Advertisement

Teleprograming: Capturing the Intention of the Human Operator

  • Miguel Hernando
  • Ernesto Gambao
Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 31)

Summary

The presence of a significant time delay in the communications between the local and remote zone of a teleoperated system causes two undesirables effects: (1) dynamic instability and (2) unmanageability. Instability usually appears in bilateral control schemes as a consequence of force feedback and makes the system useless with 0.1 or more seconds of time delay. Robot teleprogramming was proposed as an intermediate solution between supervised control systems and direct teleoperation when a significant delay appears in the communications between the local and the remote zones. In this chapter a teleprogramming architecture with an analyzer for the operators intention is proposed and tested. A task analyzer observes the movements made by the operator in a virtual environment. Through the force and geometric information obtained (attending only to geometric features), a set of symbolic commands are generated. These commands are then transmitted to an interpreter which pipes them through the communication system to the remote zone. The remote system receives and translates the information to absolute references in the remote model that is continuously actualized by the perception system.

Keywords

Contact Force Reactive Layer Supervisory Control Teleoperated System Remote System 
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.
    G. Hirzinger, B. Brunner, J. Dietrich and J. Heindl. Sensor-Based Space Robotics-ROTEX and Its Telerobotic Features. IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, 9:649–663, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W.K. Yoon, T. Goshozono, H. Kawabe, M. Kinami, Y. Tsumaki, M. Uchiyama, M. Oda, and T. Doi. Model-Based Space Robot Teleoperation of ETS-VII Manipulator. Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 20:602–612, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Belousov I, S. Chebukov, and V. Sazonov. Web-based Teleoperation of the Robot Interacting with Fast Moving Objects. In Proc. of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.R. Ferrel and T.B. Sheridan. Supervisory control of remote manipulation. IEEE Spectrum, 1967.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Niemeyer and J. Slotine. Telemanipulation with time delays. International Journal of Robotics Research Vol. 23:873–890, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T.B. Sheridan. Telerobotics and Human Supervisory Control. The MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T.B. Sheridan. Space Teleoperation Through Time Delay: Review and Prognosis. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation Vol. 9:592–606, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.K. Bejczy, S. Venema, and W.S. Kim. Role of Computer Graphics in Space Telerobotics: Preview and Predictive Displays. In Proc. SPIE Cooperative intelligent Robotics in Space Vol. 1387:365–377, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Kheddar. Teleoperation Based on the Hidden Robot Concept. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Vol. 31:1–13, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Kotoku, K. Tanie, and A. Fujikawa. Force reflecting bilateral master-salve teleoperation system in virtual environment. In Proc. Int. Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space: pages 295–298, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Machida, Y. Toda, and T. Iwata. Graphic-simulator-augmented teleoperation system for space applications. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets Vol. 21:64–69, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y.J. Cho, T. Kotoku, and T. Tanie. Discrete-Event-Based Planning and Control of Telerobotic Part-Mating Process with Communication Delay and Geometric Uncertinty. In Proc. IEEE/RSJ/GI Int. Conference on Intelligent Robotics, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.K. Bejczy, P. Fiorini, W.S. Kim, and P. Schenker. Toward Integrated Operator Interface for Advanced Teleoperation under Time Delay. In Proc. IEEE/RSJ/GI Int. Conference on Intelligent Robotics, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Sayers. Remote Control Robotics. Springer-Verla, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.H. Spenny and D.L. Schneider. Object Resolved Teleoperation. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Backmon, and L.W. Stark. Model-based Supervisory Control in Telerobotics. Presence Vol 5(2):205–233, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.E. Lloyd, J.S. Beis, K.D. Pai, and D.G. Lowe. Model-based Telerobotics with vision. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Burkert, J. Leupold, and G. Passig. A Photorealistic Predictive Display. Presence Vol. 13:22–43, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Skubic and R.A. Volz. Learning Force-Based Assembly Skills from Human Demostration for Execution in Unstructured Environments. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Kheddar, T. Tanie, and P. Coiffet. Detection of discrepancies and sensorybased recovery for virtual reality based telemanipulation systems. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Baraff. Interactive simulation of solid rigid bodies. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 15:63–75, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Hasegawa and M. Sato. Real-time Rigid Body Simulation for Haptic Interactions Based on Contact Volume of Polygonal Objects. EUROGRAPHICS 23:529–538, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Gregory, M.C. Lin, S. Gottshalk, and R. Taylor. A framework for fast and accurate collision detection for haptic interaction. In Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, pages 38–45, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Gat. Integrating planning and reacting in a heterogeneous architecture for Mobile robots. SIGART Bulletin Vol. 2:17–74, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W.K. Yoon, S. Tachihara, Y. Tsumaki, and M. Uchiyama. Evaluation of the Different Master Device Approaches for a Model-Based Space Teleoperation System. In Proc. International Conference on Advanced Robotics, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel Hernando
    • 1
  • Ernesto Gambao
    • 2
  1. 1.Dpto. Eletrónica, Automática e Informtica IndustrialUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Dpto. Automática, Ingeniera Electrónica e Informtica IndustrialUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations