Advertisement

Human Perceived Transparency with Time Delay

  • Sandra Hirche
  • Martin Buss
Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 31)

Summary

Transparency — in the sense that the technical systems and communication network should not be felt by the human — is one of the key issues in telerobotics control design. The communication characteristics is one of the crucial factors for the achievable transparency level in bilateral telerobotic control architectures. Especially time delay — resulting from the communication network between the operator site and the tele-robot — deteriorates the realistic (transparent) perception of the remote environment. The quantitative analysis of the time delay influences on transparency is the major goal of this chapter. Technical measures along with human haptic perception characteristics play a key role when evaluating transparency. The guiding questions for this chapter are: how does constant time delay modify the mechanical properties displayed to the human, and can the human perceive this distortion or not. The mass, spring, and damper characteristics as displayed to the human are derived as function of the time delay and the environment parameters. Known psychophysical facts are applied to analyze and interpret the results from a human perception point of view. The results are validated in simulations, experiments, and human user studies.

Keywords

Time Delay Discrimination Threshold Wave Impedance Just Noticeable Difference Stiff Wall 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W.R. Ferrell. RemoteManipulation with Transmission Delay. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors, 6:24–32, 1965.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.J. Anderson and M.W. Spong. Bilateral Control of Teleoperators with Time Delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 34(5):494–501, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Niemeyer and J.-J.E. Slotine. Stable Adaptive Teleoperation. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 16(1):152–162, January 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G.J. Raju, G.C. Verghese, and T.B. Sheridan. Design Issues in 2-Port Network Models of Bilateral Remote Teleoperation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1317–1321, Scottsdale (AZ), US, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.A. Lawrence. Stability and Transparency in Bilateral Teleoperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 9(5):624–637, October 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Yokokohji and T. Yoshikawa. Bilateral Control of Master-Slave Manipulators for Ideal Kinesthetic Coupling Formulation and Experiment. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 10(5):605–619, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Hannaford. Stability and Performance Tradeoffs in Bi-Lateral Telemanipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1764–1767, Scottsdale (AZ), US, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Hashtrudi-Zaad and S.E. Salcudean. Analysis and Evaluation of Stability and Performance Robustness for Teleoperation Control Architectures. In Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 3107–3113, San Francisco (CA), US, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Vertut, A. Micaelli, P. Marchal, and J. Guittet. Short Transmission Delay on a Force Reflective Bilateral Manipulator. In Proceedings of the 4th Rom-An-Sy, pages 269–274, Zaborow, Poland, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.A. Lawn and B. Hannaford. Performance Testing of Passive Communication and Control in Teleoperation with Time Delay. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 776–783, Atlanta (GA), US, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Hirzinger. ROTEX-The First Robot in Space. In Proceedings of the ICAR International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pages 9–33, Tokyo, Japan, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Niemeyer and J. E. Slotine. Towards Force-Reflecting Teleoperation Over the Internet. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1909–1915, Leuven, Belgium, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Lozano, N. Chopra, and M. Spong. Passivation of Force Reflecting Bilateral Teleoperators with Time Varying Delay. In Proceedings of the 8.Mechatronics Forum, pages 954–962, Enschede, Netherlands, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Chopra, M.W. Spong, S. Hirche, and M. Buss. Bilateral Teleoperation over Internet: the Time Varying Delay Problem. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pages 155–160, Denver (CO), US, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Yokokohji, T. Imaida, and T. Yoshikawa. Bilateral Control with Energy Balance Monitoring under Time-Varying Communication Delay. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 2684–2689, San Francisco (CA), US, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Munir and W.J. Book. Internet Based Teleoperation usingWave Variable with Prediction. ASME/IEEE Transactions on Mechatronics, 7(2):124–133, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Stramigioli. About the Use of Port Concepts for Passive Geometric Telemanipulation with Time Varying Delays. In Proceedings of the 8. Mechatronics Forum, pages 944–953, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. Yokokohji, T. Tsujioka, and T. Yoshikawa. Bilateral Control with Time-Varying Delay including Communication Blackout. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Orlando (FL), US, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Berestesky, N. Chopra, and M. W. Spong. Discrete Time Passivity in Bilateral Teleoperation over the Internet. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ICRA’04, pages 4557–4564, New Orleans, US, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Hirche and M. Buss. Packet Loss Effects in Passive Telepresence Systems. In Proceedings of the 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 4010–4015, Paradise Island, Bahamas, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Secchi, S. Stramigioli, and C. Fantuzzi. Dealing with Unreliabilities in Digital Passive Geometric Telemanipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems IROS, Las Vegas (NV), US, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Hirche. Haptic Telepresence in Packet Switched Communication Networks. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, Institute of Automatic Control Engineering, July 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    X. Wang, P.X. Liu, D. Wang, B. Chebbi, and M. Meng. Design of Bilateral Teleoperators for Soft Environments with Adaptive Environmental Impedance Estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1139–1144, Barcelona, Spain, 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Hashtrudi-Zaad and S.E. Salcudean. Analysis of Control Architectures for Teleoperation Systems with Impedance/Admittance Master and Slave Manipulators. International Journal of Robotics Research, 20(6):419–445, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L.A. Jones and I.W. Hunter. A Perceptual Analysis of Stiffness. Experimental Brain Research, 79:150–156, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    H.Z. Tan, N.I. Durlach, G.L. Beauregard, and M.A. Srinivasan. Manual Discrimination of Compliance Using Active Pinch Grasp: The Role of Force and Work Cues. Perception and Psychophysics, 57:495–510, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G.L. Beauregard and M.A. Srinivasan. The Manual Resolution of Viscosity and Mass. ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division, 1:657–662, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    L.A. Jones and I.W. Hunter. A Perceptual Analysis of Viscosity. Experimental Brain Research, 94(2):343–351, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Arcara and C. Melchiorri. Control Schemes for Teleoperation with Time Delay: A Comparative Study. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 38(1):49–64, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    G.A. Gescheider. Psychophysics: The Fundamentals. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 3rd Edition, Hillsdale, 1997.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G.C. Burdea. Force and Touch Feedback for Virtual Reality. John Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    E. H. Weber. Die Lehre vom Tastsinn und Gemeingefühl, auf Versuche gegründet. Vieweg, 1851.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. A. Jones and I. W. Hunter. Human Operator Perception of Mechanical Variables and Their Effects on Tracking Performance. ASME Advances in Robotics, 42:49–53, 1992.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. Niemeyer and J.-J.E. Slotine. Telemanipulation with Time Delays. International Journal of Robotic Research, 23(9):873–890, September 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    H.Z. Tan, M.A. Srinivasan, B. Eberman, and B. Cheng. Human Factors for the Design of Force-Reflecting Haptic Interfaces. ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division, 1:353–359, 1994.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    N.A. Tanner and G. Niemeyer. Improving Perception in Time Delayed Telerobotics. International Journal of Robotics Research, 2005.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    B. Stanczyk and M. Buss. Experimental comparison of interaction control methods for a redundant telemanipulator. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics MMAR’2005, pages 677–682, Poland, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Hirche
    • 1
  • Martin Buss
    • 2
  1. 1.Fujita Lab, Dept. of Mechanical and Control EngineeringTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Institute of Automatic Control EngineeringTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations