Miller Robotic Interface II Manual de usuario descargar pdf (Pagina 54)

One possible confounding variable for this difference was the size of the two robots. The

ATRV-Mini (INL’s robot) was smaller than the ATRV-Junior (UML’s robot) and thus could fit

in smaller areas. However, the first half of the arena, which was the primary area of coverage,

had the widest areas, fitting both robots comfortably.

We also compared the interfaces by the number of bumps that occurred. The number of times

that the robot bumped into something in the environment is an implicit measure of situation

awareness. However, there were several confounding issues in this measure. First, the INL robot

experienced a sensor failure in its right rear sensors during the testing. Second, the INL robot

has a similar length and width, meaning that it could turn in place without hitting obstacles; the

UML robot was longer than it was wide, creating the possibility of hitting obstacles on the sides

of the robot. Finally, subjects were instructed not to use teleop mode on the INL robot, instead

they were asked only to use safe mode. They were allowed to use teleop mode on our robot.

Despite these confounding factors, we found no significant difference in the number of hits that

occurred on the front of the robot (INL average: 4.0 (3.7); UML average: 4.9 (5.1); p=.77). Both

robots were equipped with similar cameras on the front and both interfaces presented some sort

of ranging data to the user. As such, the awareness level of obstacles in front of the robot

seemed to be similar between systems.

When hits occurring in the back right of the robot were eliminated from both the UML and INL

rear hit totals, because of the INL sensor failure, we did find a significant difference in the

number of hits (INL average: 2.5 (1.6); UML average: .75 (1.2); p<.037). The UML robot had a

camera on the rear of the robot, adding additional sensing capability that the INL robot did not

have. While both robot systems present ranging information from the back of the robot on the

interface, the addition of a rear camera appeared to improve awareness of obstacles behind the

robot. This result correlates to the findings in Keyes et al. [2006].

The systems also had a significant difference in the number of hits on the side of the robot (INL

average: 0 (0); UML average: 0.5 (0.5); p<.033). As the two robots had equivalent ranging data

on their sides, the difference in hits appeared to come solely from the robot’s size and geometry.

1 2 ... 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 79 80

Sin comentarios

Miller Robotic Interface II Manual de usuario Pagina 54