Extended neglect tolerance model & human robot teams

Estimating robot performance in human robot teams is a vital problem in human robot interaction community. In previous work, we presented extended neglect tolerance model for estimation of robot performance, where the human operator switches control between robots sequentially based on low degree of minimum acceptable performance level set at 50% of peak performance, taking into account any false alarms in human robot interactions. In this paper, we validate the extended neglect tolerance model for an assistive walking task with high degree of minimum acceptable performance levels set at 80% of peak performance. 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]  M. Goodrich,et al.  Neglect Tolerant Teaming: Issues and Dilemmas , 2003 .

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

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

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

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

[7]  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.

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

[9]  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).

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

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

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

[13]  Rajesh Elara Mohan,et al.  On the Redefinition of Fan Out Metric for Human Robot Interactions with Humanoid Soccer Robots , 2010, Int. J. Humanoid Robotics.

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

[15]  Rajesh Elara Mohan,et al.  Experimenting extended neglect tolerance model for human robot interactions in service missions , 2010, 2010 11th International Conference on Control Automation Robotics & Vision.

[16]  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).