Benchmarking Cluttered Robot Pick-and-Place Manipulation With the Box and Blocks Test

In this work, we propose a pick-and-place benchmark to assess the manipulation capabilities of a robotic system. The benchmark is based on the Box and Blocks Test (BBT), a task utilized for decades by the rehabilitation community to assess unilateral gross manual dexterity in humans. We propose three robot benchmarking protocols in this work that hold true to the spirit of the original clinical tests—the Modified-BBT, the Targeted-BBT, and the Standard-BBT. These protocols can be implemented by the greater robotics research community, as the physical BBT setup has been widely distributed with the Yale-CMU-Berkeley (YCB) Object and Model Set. Difficulty of the three protocols increase sequentially, adding a new performance component at each level, and therefore aiming to assess various aspects of the system separately. Clinical task-time norms are summarized for able-bodied human participants. We provide baselines for all three protocols with off-the-shelf planning and perception algorithms on a Barrett WAM and a Franka Emika Panda manipulator, and compare results with human performance.

[1]  Sébastien Krut,et al.  Par4: very high speed parallel robot for pick-and-place , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[2]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation , 1984, 1984 American Control Conference.

[3]  Steven M. LaValle,et al.  RRT-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning , 2000, Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).

[4]  Oliver Brock,et al.  Analysis and Observations From the First Amazon Picking Challenge , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[5]  Tomás Lozano-Pérez,et al.  Task-level planning of pick-and-place robot motions , 1989, Computer.

[6]  Joseph A. Falco,et al.  Robotic Grasping and Manipulation Competition: Competitor Feedback and Lessons Learned , 2016 .

[7]  Kimberly Kontson,et al.  Targeted box and blocks test: Normative data and comparison to standard tests , 2017, PloS one.

[8]  Aaron Dollar,et al.  Yale OpenHand Project: Optimizing Open-Source Hand Designs for Ease of Fabrication and Adoption , 2017, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[9]  Thomas A. Funkhouser,et al.  The Princeton Shape Benchmark , 2004, Proceedings Shape Modeling Applications, 2004..

[10]  M. Verrier,et al.  Development of the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP): reviewing measurement specific to the upper limb in tetraplegia. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[11]  Virgil G Mathiowetz,et al.  Box and Block Test of Manual Dexterity: Norms for 6–19 Year Olds , 1985 .

[12]  Jacqueline S. Hebert,et al.  Case report of modified Box and Blocks test with motion capture to measure prosthetic function. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  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).

[14]  Jo Adams,et al.  Test‐retest Reliability of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure , 2009 .

[15]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  On the role of hand synergies in the optimal choice of grasping forces , 2010, Auton. Robots.

[16]  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.

[17]  R. Hébert,et al.  Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: reliability, validity, and norms studies. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  Albert H Vette,et al.  Normative data for modified Box and Blocks test measuring upper-limb function via motion capture. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[19]  Matteo Bianchi,et al.  Recent Data Sets on Object Manipulation: A Survey , 2016, Big Data.

[20]  Richard M. Murray,et al.  A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation , 1994 .

[21]  Charles C. Kemp,et al.  A list of household objects for robotic retrieval prioritized by people with ALS , 2008, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[22]  D. Holz,et al.  RoboCup@Home: Demonstrating Everyday Manipulation Skills in RoboCup@Home , 2012, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[23]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  An Experimental Protocol for Benchmarking Robotic Indoor Navigation , 2014, ISER.

[24]  Rodney A. Brooks,et al.  Real Robots, Real Learning Problems , 1993 .

[25]  Danica Kragic,et al.  Data-Driven Grasp Synthesis—A Survey , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[26]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  Benchmarking in Manipulation Research: Using the Yale-CMU-Berkeley Object and Model Set , 2015, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[27]  Fei-Fei Li,et al.  ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database , 2009, 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[28]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  A benchmark for the evaluation of RGB-D SLAM systems , 2012, 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

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

[30]  Peter I. Corke,et al.  The ACRV picking benchmark: A robotic shelf picking benchmark to foster reproducible research , 2016, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).