Miller Robotic Interface II Manual de usuario descargar pdf (Pagina 47)

For this study, we had 19 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 50, with 11 men and 8 women.

Each subject operated the robot through the arenas three times. Each time they had a different

interface.

We found that if the subject had access to the rear camera, their situation awareness increased.

Using a two-tailed paired t-test, we were able to show that there was a significant difference in

the number of collisions that occurred between the different interfaces. When comparing

interface A (the one with only the forward looking camera) to interface C (the one with front

and rear cameras being displayed at the same time), there was a significant difference in

performance (p = 0.02.) We also found a significant difference (p = 0.04), when we compared

the number of hits from interface A to that of interface B. Therefore, the results showed that

situation awareness in the back of the robot is improved by having access to the rear camera,

even if the rear camera is not constantly being displayed. We did not find any significant

difference when we compared the time it took to complete the task.

There was only one user in this study that did not use the rear camera at all. The other eighteen

subjects made at least one camera switch in interface B. For interface C, there were three of

eighteen subjects that did not switch camera modes. One user stated that they didn’t need to

switch camera modes because they had both cameras being displayed already. Another user said

they were reluctant to switch views, because switching views caused their mental model of the

environment to get messed up.

Five of the nineteen subjects preferred to use only the front camera because they were able to

pan the camera down to see the front bumper of the robot. The front of the robot has a larger

bumper than the back of the robot, so the front camera is the only camera that can see the robot

chassis. We found that the five users who had the strategy of looking at the bumper to localize

the robot in the environment had fewer collisions (mean: 8.0 collisions, standard deviation: 4.1)

than the other fourteen subjects (mean: 14.7 collisions, standard deviation: 6.6). This finding

correlated with the results obtained in the other part of the study, where the 3

person camera

could see the robot in its view [Keyes et al. 2006].

1 2 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 79 80

Sin comentarios

Miller Robotic Interface II Manual de usuario Pagina 47