Comparing Usability of User Interfaces for Robotic Telepresence

Federica Bazzano, Fabrizio Lamberti, Andrea Sanna, Gianluca Paravati, Marco Gaspardone

2017

Abstract

In the last years, robotic telepresence solutions have received a significant attention from both the commercial and academic worlds, due to their ability to allow people to feel physically present at a remote place and move in it. Operating a mobile robot with some autonomous capabilities from distance can enable a wide range of mass-market applications, encompassing teleconferencing, virtual tourism, etc. In these scenarios, the possibility to interact with the robot in a natural way becomes of crucial importance. The aim of this paper is to investigate, through a comparative analysis, the usability of two major approaches used today for controlling telepresence robots, i.e., keyboard and point-and-click video navigation. A control system featuring the above interfaces plus a combination of the two has been developed, and applied to the operation of a prototype telepresence robot in an office scenario. The system additionally includes functionalities found in many research and industry solutions, like map-based localization and “augmented” navigation. Then, a user study has been performed to assess the usability of the various control modalities for the execution of some navigation tasks in the considered context. The study provided precious indications to be possibly exploited for guiding next developments in the field.

References

  1. Cain, B. (2007). A review of the mental workload literature. Technical report, DTIC Document.
  2. De Barros, P. G. and Linderman, R. W. (2009). A survey of user interfaces for robot teleoperation. Tech. Rep. Series, WPI-CS-TR-09-12.
  3. Drury, J. L., Keyes, B., and Yanco, H. A. (2007). Lassoing hri: analyzing situation awareness in map-centric and video-centric interfaces. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2nd ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on, pages 279-286. IEEE.
  4. Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proc. of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 32, pages 97-101. SAGE Publications.
  5. Fong, T. and Thorpe, C. (2001). Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces. Autonomous Robots, 11(1):9-18.
  6. Giuliano, L., Ng, M. E. K., Lupetti, M. L., and Germak, C. (2015). Virgil, robot for museum experience: study on the opportunity given by robot capability to integrate the actual museum visit. In Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment (INTETAIN), 7th Int. Conf. on, pages 222-223. IEEE.
  7. Goodrich, M. A. and Schultz, A. C. (2007). Humanrobot interaction: a survey. Foundations and trends in human-computer interaction, 1(3):203-275.
  8. Hone, K. S. and Graham, R. (2000). Towards a tool for the subjective assessment of speech system interfaces (sassi). Natural Language Eng., 6(3&4):287-303.
  9. Keyes, B. (2007). Evolution of a telepresence robot interface. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 7.
  10. Kiselev, A. and Loutfi, A. (2012). Using a mental workload index as a measure of usability of a user interface for social robotic telepresence. In 2nd Workshop of Social Robotic Telepresence in Conjunction with IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2012.
  11. Lee, H., Choi, J. J., and Kwak, S. S. (2015). A social agent, or a medium?: The impact of anthropomorphism of telepresence robot's sound interface on perceived copresence, telepresence and social presence. In Proc. of the 7th Int. workshops on the convergent Research Society among Humanities, Sociology, Science, and Technology, pages 19-22.
  12. Lewis, T., Drury, J., and Beltz, B. (2014). Evaluating mobile remote presence (mrp) robots. In Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Supporting Group Work, pages 302-305. ACM.
  13. Maxwell, B. A., Ward, N., and Heckel, F. (2003). A humanrobot interface for urban search and rescue. AAAI Mobile Robot Competition, 3(1).
  14. Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence. Omni, pages 45-51.
  15. Neustaedter, C., Venolia, G., Procyk, J., and Hawkins, D. (2016). To beam or not to beam: A study of remote telepresence attendance at an academic conference. In Proc. of the 19th ACM Conf. on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pages 418- 431. ACM.
  16. Nielsen, C. W. and Goodrich, M. A. (2006). Comparing the usefulness of video and map information in navigation tasks. In Proc. of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conf. on Human-robot interaction, pages 95-101. ACM.
  17. Nielsen, C. W., Ricks, B., Goodrich, M. A., Bruemmer, D., Few, D., and Few, M. (2004). Snapshots for semantic maps. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Int. Conf. on, volume 3, pages 2853-2858. IEEE.
  18. Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Elsevier.
  19. Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Mart ín, J., and Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of swat, nasa-tlx, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology, 53(1):61-86.
  20. Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT press.
  21. Sheridan, T. B. (1995). Teleoperation, telerobotics and telepresence: A progress report. Control Engineering Practice, 3(2):205-214.
  22. Stiefelhagen, R., Ekenel, H. K., Fugen, C., Gieselmann, P., Holzapfel, H., Kraft, F., Nickel, K., Voit, M., and Waibel, A. (2007). Enabling multimodal humanrobot interaction for the karlsruhe humanoid robot. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(5):840-851.
  23. Toris, R., Kammerl, J., Lu, D. V., Lee, J., Jenkins, O. C., Osentoski, S., Wills, M., and Chernova, S. (2015). Robot web tools: Efficient messaging for cloud robotics. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on, pages 4530-4537. IEEE.
  24. Tsui, K. M., Desai, M., Yanco, H. A., and Uhlik, C. (2011). Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In 6th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 11-18. IEEE.
  25. Zalud, L. (2006). Argos-system for heterogeneous mobile robot teleoperation. In IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 211-216. IEEE.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Bazzano F., Lamberti F., Sanna A., Paravati G. and Gaspardone M. (2017). Comparing Usability of User Interfaces for Robotic Telepresence . In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 2: HUCAPP, (VISIGRAPP 2017) ISBN 978-989-758-229-5, pages 46-54. DOI: 10.5220/0006170300460054


in Bibtex Style

@conference{hucapp17,
author={Federica Bazzano and Fabrizio Lamberti and Andrea Sanna and Gianluca Paravati and Marco Gaspardone},
title={Comparing Usability of User Interfaces for Robotic Telepresence},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 2: HUCAPP, (VISIGRAPP 2017)},
year={2017},
pages={46-54},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006170300460054},
isbn={978-989-758-229-5},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 2: HUCAPP, (VISIGRAPP 2017)
TI - Comparing Usability of User Interfaces for Robotic Telepresence
SN - 978-989-758-229-5
AU - Bazzano F.
AU - Lamberti F.
AU - Sanna A.
AU - Paravati G.
AU - Gaspardone M.
PY - 2017
SP - 46
EP - 54
DO - 10.5220/0006170300460054