Improved Human-Robot Teaming through Facilitated Initiative

Few, Douglas A.; Bruemmer, David J.; Walton, Miles

doi:10.1109/roman.2006.314413

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier we mentioned that adding intelligent behaviors to the robot was challenging because on the one hand it seemed to improve performance on some tasks [5], but on the other hand it also made the system difficult to use because the operator had the responsibility of choosing the appropriate level of autonomy for the given situation. The problem with leaving the operator with the responsibility to change autonomy levels is that the operator may not recognize the need to switch modes of autonomy or may not understand how the autonomy level will relate to the task.…”

Section: Providing Seamless Autonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hiding the System from the User: Moving from Complex Mental Models to Elegant Metaphors

Nielsen

Bruemmer

2007

RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In previous work, increased complexity of robot behaviors and the accompanying interface design often led to operator confusion and/or a fight for control between the robot and operator. We believe the reason for the conflict was that the design of the interface and interactions presented too much of the underlying robot design model to the operator. Since the design model includes the implementation of sensors, behaviors, and sophisticated algorithms, the result was that the operator's cognitive efforts were focused on understanding the design of the robot system as opposed to focusing on the task at hand. This paper illustrates how this very problem emerged at the INL and how the implementation of new metaphors for interaction has allowed us to hide the design model from the user and allow the user to focus more on the task at hand. Supporting the user's focus on the task rather than on the design model allows increased use of the system and significant performance improvement in a search task with novice users.

show abstract

Section: Providing Seamless Autonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hiding the System from the User: Moving from Complex Mental Models to Elegant Metaphors

Nielsen

Bruemmer

2007

RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could result in mixed-initiative systems that are heavily one-sided and human-centered; that is, only the human can intervene to seize initiative from the robot while the robot cannot seize control from the human operator; which is evident in the state of practice presented in Section IV. Furthermore, as an indication of a lack of clear consensus on the application of mixed-initiative interaction to the robotic context, researchers [21][22][23] have designed mixedinitiative human-robot systems that we believe are not truly mixed-initiative according to existing design philosophies and principles (e.g., opportunistic intervention) of mixedinitiative interaction. Thus, what mixed-initiative interaction means for human-robot teamwork needs to be clearly defined in order to provide a clear vision of an effective mixedinitiative human-robot team, on which research efforts can be focused on to realize.…”

Section: Report Documentation Pagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The shift of initiative is reactive and is caused by two triggers: 1) operator specifying a search area and 2) the robot decided to search an area based on its own information. Few et al [23] presented a standard shared mode (SSM) for human-robot team, where the robot accepts operator intervention in the form of intermittent directional commands and supports dialogue through the use of a finite number of scripted suggestions (e.g., "path blocked! Continue left for right?")…”

Section: B Slightly-joint Reactive Not Coordinatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed-Initiative Human-Robot Interaction: Definition, Taxonomy, and Survey

Jiang¹,

Arkin²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The objectives of this article are: 1) to present a taxonomy for mixed-initiative human-robot interaction and 2) to survey its state of practice through the examination of past research along each taxonomical dimension. The paper starts with some definitions of mixed-initiative interaction (MII) from the perspective of human-computer interaction (HCI) to introduce the basic concepts of MII. We then synthesize these definitions to the robotic context for mixed-initiative humanrobot teams. A taxonomy for mixed-initiative in human-robot interaction is then presented. The goal of the taxonomy is to inform the design of mixed-initiative human-robot systems by identifying key elements of these systems. The state of practice of mixed-initiative human-robot interaction is then surveyed and examined along each taxonomical dimension.

show abstract

“…Regardless of use domain, an unmanned vehicle must be able to detect and avoid obstacles, build data representations, plan paths, and accept a variety of inputs consistent with task demands. The framework has been going through an iterative development cycle where performance and behaviors have been iteratively developed in the laboratory in response to user needs and field evaluated and tested by INL and external users [3,5]. The framework ( Figure 2) consists of: (1) a robot-sensor architecture for interfacing a variety of robot platforms, perceptual sensors, and algorithmic capabilities, (2) a communications server for sending and receiving messages to trigger capabilities via the operator control unit and external processes, and (3) an application layer that consists of task level and interaction behaviors for intelligent unmanned ground vehicle navigation.…”

Section: Rik Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semi autonomous mine detection system

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CMMAD is a risk reduction effort for the AMDS program. As part of CMMAD, multiple instances of semi autonomous robotic mine detection systems were created. Each instance consists of a robotic vehicle equipped with sensors required for navigation and marking, countermine sensors and a number of integrated software packages which provide for real time processing of the countermine sensor data as well as integrated control of the robotic vehicle, the sensor actuator and the sensor. These systems were used to investigate critical interest functions (CIF) related to countermine robotic systems. To address the autonomy CIF, the INL developed RIK was extended to allow for interaction with a mine sensor processing code (MSPC). In limited field testing this system performed well in detecting, marking and avoiding both AT and AP mines. Based on the results of the CMMAD investigation we conclude that autonomous robotic mine detection is feasible. In addition, CMMAD contributed critical technical advances with regard to sensing, data processing and sensor manipulation, which will advance the performance of future fieldable systems. As a result, no substantial technical barriers exist which preclude -from an autonomous robotic perspective -the rapid development and deployment of fieldable systems.

show abstract

Improved Human-Robot Teaming through Facilitated Initiative

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Hiding the System from the User: Moving from Complex Mental Models to Elegant Metaphors

Hiding the System from the User: Moving from Complex Mental Models to Elegant Metaphors

Mixed-Initiative Human-Robot Interaction: Definition, Taxonomy, and Survey

Semi autonomous mine detection system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About