoxically a main strength and cleverness. Next section is therefore focused -without being exhaustive- on the soundest ideas to enhance teleoperation through VR techniques.


Virtual Reality Virtual Environment Augmented Reality Humanoid Robot Force Feedback 
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.
    T.B. Sheridan. Telerobotics, automation and human supervisory control. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Kheddar and P. Coiffet. Téléopération et réalité virtuelle. Hermès-Lavoisier, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Coiffet and A. Kheddar. Téléopération et Télérobotique. Hermès-Lavoisier, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Kheddar, R. Chellali, and P. Coiffet. Hand Book of Virtual Environments, K.M. Stanney (Eds), Chapter 49, Virtual environment-assisted teleoperation, pages 959–1026. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.V. Noyes and T.B. Sheridan. A novel predictor for telemanipulation through a time delay. In Annual Conference Manual Control, Moffett Field, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.K. Bejczy, W.S. Kim, and S. Venema. The phantom robot: predictive displays for teleoperation with time delay. In IEEE Int Conf on Robotics and Automation, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L.B. Rosenberg. Virtual Fixtures: Perceptual Tools for Telerobotic Manipulation. In IEEE Virtual Reality, pages 76–82, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.J. Anderson. Teleoperation with virtual force feedback. Control and Information Sciences 200: Experimental Robotics III, pages 366–375, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Kheddar. Teleoperation based on the hidden robot concept. IEEE Transaction on Systems Man and Cybernetics, 31(1):1–13, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Bisson and V. Conan. The MAESTRO project: an augmented reality environment for telemaintenance. In 6ème Journées de travail du GT-RV, Issy-lesmounlinaux, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Fuchs, F. Nashashibi, and D. Maman. Assistance for telepresence by stereovision-based augmented reality and interactivity in 3D space. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(5):525–535, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Burkert, J. Leupold, and G. Passig. A photorealistic predictive display. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(1):22–43, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.P. Paul, T. Lindsay, C.P. Sayers, and M. Stein. Time-delay insensitive, virtualforce reflecting, teleoperation. In i-SAIRAS, pages 55–67, Toulouse, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Hirzinger, B. Brunner, J. Dietrich, and J. Heindl. ROTEX-the first remotly controlled robot in space. In IEEE Int Conf on Robotics and Automation, pages 2604–2611, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Freund and J. Roßmann. Projective virtual reality as a basis for on-line control of complex systems-not only-over the Internet. Journal of Robotic Systems, 22(3):147–155, 2005.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Wright, F. Hartman, B. Cooper, S. Maxwell, J. Yen, and J. Morrison. Driving on Mars with RSVP. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 13(2):37–45, June 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Luciani, D. Urmaa, S. Marlière, and J. Chevrier. PRESENCE: the sense of believability of inaccessible worlds. Computers & Graphics, 28:509–517, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sitti, B. Aruk, H. Shintani, and H. Hashimoto. Scaled teleoperation system for nano-scale interaction and manipulation. Advanced Robotics, 17(3):275–291, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Ammi, A. Ferreira, and J-G. Fontaine. Virtualized reality interfaces for telemicromanipulation. In IEEE Int Conf on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Ferreira and C. Mavroidis. Virtual reality and haptics for nano robotics: A review study. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 13(3):78–92, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Yokoi, K. Nakashima, M. Kobayashi, H. Mihune, H. Hasunuma, Y. Yanagihara, T. Ueno, T. Gokyuu, and K. Endou. A tele-operated humanoid operator. International Journal of Robotics Research, 25(5–6):593–602, May–June 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Kagami, J.J. Kuffner, K. Nishiwaki, T. Sugihara, T. Michikata, T. Aoyama, M. Inaba, and H. Inoue. Design and implementation of remotely operation interface for humanoid robot. In IEEE Int Conf on Robotics and Automation, pages 401–406, Seoul, Korea, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Tachi, K. Komoriya, K. Sawada, T. Nishiyama, T. Itoko, M. Kobayashi, and K. Inoue. Development of telexistence cockpit for humanoid robot control. In Int. Symposium on Robotics, pages 1483–1488, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Nishiyama, H. Hoshino, K. Sawada, Y. Tokunaga, H. Shinomiya, M. Yoneda, I. Takeuchi, Y. Ichige, S. Hattori, and A. Takanishi. Development of user interface for humanoid service robot system. IEEE Int Conf on Robotics and Automation, pages 2979–2984, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E-S. Neo, O. Stasse, Y. Kawai, T. Sakaguchi, and K. Yokoi. A unified on-line operation interface for humanoid robots in a partially-unknown environment. In IEEE Int Conf on Robotics and Automation, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Tachi. Real-time remote robotics-towards networked telexistence. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, 18(6):6–9, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Tadakuma, Y. Asahara, H. Kajimoto, N. Kamakami, and S. Tachi. Development of Anthropomorphic Multi-D.O.F. Master-Slave Arm for Mutual Telexistence. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 11(6):626–636, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Kheddar, P. Coiffet, T. Kotoku, and K. Tanie. Multi-robots teleoperation-analysis and prognosis. In IEEE International workshop on Robotic and Human Communication, ROMAN, pages 166–171, Sendai, Japan, Sept. 29–Oct. 1 1997.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. Goldberg, B. Chen, R. Solomon, S. Bui, B. Farzin, J. Heitler, D. Poon, and G. Smith. Collaborative teleoperation via Internet. In IEEE Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 2019–2024, San Francisco, CA, April 2000.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    N.-Y. Chong, S. Kawabata, K. Ohba, T. Kotoku, K. Komoriya, K. Takase, and K. Tanie. Multioperator teleoperation of multirobot systems with time delay: Part I-aids for collision-free control. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(3):277–291, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    N.-Y. Chong, T. Kotoku, K. Ohba, H. Sasaki, K. Komoriya, and K. Tanie. Multioperator teleoperation of multirobot systems with time delay: Part II-testbed description. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(3):292–303, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abderrahmane Kheddar
    • 1
  • Ee-Sian Neo
    • 1
  • Riichiro Tadakuma
    • 1
  • Kazuhito Yokoi
    • 1
  1. 1.AIST/CNRS Joint Japanese-French Robotics LaboratoryIntelligent Systems Research InstituteTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations