Towards a Test Battery to Benchmark Dexterous Performance in Teleoperated Systems

A high level of dexterity is becoming increasingly important for teleoperated inspection, maintenance and repair robots. A standard test to benchmark system dexterity can advance the design, quantify possible improvements, and increase the effectiveness of such systems. Because of the wide variety of tasks and application domains ranging from dismantling explosives from a safe distance to maintenance of deep sea oil rigs, we defined a library of basic, generic tasks and selected five tests that reflect these basic tasks and for which benchmark data already exist or are easy to gather: the Box & Block test, the Purdue Pegboard test, the Minnesota Manual Dexterity test, the ISO 9382 trajectory test (based on the ISO 9382:1998 standard) and the adapted version of the screwing subtest of the IROS 2017 service robots challenge.

[1]  Aaron M. Dollar,et al.  On dexterity and dexterous manipulation , 2011, 2011 15th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR).

[2]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  On grasp choice, grasp models, and the design of hands for manufacturing tasks , 1989, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[3]  Rüdiger Dillmann,et al.  Experimental evaluation of the schunk 5-Finger gripping hand for grasping tasks , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO 2014).

[4]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Adult Norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of Finger Dexterity , 1985 .

[5]  Kathleen E. Yancosek,et al.  A narrative review of dexterity assessments. , 2009, Journal of Hand Therapy.

[6]  Lynn R Surrey,et al.  A comparison of performance outcomes between the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test and the Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test. , 2003, Work.

[7]  J.B.F. van Erp,et al.  Tele-Presence: Bringing the operator back in the loop , 2006 .

[8]  Thorsten Alexander Kern,et al.  ISO's Work on Guidance for Haptic and Tactile Interactions , 2008, EuroHaptics.

[9]  Aaron M. Dollar,et al.  A Hand-Centric Classification of Human and Robot Dexterous Manipulation , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[10]  S. Wolf,et al.  Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as Outcome Measure for Research in Patients After Stroke , 2001, Stroke.

[11]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. , 1985, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[12]  Jan B. F. van Erp,et al.  Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review , 2017, Front. Aging Neurosci..

[13]  Danica Kragic,et al.  Dual arm manipulation - A survey , 2012, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[14]  David L Streiner,et al.  Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: a new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[15]  S. Shankar Sastry,et al.  On motion planning for dexterous manipulation. I. The problem formulation , 1989, Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  J. Tiffin,et al.  The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[17]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Hands for dexterous manipulation and robust grasping: a difficult road toward simplicity , 2000, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[18]  N. Yozbatiran,et al.  A Standardized Approach to Performing the Action Research Arm Test , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[19]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  An overview of dexterous manipulation , 2000, Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).

[20]  Clément Gosselin.  Dexterity indices for planar and spatial robotic manipulators , 1990, Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.