Investigating the Relationship Between Connection, Agency and Autonomy for Controlling a Robot Arm for Remote Social Physical Interaction

  • Ryuya SatoEmail author
  • Don Kimber
  • Yanxia Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11584)


Current telecommunication systems such as Skype cannot allow remote users to interact physically. Thus, we propose installing a robot arm and teleoperating it can realize social physical interaction. Some autonomy may be necessary to realize easy teleoperation because teleoperation requires mental workload. However, too much autonomy can decrease sense of agency, which may cause lack of connection because remote users do not feel they caused actions. Thus, in this study, we investigate the relationship between autonomy level and sense of connection of a remote person with local area and people. We focus on pushing tasks because pushing is one of the major functions in hand and arm use. Sense of agency can be categorized into the Feeling of agency (FOA) which is not conceptual and the Judgement of agency (JOA) which is conceptual. Therefore, we conducted user studies to investigate whether FOA associated with control of trajectories and joint angles affects the sense of connection. The results suggested that higher autonomy could decrease telepresence, and remote users preferred controlling joint angles for fun, but they did not need FOA for performance.


Remote social physical interaction Teleoperation Sense of agency 



This research was supported by FXPAL. We would also like to thank Reach and Teach.


  1. 1.
    Ameri Research Inc.: Web conferencing market outlook to 2024: Key type categories (on-premise, hosted), organization size (SMEs, large enterprises), application (BFSI, retail, healthcare, education, government), regional segmentation, competitive dynamics, M&A insights, pricing analysis (IPP, OPP, RAP) and segment forecast (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kawasaki, H., Iizuka, H., Okamoto, S., Ando, H., Maeda, T.: Collaboration and skill transmission by first-person perspective view sharing system. In: IEEE Proceedings on International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Viareggio, pp. 125–131 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, G., Teo, T., Kim, S., Billinghurst, M.: Sharedsphere: MR collaboration through shared live panorama. In: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH Asia, no. 12, Thai (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kasahara, S., Nagai, S., Rekimoto, J.: JackIn head: immersive visual telepresence system with omnidirectional wearable camera. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 23(3), 1222–1234 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Russell, D., Peplau, L.A., Cutrona, C.E.: The revised UCLA Loneliness scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 472–480 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, J., Haas, E., Barnes, M.: Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 37(6), 1231–1245 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chayama, K., et al.: Technology of unmanned construction system in Japan. J. Robot. Mechatron. 26(4), 403–417 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beer, J., Fisk, A., Rogers, W.: Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J. Hum. Robot. Interact. 3(2), 74–99 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernando, C., et al.: Design of TELESAR V for transferring bodily consciousness in telexistence. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vilamoura, pp. 5112–5118 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hashimoto, S., Ishida, A., Inami, M., Igarashi, T.: TouchMe: an augmented reality interface for remote robot control. J. Robot. Mechatron. 25(3), 529–537 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore, J.: What is the sense of agency and why does it matter. Front. Psychol. 7, 1272 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Javdani, S., Admoni, H., Pellegrinelli, S., Srinivasa, S., Bagnell, J.: Shared autonomy via hindsight optimization for teleoperation and teaming. Int. J. Robot. Res. 37(4), 717–742 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muelling, K., et al.: Autonomy infused teleoperation with application to brain computer interface controlled manipulation. Auton. Robot. 41(6), 1401–1422 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lui, K., Cho, H., Ha, C., Lee, D.: First-person view semi-autonomous teleoperation of cooperative wheeled mobile robots with visuo-haptic feedback. Int. J. Robot. Res. 36(5–7), 840–860 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saraji, M., Sasaki, T., Matsumura, R., Minamizawa, K., Inami, M.: Fusion: full body surrogacy for collaborative communication. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, no. 7, Vancouver (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sugiura, Y., et al.: Cooky: a cooperative cooking robot system. In: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH Asia, no. 17, Singapore (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization.: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Synofzik, M., Thier, P., Leube, D., Schlotterbeck, P., Lindner, A.: Misattributions of agency in schizophrenia are based on imprecise predictions about the sensory consequences of one’s actions. Brain 133(1), 262–271 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bizzi, E., Accornero, N., Chapple, W., Hogan, N.: Arm trajectory formation in monkeys. Exp. Brain Res. 46(1), 139–143 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Polito, V., Barnier, A., Woody, E.: Developing the sense of agency rating scale (SOARS): an empirical measure of agency disruption in hypnosis. Conscious. Cogn. 22(3), 684–696 (2013). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klein, L.: Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. J. Interact. Mark. 17(1), 41–55 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gunawardena, C., Zittle, F.: Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. Am. J. Distance Educ. 11(3), 8–26 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nowak, K., Biocca, F.: The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence 12(5), 481–494 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hart, S., Staveland, L.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139–183 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Waseda UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.FX Palo Alto Laboratory (FXPAL)Palo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations