Evaluating a Mouse-Based and a Tangible Interface Used for Operator Intervention on Two Autonomous Robots

Mallas, Andreas; Xenos, Michalis; Rigou, Maria

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49062-1_46

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the computer experts group, there were no significant differences when comparing the mean score of each interface. When analyzing individual questions, there was a significant difference in perceived user satisfaction (Q4: I liked the interface), as computer experts liked the tangible UI more [43]. Answers from the farmers group indicate that there is a significant difference in users' evaluation of each interface (mean scores) and the user opinion was more positive about the tangible interface compared to the mouse-based.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the Performance and Evaluation of Computer Experts and Farmers when Operating Agricultural Robots: A Case of Tangible vs Mouse-Based UIs

Mallas

Rigou

Xenos

2022

Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tangible user interfaces (TUIs) integrate computer systems with the physical world as they allow interaction through physical objects and the human kinesthetic system. They have been studied in various domains, both by the designing and piloting of innovative applications, as well as by comparatively analyzing TUI against GUI interaction. In the human-robot interaction (HRI) field, TUIs are considered a promising approach as they make effective use of physical object affordances, but research is rather inconclusive about whether TUIs offer improved efficiency, lower error rates, increased intuitiveness, engagement, and user satisfaction. In this study, two prototype UIs were designed and evaluated to compare a TUI with a 2D mouse-based UI for remotely operating two agricultural robots used for vineyard spraying. Two different user groups played the role of the operator: computer experts and farmers leading to an experiment with a 2×2 setup, where two different types of UIs were evaluated by two different user groups. The formulated research questions concern the efficiency, accuracy, and user evaluation for each UI and for each group individually and combined. Analysis has shown that there were no statistically significant differences comparing the alternative UIs for each group in terms of time to complete the task, even though computers experts were faster, as expected. Also, the number of collisions, as well as the percentage of unsprayed and double sprayed area, revealed no significant differences, either for user groups or UIs. The TUI received more positive evaluations in terms of user preference, and users reported lower perceived error rates, especially in the case of farmers, who were also more willing to use the TUI in their daily job.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the first experiment [43], participants were recruited using a call that was distributed via mailing lists. The goal of this user group was to engage users experienced in mouse-based interfaces.…”

Section: Computer Experts' Experimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Performance and Evaluation of Computer Experts and Farmers when Operating Agricultural Robots: A Case of Tangible vs Mouse-Based UIs

Mallas

Rigou

Xenos

2022

Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Implementation of a human‐aware robot navigation module for cooperative soft‐fruit harvesting operations

Guevara

Hanheide

Parsons

2023

Journal of Field Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades, robotic solutions have been introduced in agriculture to improve the efficiency of tasks such as spraying, plowing, and seeding. However, for a more complex task like soft‐fruit harvesting, the efficiency of experienced human pickers has not been surpassed yet by robotic solutions. Thus, in the immediate future, human labor will probably be still necessary for picking tasks while robotic platforms could be used as collaborators, supporting the pickers in the transportation of the harvested fruit. This cooperative harvesting strategy creates a human–robot interaction (HRI) that requires significant further development in human‐aware safe navigation and effective bidirectional communication of intent. In fact, although agricultural robots are considered small/medium size machinery, they still represent a risk of causing injuries to human collaborators, especially if people are not trained to work with robots or robot operations are not intuitive. Avoiding such injury is the aim of this work which contributes to the development, implementation, and evaluation of a human‐aware navigation (HAN) module that can be integrated into the autonomous navigation system of commercial agricultural robots. The proposed module is responsible for the detection and monitoring of humans working around the robot and uses this information to activate safety actions depending on whether the human presence is considered at risk or not. Apart from ensuring a physically safe HRI, the proposed module deals with the comfort level and psychological safety of human coworkers. The latter is possible by using an explicit human–robot communication strategy that lets both know of the other's intentions, increasing the level of trust and reducing inefficient pauses triggered by unnecessary safety actions. The proposed HAN solution was integrated into a commercial agricultural robot and tested in several situations that are expected to happen during cooperative harvesting operations. The results of an usability assessment illustrated the benefits of the proposal in terms of safety, efficiency, and ergonomics.

show abstract

A Descriptive Model of Passive and Natural Passive Human-Computer Interaction

Mallas,

Xenos,

Katsanos

2022

Human-Computer Interaction. Theoretical Approaches and Design Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating a Mouse-Based and a Tangible Interface Used for Operator Intervention on Two Autonomous Robots

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

Comparing the Performance and Evaluation of Computer Experts and Farmers when Operating Agricultural Robots: A Case of Tangible vs Mouse-Based UIs

Comparing the Performance and Evaluation of Computer Experts and Farmers when Operating Agricultural Robots: A Case of Tangible vs Mouse-Based UIs

Implementation of a human‐aware robot navigation module for cooperative soft‐fruit harvesting operations

A Descriptive Model of Passive and Natural Passive Human-Computer Interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About