Prediction Error Negativity in Physical Human-Robot Collaboration

Cognitive conflict is a fundamental phenomenon of human cognition, particularly during interaction with the real world. Understanding and detecting cognitive conflict can help to improve interactions in a variety of applications, such as in human-robot collaboration (HRC), which involves continuously guiding the semi-autonomous robot to perform a task in given settings. There have been several works to detect cognitive conflict in HRC but without physical control settings. In this work, we have conducted the first study to explore cognitive conflict using prediction error negativity (PEN) in physical human-robot collaboration (pHRC). Our results show that there was a statistically significant (p =. 047) higher PEN for conflict condition compared to normal conditions, as well as a statistically significant difference between different levels of PEN (p =. 020). These results indicate that cognitive conflict can be detected in pHRC settings and, consequently, provide a window of opportunities to improve the interaction in pHRC.

[1]  R. J. van Beers,et al.  Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: An experimentally supported model. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  Charlotte Stagg,et al.  Visual mismatch negativity: the detection of stimulus change , 2004, Neuroreport.

[3]  Chin-Teng Lin,et al.  Effect of Mechanical Resistance on Cognitive Conflict in Physical Human-Robot Collaboration , 2019, 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[4]  Bruce A. Francis,et al.  The internal model principle of control theory , 1976, Autom..

[5]  Chun-Hsiang Chuang,et al.  Real-Time EEG Signal Enhancement Using Canonical Correlation Analysis and Gaussian Mixture Clustering , 2018, Journal of healthcare engineering.

[6]  Luis Montesano,et al.  Single trial recognition of error-related potentials during observation of robot operation , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[7]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  The Error-Related Negativity , 2018, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[8]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[9]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Independent Component Analysis of Electroencephalographic Data , 1995, NIPS.

[10]  H. Gray,et al.  P300 as an index of attention to self-relevant stimuli , 2004 .

[11]  István Czigler,et al.  Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN): a prediction error signal in the visual modality , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[12]  B. Kopp,et al.  N200 in the flanker task as a neurobehavioral tool for investigating executive control. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

[13]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[14]  William J. Gehring,et al.  The Error-Related Negativity (ERN/Ne) , 2011 .

[15]  Li-Wei Ko,et al.  Visual Appearance Modulates Prediction Error in Virtual Reality , 2018, IEEE Access.

[16]  Tatsuo Arai,et al.  Brain signal-based safety measure activation for robotic systems , 2015, Adv. Robotics.

[17]  Michael S. Ryoo,et al.  Human activity prediction: Early recognition of ongoing activities from streaming videos , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision.

[18]  A. Mognon,et al.  ADJUST: An automatic EEG artifact detector based on the joint use of spatial and temporal features. , 2011, Psychophysiology.

[19]  D. Tucker,et al.  Frontal midline theta and the error-related negativity: neurophysiological mechanisms of action regulation , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[20]  Gordon Cheng,et al.  A neuro-based method for detecting context-dependent erroneous robot action , 2016, 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids).

[21]  Aina Puce,et al.  A Review of Issues Related to Data Acquisition and Analysis in EEG/MEG Studies , 2017, Brain sciences.

[22]  Gamini Dissanayake,et al.  The ANBOT: An Intelligent Robotic Co-worker for Industrial Abrasive Blasting , 2019, 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[23]  J. Fermaglich.  Electric Fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG , 1982 .

[24]  Daniel R Kramer,et al.  Engineering Artificial Somatosensation Through Cortical Stimulation in Humans , 2018, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[25]  Kelvin S. Oie,et al.  Cognition in action: imaging brain/body dynamics in mobile humans , 2011, Reviews in the neurosciences.

[26]  Iñaki Iturrate,et al.  Robot reinforcement learning using EEG-based reward signals , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[27]  Salil H. Patel,et al.  Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected Studies of the Event-Related Potential , 2005, International journal of medical sciences.

[28]  G. Gomez.  Automatic Artifact Removal ( AAR ) toolbox v 1 . 3 ( Release 09 . 12 . 2007 ) for MATLAB , 2007 .

[29]  Martin Spüler,et al.  Error-related potentials during continuous feedback: using EEG to detect errors of different type and severity , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[30]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[31]  Joseph DelPreto,et al.  Correcting robot mistakes in real time using EEG signals , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[32]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.