Three dimensional tangible user interface for controlling a robotic team

Abstract

We describe a new method for controlling a group of robots in three-dimensional (3D) space using a tangible user interface called the 3D Tractus. Our interface maps the task space into an interactive 3D space, allowing a single user to intuitively monitor and control a group of robots. We present the use of the interface in controlling a group of virtual software bots and a physical Sony AIBO robot dog in a simulated Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) environment involving a bomb hidden inside of a building. We also describe a comparative user study we performed where participants were asked to use both the 3D physical interface and a traditional 2D graphical user interface in order to try and demonstrate the benefits and drawbacks of each approach for HRI tasks.

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

“…In summary, the main findings of this study seem to support the inconclusiveness discussed in the Introduction section [12] where the authors conclude that their quantitative Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies results are inconclusive in suggesting whether our TUI approach is "better" than the non-TUI alternative. Also, we found no evidence that the tangible UI improved user efficiency or accuracy [28] [29].…”

“…The results showed that while both game versions were successful at improving programming self-beliefs, the tangible version was considered as more enjoyable [10]. In fact, many research approaches focus on using TUIs for educational purposes based on the assumption that they can provide hands-on experience, which may have positive learning outcomes [11][12][13][14], for instance, when manipulating 3D chemical molecules [15] or learning heart anatomy [16]. Sapounidis and Demetriadis made a comparative study of children's preferences regarding the use of a tangible and an isomorphic graphical interface to program a robot, and they concluded that the tangible interface was more attractive especially for girls, more enjoyable, and easier to be used by younger children.…”

“…In the HRI field, TUIs are considered a promising approach as they make effective use of physical object affordances [27], but research is rather inconclusive on the benefits of tangible interfaces compared with traditional ones (mouse and keyboard). Tangible interfaces have been found to improve efficiency (navigation time), accuracy (fewer user mistakes) and user satisfaction [5], or simply improve efficiency but not accuracy [28,29], while some studies [12] found that the quantitative results were inconclusive with only positive qualitative results. Lucignano et al compared a tangible tool with a GUI implementation using eyetracking data for gaining more insight into the user experience and concluded that TUIs require lower mental effort suggesting some cognitive advantages in them [30].…”

Touch and toys

“…Early work used a sensorloaded TUI-like model of an airplane to control the roll and pitch of a small simulated unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [23]. Other existing systems include one that used a simple, generic TUI implemented using the Nintendo Wiimote to navigate a robot and to control its morphology using gestures [12], and another that used an adjustable-height TUI to interact with a group of robots in three-dimensional space using a stylus and a tabletop computerized surface [18]. Perhaps the ultimate TUI for controlling a robot is the robot itself.…”

“…That is, how do users perceive and respond to touch and TUI-based interfaces, and how do they use them for interacting with a group of heterogeneous robots? This premise follows precedent (e. g. [18,23])we use in-lab simulations that focus on the interaction experience rather than task validity -placing the validity of our work in how it informs the design of real-world interfaces across a wide range of group HRI tasks.…”