The Importance of Feedback for Object Hand-Overs Between Human and Robot

Käppler, Marco; Deml, Barbara; Stein, Thorsten; Nagl, Johannes; Steingrebe, Hannah

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-55307-4_5

Cited by 3 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the increase in the percentage of handovers between 0.1 and 0.2 s, one could speculate that the increase in percentages could be explained by a decrease in feedback-based control and an increase in feedforward control. In a previous study of human-to-human handovers, a high number of handovers were performed with an empty plastic cup ( Käppler et al, 2021 ). These handovers were recorded with a marker-based motion capture system and analyzed for their physical handover time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing human-robot handovers: the impact of adaptive transport methods

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans are increasingly coming into direct physical contact with robots in the context of object handovers. The technical development of robots is progressing so that handovers can be better adapted to humans. An important criterion for successful handovers between robots and humans is the predictability of the robot for the human. The better humans can anticipate the robot’s actions, the better they can adapt to them and thus achieve smoother handovers. In the context of this work, it was investigated whether a highly adaptive transport method of the object, adapted to the human hand, leads to better handovers than a non-adaptive transport method with a predefined target position. To ensure robust handovers at high repetition rates, a Franka Panda robotic arm with a gripper equipped with an Intel RealSense camera and capacitive proximity sensors in the gripper was used. To investigate the handover behavior, a study was conducted with n = 40 subjects, each performing 40 handovers in four consecutive runs. The dependent variables examined are physical handover time, early handover intervention before the robot reaches its target position, and subjects’ subjective ratings. The adaptive transport method does not result in significantly higher mean physical handover times than the non-adaptive transport method. The non-adaptive transport method does not lead to a significantly earlier handover intervention in the course of the runs than the adaptive transport method. Trust in the robot and the perception of safety are rated significantly lower for the adaptive transport method than for the non-adaptive transport method. The physical handover time decreases significantly for both transport methods within the first two runs. For both transport methods, the percentage of handovers with a physical handover time between 0.1 and 0.2 s increases sharply, while the percentage of handovers with a physical handover time of >0.5 s decreases sharply. The results can be explained by theories of motor learning. From the experience of this study, an increased understanding of motor learning and adaptation in the context of human-robot interaction can be of great benefit for further technical development in robotics and for the industrial use of robots.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing human-robot handovers: the impact of adaptive transport methods

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some additional requirements can be derived from studies that included sighted participants simulating blindness, e.g., by wearing an eye mask. For example, one study found that blinded participants performed handovers more carefully and much more slowly than sighted participants [29]. Hence, the robot should be capable of accommodating waiting times, considering that BVI users may execute certain processes slower than sighted users.…”

Section: Accessibility Of Human-robot Handovermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Physical Exchange let the orientation of delivered objects adhere to the social conventions observed in everyday human handovers [8,9], particularly covering hazardous surfaces and orienting hazardous parts of the object away from the receiver when dealing with potentially hazardous items [11] provide direct and indirect handover modalities [12,28] provide haptic support for better orientation during midair handovers [28] (e.g., airflow) allow handover processes to be slowed down for more careful execution [29] let users actively control the process themselves, e.g., to confirm when they have safely grasped the object before the robot opens its gripper [26] Performance let the robot return to a known base position to avoid becoming a dangerous obstacle after handover [26] Despite the specific needs of BVI users, the design of the robot should aim for equal support for both BVI and sighted users, mitigating any potential for stigmatization [19]. To determine whether the handover robot fulfills those user needs and is equally proficient in assisting both BVI and sighted users, we require a theoretical foundation for selecting evaluation methods to assess robot-to-human handovers.…”

Section: Physical Handover Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…let the orientation of delivered objects adhere to the social conventions observed in everyday human handovers [8,9], particularly covering hazardous surfaces and orienting hazardous parts of the object away from the receiver when dealing with potentially hazardous items [11] provide direct and indirect handover modalities [12,28] provide haptic support for better orientation during midair handovers [28] (e.g., airflow) allow handover processes to be slowed down for more careful execution [29] let users actively control the process themselves, e.g., to confirm when they have safely grasped the object before the robot opens its gripper [26] Performance Robotics 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 31…”

Section: Physical Handover Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…allow handover processes to be slowed down for more careful execution [29] let users actively control the process themselves, e.g., to confirm when they have safely grasped the object before the robot opens its gripper [26] Performance let the robot return to a known base position to avoid becoming a dangerous obstacle after handover [26] Despite the specific needs of BVI users, the design of the robot should aim for equal support for both BVI and sighted users, mitigating any potential for stigmatization [19]. To determine whether the handover robot fulfills those user needs and is equally proficient in assisting both BVI and sighted users, we require a theoretical foundation for selecting evaluation methods to assess robot-to-human handovers.…”

Section: Physical Handover Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Got It? Comparative Ergonomic Evaluation of Robotic Object Handover for Visually Impaired and Sighted Users

Langer,

Legler,

Diekmann

et al. 2024

Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapidly growing research on the accessibility of digital technologies has focused on blind or visually impaired (BVI) users. However, the field of human–robot interaction has largely neglected the needs of BVI users despite the increasing integration of assistive robots into daily life and their potential benefits for our aging societies. One basic robotic capability is object handover. Robots assisting BVI users should be able to coordinate handovers without eye contact. This study gathered insights on the usability of human–robot handovers, including 20 BVI and 20 sighted participants. In a standardized experiment with a mixed design, a handover robot prototype equipped with a voice user interface and haptic feedback was evaluated. The robot handed over everyday objects (i) by placing them on a table and (ii) by allowing for midair grasping. The usability target was met, and all user groups reported a positive user experience. In total, 97.3% of all handovers were successful. The qualitative feedback showed an appreciation for the clear communication of the robot’s actions and the handover reliability. However, the duration of the handover was seen as a critical issue. According to all subjective criteria, the BVI participants showed higher variances compared to the sighted participants. Design recommendations for improving robotic handovers equally supporting both user groups are given.

show abstract

I Let Go Now! Towards a Voice-User Interface for Handovers between Robots and Users with Full and Impaired Sight

Langer

Legler

Kotsch³

et al. 2022

Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handing over objects is a collaborative task that requires participants to synchronize their actions in terms of space and time, as well as their adherence to social standards. If one participant is a social robot and the other a visually impaired human, actions should favorably be coordinated by voice. User requirements for such a Voice-User Interface (VUI), as well as its required structure and content, are unknown so far. In our study, we applied the user-centered design process to develop a VUI for visually impaired humans and humans with full sight. Iterative development was conducted with interviews, workshops, and user tests to derive VUI requirements, dialog structure, and content. A final VUI prototype was evaluated in a standardized experiment with 60 subjects who were visually impaired or fully sighted. Results show that the VUI enabled all subjects to successfully receive objects with an error rate of only 1.8%. Likeability and accuracy were evaluated best, while habitability and speed of interaction were shown to need improvement. Qualitative feedback supported and detailed results, e.g., how to shorten some dialogs. To conclude, we recommend that inclusive VUI design for social robots should give precise information for handover processes and pay attention to social manners.

show abstract

The Importance of Feedback for Object Hand-Overs Between Human and Robot

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

Optimizing human-robot handovers: the impact of adaptive transport methods

Optimizing human-robot handovers: the impact of adaptive transport methods

Got It? Comparative Ergonomic Evaluation of Robotic Object Handover for Visually Impaired and Sighted Users

I Let Go Now! Towards a Voice-User Interface for Handovers between Robots and Users with Full and Impaired Sight

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About