Performance analysis of steady-hand teleoperation versus cooperative manipulation

This paper compares two "steady-hand" type systems. The first is an admittance-controlled, non-backdriveable cooperative manipulation system, in which the robot and the operator simultaneously grasp and manipulate a tool. The second is a pair of haptic interfaces configured for unilateral teleoperation. A recently developed pseudo-admittance control law is applied to the master device, which attenuates the operator's high frequency input and sends a "steadied" reference position to the slave. Using a set of planar targeting tasks with varying indexes of difficulty, we found that operator movement time is similar for these two systems. However, the teleoperated system results in more targeting errors due to the limited stiffness display of the haptic interface. These results indicate that operators interact with the pseudo-admittance system as intended, but inherent physical limitations will limit applicability of this approach.

[1]  Septimiu E. Salcudean,et al.  Analysis of Control Architectures for Teleoperation Systems with Impedance/Admittance Master and Slave Manipulators , 2001, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[2]  J. Weiss,et al.  Injection of tissue plasminogen activator into a branch retinal vein in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[3]  Gregory D. Hager,et al.  Vision-assisted control for manipulation using virtual fixtures , 2004, IEEE Trans. Robotics.

[4]  J. Edward Colgate,et al.  Cobot architecture , 2001, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[5]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  Effect of virtual fixture compliance on human-machine cooperative manipulation , 2002, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[6]  Mark W. Spong,et al.  Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay , 1989 .

[7]  Blake Hannaford,et al.  A design framework for teleoperators with kinesthetic feedback , 1989, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[8]  Russell H. Taylor,et al.  A Steady-Hand Robotic System for Microsurgical Augmentation , 1999, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[9]  Gregory D. Hager,et al.  Vision-assisted control for manipulation using virtual fixtures , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[10]  Dale A. Lawrence.  Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation , 1993, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[11]  John Kenneth Salisbury,et al.  The Intuitive/sup TM/ telesurgery system: overview and application , 2000, Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).

[12]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  Thomas H. Massie,et al.  The PHANToM Haptic Interface: A Device for Probing Virtual Objects , 1994 .

[14]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  Virtual fixture architectures for telemanipulation , 2003, 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.03CH37422).

[15]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Stable User-Specific Haptic Rendering of the Virtual Wall , 1996, Dynamic Systems and Control.

[16]  Gregory D. Hager,et al.  Steady-hand teleoperation with virtual fixtures , 2003, The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003..

[17]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  Analysis of virtual fixture contact stability for telemanipulation , 2003, Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453).

[18]  Russell H. Taylor,et al.  Performance Evaluation of a Cooperative Manipulation Microsurgical Assistant Robot Applied to Stapedotomy , 2001, MICCAI.

[19]  Russell H. Taylor,et al.  A Steady-Hand Robotic System for Microsurgical Augmentation , 1999, Int. J. Robotics Res..