Advertisement

Traditional Vs Gesture Based UAV Control

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 784)

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to assess user preferences for controlling an autonomous system. A comparison using a virtual environment (VE) was made between a joystick based, game controller and a gesture-based system using the leap motion controller. Command functions included basic flight maneuvers and switching between the operator and drone view. Comparisons were made between the control approaches using a representative quadcopter drone. The VE was designed to minimize the cognitive loading and focus on the flight control. It is a physics-based flight simulator built in Unity3D. Participants first spend time familiarizing themselves with the basic controls and vehicle response to command inputs. They then engaged in search missions. Data was gathered on time spent performing tasks, and post test interviews were conducted to uncover user preferences. Results indicate that while the gesture-based system has some benefits the joystick control is still preferred.

Keywords

Autonomous systems Leap Motion Controller Gesture-based interface 

References

  1. 1.
    Milgram, P., Kishino, F.A.: Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E77-D(12), 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanders, B., Vincenzi, D., Shen, Y.: Gesture based UAV control. In: Proceeding from the 8th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Los Angeles, CA, 17–21 July 2017Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandarana, M., Meszaros, E., Trujillo, A., Allen, B.: Challenges of using Mulitmodal HMI for unmanned mission planning. In: Proceeding from the 8th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Los Angeles, CA, 17–21 July 2017Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., van Gog, T.: Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Ed. Psychol. Rev. 22(4), 425–438 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravassard, P., Kees, A., Willers, B., Ho, D., Aharoni, D., Cushman, J., Aghajan, Z., Mehta, M.: Multisensory control of hippocampal spatiotemporal selectivity. Science 340(6138), 1342–1346 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ungar, M.: The social ecology of resilience: addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 81(1), 1–17 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dodd, S., Lancaster, J., Miranda, A., Grothe, S., DeMers, B., Rogers, B.: Touch screens on the flight deck: the impact of touch target size, spacing, touch technology and turbulence on pilot performance. In: Proceedings of 58th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 6–10, Chicago (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gevins, A., Smith, M.E., Leong, H., McEvoy, L., Whitfield, S., Du, R., Rush, G.: Monitoring working memory load during computer-based tasks with eeg pattern recognition methods. Hum. Factors 40(1), 79–91 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bowers, M., Christensen, J., Eggemeier, F.: The effects of workload transitions in a multitasking environment. In: Proceedings of 58th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 220–228, Chicago (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rorie, R., Fern, L.: UAS measured response: the effect of GCS control mode interfaces on pilot ability to comply with ATC slearances. In: Proceedings of 58th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 64–68, Chicago (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cottrell, J., Levenson, J., Kim, S., Gibson, H., Richardson, K., Sivula, M., Li, B., Ashford, C., Heindl, K., Babcock, R., Rose, D., Hempel, C., Wiig, K., Laeng, P., Levin, M., Ryan, T., Gerber, D.: Working memory impairment in calcineurin knock-out mice is associated with alterations in synaptic vesicle cycling and disruption of high-frequency synaptic and network activity in prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 33(27), 10938–10949 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weichert, F., Bachmann, D., Rudak, B., Fisseler, D.: Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the leap motion controller. Sensors 13(5), 6380–6393 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.3390/s130506380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leap motion developer: https://developer.leapmotion.com/. Accessed 2 March 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering and TechnologyEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University, WorldwideDaytona BeachUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aeronautics, Graduate StudiesEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University, WorldwideDaytona BeachUSA
  3. 3.Department of Modeling, Simulation, and Visualization EngineeringOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations