Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Expectable Motion Unit: Avoiding Hazards From Human Involuntary Motions in Human-Robot Interaction (2109.07201v3)

Published 15 Sep 2021 in cs.RO

Abstract: In robotics, many control and planning schemes have been developed to ensure human physical safety in human-robot interaction. The human psychological state and the expectation towards the robot, however, are typically neglected. Even if the robot behaviour is regarded as biomechanically safe, humans may still react with a rapid involuntary motion (IM) caused by a startle or surprise. Such sudden, uncontrolled motions can jeopardize safety and should be prevented by any means. In this letter, we propose the Expectable Motion Unit (EMU), which ensures that a certain probability of IM occurrence is not exceeded in a typical HRI setting. Based on a model of IM occurrence generated through an experiment with 29 participants, we establish the mapping between robot velocity, robot-human distance, and the relative frequency of IM occurrence. This mapping is processed towards a real-time capable robot motion generator that limits the robot velocity during task execution if necessary. The EMU is combined in a holistic safety framework that integrates both the physical and psychological safety knowledge. A validation experiment showed that the EMU successfully avoids human IM in five out of six cases.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (43)
  1. S. Haddadin, A. De Luca, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “Robot collisions: A survey on detection, isolation, and identification,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1292–1312, 2017.
  2. A. Pereira, “Guaranteeing safe robot motion,” Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty for Informatics, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany, 2019.
  3. R. Weitschat, J. Ehrensperger, M. Maier, and H. Aschemann, “Safe and efficient human-robot collaboration part i: Estimation of human arm motions,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1993–1999, 2018.
  4. R. Rossi, M. P. Polverini, A. M. Zanchettin, and P. Rocco, “A pre-collision control strategy for human-robot interaction based on dissipated energy in potential inelastic impacts,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 26–31, 2015.
  5. S. Tadele, T. J. de Vries, and S. Stramigioli, “Combining energy and power based safety metrics in controller design for domestic robots,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1209–1214, 2014.
  6. J. Mainprice and D. Berenson, “Human-robot collaborative manipulation planning using early prediction of human motion,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2013, pp. 299–306.
  7. S. Liu, H. Roehm, C. Heinzemann, I. Lütkebohle, J. Oehlerking, and M. Althoff, “Provably safe motion of mobile robots in human environments,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017, pp. 1351–1357.
  8. P. A. Lasota and J. A. Shah, “Analyzing the effects of human-aware motion planning on close-proximity human–robot collaboration,” Human factors, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 21–33, 2015.
  9. P. Rani, N. Sarkar, C. A. Smith, and L. D. Kirby, “Anxiety detecting robotic system – towards implicit human-robot collaboration,” vol. 22, no. 1, p. 85–95, 2004.
  10. D. Kulić and E. Croft, “Anxiety detection during human-robot interaction,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 616–621, 2005.
  11. R. A. Knepper, C. I. Mavrogiannis, J. Proft, and C. Liang, “Implicit communication in a joint action.”   New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2017.
  12. F. P. De Lange, M. Heilbron, and P. Kok, “How do expectations shape perception?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 764–779, 2018.
  13. W. L. Martin, P. S. Murray, P. R. Bates, and P. S. Y. Lee, “Fear-potentiated startle: A review from an aviation perspective,” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 97–107, 2015.
  14. S. Haddadin, S. Haddadin, A. Khoury, T. Rokahr, S. Parusel, R. Burgkart, A. Bicchi, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “On making robots understand safety: Embedding injury knowledge into control,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 13, pp. 1578–1602, 2012.
  15. DIN ISO/TS 15066:2016-02, Robots and robotic devices –- Collaborative robots (ISO/TS 15066:2016).
  16. S. Haddadin, A. Albu-Schäffer, M. Frommberger, J. Rossmann, and G. Hirzinger, “The “DLR Crash Report”: Towards a standard crash-testing protocol for robot safety - part I: Results,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2009, pp. 272–279.
  17. ——, “The “DLR Crash Report”: Towards a standard crash-testing protocol for robot safety - part II: Discussions,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2009, pp. 280–287.
  18. S. Haddadin, A. Albu-Schäffer, F. Haddadin, J. Roßmann, and G. Hirzinger, “An experimental safety study for stab/puncture and incised wounds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 20–34, Dec. 2011.
  19. B. Lacevic and P. Rocco, “Kinetostatic danger field-a novel safety assessment for human-robot interaction,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2010, pp. 2169–2174.
  20. K. Oussama, “Inertial properties in robotic manipulation: An object-level framework,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–36, 1995.
  21. N. Sarkar, “Psychophysiological control architecture for human-robot coordination-concepts and initial experiments,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), vol. 4, pp. 3719–3724, 2002.
  22. R. Alami, M. Warnier, J. Guitton, S. Lemaignan, and E. A. Sisbot, “When the robot considers the human,” in The 15th International Symposium on Robotics Research (ISRR), Flagstaff, United States, Aug. 2011.
  23. H.-L. Cao, G. Van de Perre, J. Kennedy, E. Senft, P. Esteban, A. De Beir, R. Simut, T. Belpaeme, D. Lefeber, and B. Vanderborght, “A personalized and platform-independent behavior control system for social robots in therapy: Development and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 334–346, 2018.
  24. S. S. Tomkins, “Surprise–startle: The resetting affect.” Affect, Imagery, Consciousness, vol. 1, pp. 498–522, 1962.
  25. P. Ekman and W. V. Friesen, “Felt, false, and miserable smiles,” Journal of nonverbal behavior, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 238–252, 1982.
  26. M. Coulson, “Attributing emotion to static body postures: Recognition accuracy, confusions, and viewpoint dependence,” Journal of nonverbal behavior, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 117–139, 2004.
  27. C. Bartneck, D. Kulić, E. Croft, and S. Zoghbi, “Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 71–81, 2009.
  28. M. L. Walters, K. Dautenhahn, R. Te Boekhorst, K. L. Koay, C. Kaouri, S. Woods, C. Nehaniv, D. Lee, and I. Werry, “The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment,” IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)., pp. 347–352, 2005.
  29. L. Takayama and C. Pantofaru, “Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5495–5502, 2009.
  30. J. Mumm and B. Mutlu, “Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction,” International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 331–338, 2011.
  31. C. K. Or, V. G. Duffy, and C. C. Cheung, “Perception of safe robot idle time in virtual reality and real industrial environments,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 807–812, 2009.
  32. S. Nonaka, K. Inoue, T. Arai, and Y. Mae, “Evaluation of human sense of security for coexisting robots using virtual reality. 1st report: evaluation of pick and place motion of humanoid robots,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), vol. 3, pp. 2770–2775, 2004.
  33. F. Dehais, E. A. Sisbot, R. Alami, and M. Causse, “Physiological and subjective evaluation of a human–robot object hand-over task,” Applied ergonomics, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 785–791, 2011.
  34. P. A. Lasota, T. Fong, J. Shah et al., “A survey of methods for safe human-robot interaction,” vol. 5, no. 4, p. 261—349, 2017.
  35. R.J.Kirschner, L. Burr, M. Porzenheim, H. Mayer, S. Abdolshah, and S. Haddadin, “Involuntary motion in human-robot interaction: Effect of interactive user training on the occurrence of human startle-surprise motion,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Safety for Robotics (ISR), 2021, pp. 28–32.
  36. K. Pitsch, “Limits and opportunities for mathematizing communicational conduct for social robotics in the real world? toward enabling a robot to make use of the human’s competences,” AI & SOCIETY, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 587–593, 2016.
  37. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,” Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 159–174, 1977.
  38. C. Grillon and J. Baas, “A review of the modulation of the startle reflex by affective states and its application in psychiatry,” Clinical neurophysiology, vol. 114, no. 9, pp. 1557–1579, 2003.
  39. M. Davis, “The mammalian startle response,” Neural mechanisms of startle behavior, vol. 1, pp. 287–351, 1984.
  40. J. Allwood, L. Cerrato, K. Jokinen, C. Navarretta, and P. Paggio, “The mumin coding scheme for the annotation of feedback, turn management and sequencing phenomena,” Language Resources and Evaluation, vol. 41, no. 3-4, pp. 273–287, 2007.
  41. P. Wittenburg, H. Brugman, A. Russel, A. Klassmann, and H. Sloetjes, “Elan: a professional framework for multimodality research,” International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pp. 1556–1559, 2006.
  42. P. Ekman, W. V. Friesen, and R. C. Simons, “Is the startle reaction an emotion?” Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1416–1426, 1985.
  43. E. Kim, R. Kirschner, Y. Yamada, and S. Okamoto, “Estimating probability of human hand intrusion for speed and separation monitoring using interference theory,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 61, p. 101819, 2020.
Citations (9)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now

Whiteboard

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 2 likes about this paper.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up for Free