Experimenting extended neglect tolerance model for human robot interactions in service missions

In this paper, we validate the extended neglect tolerance model for estimation of human robot team performance in relation to robot autonomy and compare its results with the traditionally adopted neglect tolerance model which assumes zero false alarms in human robot interactions. Extended neglect tolerance model estimates robot performance in human robot teams, where the human operator switches control between robots sequentially, based on acceptable performance levels, taking into account any false alarms and their respective demands. Experiments were performed with Robo-Erectus@Home, a service robot across tele-operation, and semi-autonomous modes of autonomy where a human operator controlled the robot to perform a walking assistant task. Measured false alarm demands and robot performances were largely consistent with the extended neglect tolerance model predictions for both autonomy modes. We also compared traditionally adopted neglect tolerance and extended neglect tolerance model for the same experimental design. The results showed that the latter offers better estimates of robot performance and attention demands, due to the inclusion of false alarms into the model.

[1]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Experiments in adjustable autonomy , 2001, 2001 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. e-Systems and e-Man for Cybernetics in Cyberspace (Cat.No.01CH37236).

[2]  Miles C. Walton,et al.  Collaborative Tools for Mixed Teams of Humans and Robots , 2003 .

[3]  Jacob W. Crandall,et al.  Identifying Predictive Metrics for Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[4]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey , 2008, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Rajesh Elara Mohan,et al.  False alarm demand: A new metric for measuring robot performance in human robot teams , 2000, 2009 4th International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents.

[6]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[7]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Towards predicting robot team performance , 2003, SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Conference Theme - System Security and Assurance (Cat. No.03CH37483).

[8]  M. Goodrich,et al.  Measuring the Intelligence of a Robot and its Interface , 2003 .

[9]  M. Goodrich,et al.  Neglect Tolerant Teaming: Issues and Dilemmas , 2003 .

[10]  Rajesh Elara Mohan,et al.  Experimenting False Alarm Demand for Human Robot Interactions in Humanoid Soccer Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[11]  Prasanna Velagapudi,et al.  Experiments in Coordination Demand for MultiRobot Systems , 2008 .

[12]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Why the elf acted autonomously: towards a theory of adjustable autonomy , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[13]  Henry Hexmoor,et al.  A model of absolute autonomy and power: Toward group effects , 2002, Connect. Sci..

[14]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Common metrics for human-robot interaction , 2006, HRI '06.