Human Perceptions of the Severity of Domestic Robot Errors

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Human Perceptions of the Severity of Domestic Robot Errors Human Perceptions of the Severity of Domestic Robot Errors B Alessandra Rossi( ), Kerstin Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, and Michael L. Walters Adaptive Systems Research Group, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, UK {a.rossi,k.dautenhahn,k.l.koay,m.l.walters}@herts.ac.uk Abstract. As robots increasingly take part in daily living activities, humans will have to interact with them in domestic and other human- oriented environments. We can expect that domestic robots will exhibit occasional mechanical, programming or functional errors, as occur with other electrical consumer devices. For example, these errors could include software errors, dropping objects due to gripper malfunctions, picking up the wrong object or showing faulty navigational skills due to unclear camera images or noisy laser scanner data respectively. It is therefore important for a domestic robot to have acceptable interactive behaviour when exhibiting and recovering from an error situation. As a first step, the current study investigated human users’ perceptions of the severity of various categories of potential errors that are likely to be exhibited by a domestic robot. We conducted a questionnaire-based study, where participants rated 20 different scenarios in which a domestic robot made an error. The potential errors were rated by participants by severity. Our findings indicate that people perceptions of the magnitude of the errors presented in the questionnaire were consistent. We did not find any sig- nificant differences in users’ ratings due to age and gender. We clearly identified scenarios that were rated by participants as having limited con- sequences (“small” errors) and that were rated as having severe conse- quences (“big” errors). Future work will use these two sets of consistently rated robot error scenarios as baseline scenarios to perform studies with repeated interactions investigating human perceptions of robot tasks and error severity. Keywords: Human-Robot Interaction · Social robotics · Robot companion 1 Introduction The increasing presence of humanoid and human-friendly robots in daily living activities requires the development of more natural Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) capabilities for robots. Autonomous robots are beginning to be used for tasks such as assisting older adults [18,20,31] and to interact with children with c Springer International Publishing AG 2017 A. Kheddar et al. (Eds.): ICSR 2017, LNAI 10652, pp. 647–656, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_64 648 A. Rossi et al. autism [8,21,32]. They are also used to assist humans in common activities in household situations, including answering questions and for support in a kitchen [27]. Autonomous robots can also provide cognitive assistance [16,28]. However, in designing robots that are able to interact and cooperate in human oriented complex environments, two main factors should be considered: Humans need to accept the presence of the robot and they have to trust that their robotic com- panion will be able to look after their well-being without compromising their safety. For example, a robot should assist to prevent a fire starting if a kettle was left to boil water. Human users should also be able to trust their robot to not open the door to strangers - potential thieves - when they are not at home or asleep. If people wake up in the middle of the night for whatever reason, and switch on the light, they should be confident that they will not stumble over their robot and get injured. Several previous research studies have shown that socially interactive robots are better accepted by humans [3,4]. Syrdal et al. [29] showed that dog-inspired affective cues communicate a sense of affinity and relationship with humans. Martelaro et al. [17] established that trust, disclosure, and a sense of companionship are related to expressiveness and vulnerability. They showed how a sense of the robot’s vulnerability, through facial expressions, colour and movements, increased trust and companionship, and increased disclosure. Other aspects such as the type, size, proximity, and behaviour also affected perception of robots [1,10]. Lohse et al. [15] demonstrated that robots with more extrovert personalities are perceived in a more positive way by users. Lee et al. [13] showed that trust enhances people’s acceptance of robots. Trust is a complex feeling even between humans [12] and it can change during the course of interactions due to several factors [2]. In the case of robots, human-robot trust is likely to be influenced by the reliability of the robot’s capabilities. Hancock et al. [9] iden- tify 33 factors influencing trust in HRI, grouped within 3 categories and 6 sub- categories. The main categories are: Human-related, such as self-confidence, prior experience with robots and operator workload; Robot-related, such as proximity, robot’s embodiment, transparency, level of autonomy and failure rates; and Envi- ronmental, such as communication and team collaboration. They showed that robot characteristics, with a special focus on performance-based factors, have great influence on perceived trust in HRI. Deutsch [7] defines trust as confidence that [one] will find what is desired [from another] rather than what is feared. [7, p. 148]. Higher trust is associated with the perception of higher reliability [24]. Therefore, humans may perceive erroneous robot behaviours according to their expectations of a robot’s proper functions [33]. However, robots can be faulty, due to mechanical or functional errors. For example, a robot might be too slow due to batteries running low. It might not be able to detect an obstacle and destroy a human user’s favourite object, or the arm of the robot might cause a breakage during a delicate task. Each of these examples are robot errors, though their magnitude might be perceived differently according to the resultant con- sequences. But which type of errors have more impact on human perceptions of robots? Factors may include severity and duration, the impact of isolated ‘big errors’, or an accumulation of ‘small errors’. For example, Muir and Moray [31] Human Perceptions of the Severity of Domestic Robot Errors 649 argue that human perceptions of a machine are affected in a more severe and long-term way by an accumulation of ‘small’ errors rather than one single ‘big’ error. The embodiment of a robot may also have a major impact on the percep- tion of it by humans [1]. But what is perceived as a ‘big error’ and what is a ‘small error’? People have individual differences, including age, gender, cultural and social habits, which may impact their perceptions of what are considered big or small errors. In order to study the differences in terms of the impact of errors in a human-robot interaction, first we have to establish what people consider subjectively to be ‘small’ or ‘big’ errors exhibited by a home companion robot. For this purpose, a questionnaire survey was conducted in order to classify the perceived magnitude of various robot errors by humans. Specifically, the current study addressed human users’ perceptions of different types of errors. 2 Evaluation of the Magnitude of Robot’s Errors The purpose of this study was to investigate human perceptions of some poten- tial errors that might be made by a robot. In this context, our first study was directed towards the classification of the robot’s errors according to their per- ceived magnitude. 2.1 Method The study was organised as a within-subject experiment. Human participants’ responses to different robot error scenarios were recording their ratings on a 7-point Semantic Differential Scale [1 = small error and 7 = big error]. The ques- tions included life-threatening situations, such as “Your robot brings you a dish- washing tablet instead of paracetamol.”, and more common errors, such as “You are watching your favourite show on TV and your robot changes the channel.”. 2.2 Procedure Participants were tested individually and the experimenter first provided them with a brief description of the experimental procedure. Participants were told to imagine that they live with a robot as a companion in their home, but the robot might exhibit some mistakes. The embodiment of a robot plays an impor- tant role in how people perceive robots [1,14,17,25]. However, since we are not interested in the perception of any specific robot but only in the general percep- tion of errors in specific tasks we did not provide a description of the robot to the participants. The participant’s completed a questionnaire, with 20 questions (one per error scenario) where they rated the magnitude of the consequences of the error illustrated in the different task scenarios. For example, “You ask for a cup of coffee. Your robot brings you an orange.” or “Your robot leaves your pet hamster outside the house in very cold weather.”. The questionnaire also included two optional open-ended questions in which the participant was free to add their own examples of possible small and big errors not already included 650 A. Rossi et al. in the proposed scenarios. The duration of the survey for each participant was about 5 min. In the future robots will be able to carry out a large number of tasks in domestic environments, so potentially we could have considered hun- dreds of different scenarios. Therefore, for practical reasons we used a smaller set of possible scenarios. We designed the scenarios used in the study to cover a wide range of generic types of errors based on previous HRI research with home companion robots. For example, Syrdal et al. [30] used a scenario in which a robot collected information from its user and then disclosed the data to a third party. Salem et al. [26] used a robotic companion that offered to play music or to setup the table.
Recommended publications
  • Lio - a Personal Robot Assistant for Human-Robot Interaction and Care Applications
    Lio - A Personal Robot Assistant for Human-Robot Interaction and Care Applications Justinas Miseikis,ˇ Pietro Caroni, Patricia Duchamp, Alina Gasser, Rastislav Marko, Nelija Miseikienˇ e,˙ Frederik Zwilling, Charles de Castelbajac, Lucas Eicher, Michael Fruh,¨ Hansruedi Fruh¨ Abstract— Lio is a mobile robot platform with a multi- careers [4]. A possible staff shortage of 500’000 healthcare functional arm explicitly designed for human-robot interaction employees is estimated in Europe by the year of 2030 [5]. and personal care assistant tasks. The robot has already Care robotics is not an entirely new field. There has been deployed in several health care facilities, where it is functioning autonomously, assisting staff and patients on an been significant development in this direction. One of the everyday basis. Lio is intrinsically safe by having full coverage most known robots is Pepper by SoftBank Robotics, which in soft artificial-leather material as well as having collision was created for interaction and entertainment tasks. It is detection, limited speed and forces. Furthermore, the robot has capable of voice interactions with humans, face and mood a compliant motion controller. A combination of visual, audio, recognition. In the healthcare sector Pepper is used for laser, ultrasound and mechanical sensors are used for safe navigation and environment understanding. The ROS-enabled interaction with dementia patients [6]. setup allows researchers to access raw sensor data as well as Another example is the robot RIBA by RIKEN. It is have direct control of the robot. The friendly appearance of designed to carry around patients. The robot is capable of Lio has resulted in the robot being well accepted by health localising a voice source and lifting patients weighing up to care staff and patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Comest on Robotics Ethics
    SHS/YES/COMEST-10/17/2 REV. Paris, 14 September 2017 Original: English REPORT OF COMEST ON ROBOTICS ETHICS Within the framework of its work programme for 2016-2017, COMEST decided to address the topic of robotics ethics building on its previous reflection on ethical issues related to modern robotics, as well as the ethics of nanotechnologies and converging technologies. At the 9th (Ordinary) Session of COMEST in September 2015, the Commission established a Working Group to develop an initial reflection on this topic. The COMEST Working Group met in Paris in May 2016 to define the structure and content of a preliminary draft report, which was discussed during the 9th Extraordinary Session of COMEST in September 2016. At that session, the content of the preliminary draft report was further refined and expanded, and the Working Group continued its work through email exchanges. The COMEST Working Group then met in Quebec in March 2017 to further develop its text. A revised text in the form of a draft report was submitted to COMEST and the IBC in June 2017 for comments. The draft report was then revised based on the comments received. The final draft of the report was further discussed and revised during the 10th (Ordinary) Session of COMEST, and was adopted by the Commission on 14 September 2017. This document does not pretend to be exhaustive and does not necessarily represent the views of the Member States of UNESCO. – 2 – REPORT OF COMEST ON ROBOTICS ETHICS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION II. WHAT IS A ROBOT? II.1. The complexity of defining a robot II.2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utilibot Project: an Autonomous Mobile Robot Based on Utilitarianism
    The Utilibot Project: An Autonomous Mobile Robot Based on Utilitarianism Christopher Cloos 9712 Chaparral Ct. Stockton, CA 95209 [email protected] Abstract Personal service robots are entering the home in greater numbers. As of 2003 there were 1.2 million service robots As autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) begin living in the sold for domestic use, and this number was projected to home, performing service tasks and assisting with daily reach 6.6 million by 2007 (U.N./I.F.R. 2004). This trend is activities, their actions will have profound ethical implica- sure to continue into the future as major technological cor- tions. Consequently, AMRs need to be outfitted with the porations (e.g. Sony, Honda and Mitsubishi) are in a race to ability to act morally with regard to human life and safety. ‘push-to-market’ a humanoid robot that acts as a personal Yet, in the area of robotics where morality is a relevant field of endeavor (i.e. human-robot interaction) the sub-discipline companion/domestic assistant (Economist 2005). These of morality does not exist. In response, the Utilibot project trends highlight another consideration behind the necessity seeks to provide a point of initiation for the implementation of implementing ethics in a robot—autonomous capabili- of ethics in an AMR. The Utilibot is a decision-theoretic ties (e.g. Khatib et al. 1999). AMR guided by the utilitarian notion of the maximization of As autonomous mobile robots begin living in the home, human well-being. The core ethical decision-making capac- doing our chores for us and interacting with us socially, it ity of the Utilibot consists of two dynamic Bayesian net- will be imperative that we can count on them acting in a works that model human and environmental health, a safe, predictable way.
    [Show full text]
  • Calo, Robot Privacy
    Robots and Privacy M. Ryan Calo Introduction Robots are commonplace today in factories and on battlefields. The consumer market for robots is rapidly catching up. A worldwide survey of robots by the United Nations in 2006 revealed 3.8 million in operation, 2.9 million of which were for personal or service use. By 2007, there were 4.1 million robots working just in people’s homes [Singer 2009, 7‐8; Sharkey 2008, 3]. Microsoft founder Bill Gates has gone so far as to argue in an opinion piece that we are at the point now with personal robots that we were in the 1970s with personal computers, of which there are now many billions [Gates 2007]. As these sophisticated machines become more prevalent—as robots leave the factory floor and battlefield and enter the public and private sphere in meaningful numbers— society will shift in unanticipated ways. This chapter explores how the mainstreaming of robots might specifically affect privacy. It is not hard to imagine why robots raise privacy concerns. Practically by definition, robots are equipped with the ability to sense, process, and record the world around them [Denning et al. 2008; Singer 2009, 67].ii Robots can go places humans cannot go, see things humans cannot see. Robots are, first and foremost, a human instrument. And after industrial manufacturing, the principle use to which we’ve put that instrument has been surveillance. Yet increasing the power to observe is just one of ways in which robots may implicate privacy within the next decade. This chapter breaks the effects of robots on privacy into three categories—direct surveillance, increased access, and social meaning—with the goal of introducing the reader to a wide variety of issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Human–Robot Interaction: a Survey Full Text Available At
    Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000005 Human–Robot Interaction: A Survey Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000005 Human–Robot Interaction: A Survey Michael A. Goodrich Brigham Young University Provo UT 84602 USA [email protected] Alan C. Schultz US Naval Research Laboratory Washington DC 20375 USA [email protected] Boston – Delft Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000005 Foundations and Trends R in Human–Computer Interaction Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 USA Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com [email protected] Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 The preferred citation for this publication is M. A. Goodrich and A. C. Schultz, Human–Robot Interaction: A Survey, Foundation and Trends R in Human– Computer Interaction, vol 1, no 3, pp 203–275, 2007 ISBN: 978-1-60198-092-2 c 2007 M. A. Goodrich and A. C. Schultz All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers. Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Cen- ter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Robotics in Germany and Japan DRESDEN PHILOSOPHY of TECHNOLOGY STUDIES DRESDNER STUDIEN ZUR PHILOSOPHIE DER TECHNOLOGIE
    Robotics in Germany and Japan DRESDEN PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY STUDIES DRESDNER STUDIEN ZUR PHILOSOPHIE DER TECHNOLOGIE Edited by /Herausgegeben von Bernhard Irrgang Vol./Bd. 5 Michael Funk / Bernhard Irrgang (eds.) Robotics in Germany and Japan Philosophical and Technical Perspectives Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Robotics in Germany and Japan : philosophical and technical perspectives / Michael Funk, Bernhard Irrgang (eds.). pages cm ----- (Dresden philosophy of technology perspectives, ISSN 1861- -- 423X ; v. 5) ISBN 978-3-631-62071-7 ----- ISBN 978-3-653-03976-4 (ebook) 1. Robotics-----Germany----- Popular works. 2. Robotics----- Japan--Popular works. 3. Robotics-----Philosophy. I. Funk, Michael, 1985- -- editor of compilation. II. Irrgang, Bernhard, editor of compilation. TJ211.15.R626 2014 629.8'920943----- dc23 2013045885 Cover illustration: Humanoid Robot “ARMAR” (KIT, Germany), Photograph: Michael Funk An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access for the public good. More information about the initiative and links to the Open Access version can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISSN 1861-423X • ISBN 978-3-631-62071-7 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-653-03976-4 (E-PDF) • E-ISBN 978-3-653-99964-8 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-653-99963-1 (MOBI) • DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-03976-4 Open Access: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 unported license.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavior Description and Control Using Behavior Module for Personal Robot
    Behavior description and control using behavior module for personal robot Yukiko Hoshino Tsuyoshi Takagi Ugo Di Profio Sony Corporation Sony Corporation and Masahiro Fujita Life Dynamics Laboratory Entertainment Robot Company Sony Corporation Preparatory Office 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa, Network CE Laboratory 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-0001 Japan Shinagawa-ku,Tokyo, 141-0001 Japan Email: [email protected] 141-0001 Japan Email: [email protected] Telephone: (+81) 3-5448-5901, Fax: (+81) 3-5448-6833 Abstract — This paper describes a module-based behavior selec- LongTermMemory tion architecture for a personal robot intended for a real world InternalStateModel environment. We adopt the Emotional GrOunded architecture Visual EmotionEngine for a basis, and define and describe a behavior module and an Auditory ShortTermemory associated tree structure for controlling many behavior modules. Perception Also we discuss the requirements and approach for controlling External the behavior module tree. Through experimentation and imple- Motivation mentation on QRIO SDR4X-II, we confirm the feasibility and Stimuli design of the behavior selection system. Behavior Selection Behavior I. INTRODUCTION There are many new research efforts involving robots that live with human users in daily life in recent years. [1][2][3] Fig. 1. Overview of EGO architecture To develop robots capable of sharing the life of a human for extended periods, it is indispensable that the robot not only the outline of EGO architecture. The robot integrates visual, perform useful tasks but also entertain people. To realize this auditory and other sensing informations into the short term concept, which we call “Robot Entertainment”, the key issue memory(STM) and uses those informations as external stimuli.
    [Show full text]
  • Robotics Cluster the Massachusetts Robotics Cluster
    THE MASSACHUSETTS ROBOTICS CLUSTER www.abiresearch.com THE MASSACHUSETTS ROBOTICS CLUSTER Dan Kara Research Director, Robotics ABI Research Phil Solis Research Director ABI Research Photo Credits: Amazon Robotics: www.amazonrobotics.com, Aquabotix Technology: www.aquabotix.com, Bluefin Robotics: www.bluefinrobotics.com, Boston Engineering: www.boston-engineering.com, Corindus Vascular Robotics: www.corindus.com, Endeavor Robotics: www.endeavorrobotics.com, iRobot: www.irobot.com, Jibo: www.jibo.com, Locus Robotics: www.locusrobotics.com, Neurala: www.neurala.com, Rethink Robotics: www.rethinkrobotics.com, ReWalk Robotics: www.rewalk.com, Robai: www.robai.com, Softrobotics: www.softroboticsinc.com, Vecna Technologies: www.vecna.com I www.abiresearch.com THE MASSACHUSETTS ROBOTICS CLUSTER TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CONTRIBUTORS ....................................................................................................1 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................2 3. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................7 3.1. INNOVATION ECONOMY ...............................................................................................7 3.2. STRATEGIC APPROACH ...................................................................................................7 4. ROBOTS AND ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................9 4.1. AUTONOMY ....................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Review Literature Review: Gender and Robotics
    Review Literature Review: Gender and Robotics Anna Pillinger September 2019 “This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 741128”. 1 Contents 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................3 1.1 Definitions and Demarcations: Robots and Non-Robots ...........................................3 1.2 Queering Gender and Sex ........................................................................................5 1.3 Sensitizing Concepts ................................................................................................5 1.3.1 Drawing Together Feminism and Technoscience: Donna Haraway’s Cyborg ....5 1.3.2 Drawing Together Feminism and Technoscience: Lucy Suchman’s Human ......6 1.3.3 Caring about Robots: Jutta Weber’s Helpless Machines and True loving ..........6 1.4 Excursion: Media Equation Theory ...........................................................................7 2 Gender & Robots.............................................................................................................8 2.1 Humans interacting with Robots and Robots interacting with Humans .....................8 2.1.1 An Abstract Portrayal and a Tangible Alternative ..............................................9 2.1.2 Alternatives .....................................................................................................10 2.1.3 Gender Studies in HRI ....................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics the Library of Essays on the Ethics of Emerging Technologies
    MACHINE ETHICS AND ROBOT ETHICS THE LIBRARY OF ESSAYS ON THE ETHICS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Series editor: Wendell Wallach Titles in the series The Ethical Challenges of Emerging Medical Technologies Edited by Arthur L. Caplan and Brendan Parent The Ethics of Biotechnology Edited by Gaymon Bennett The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering, and Clean Energy Edited by Andrew Maynard and Jack Stilgoe The Ethics of Sports Technologies and Human Enhancement Edited by Thomas H. Murray and Voo Teck Chuan Emerging Technologies Edited by Gary E. Marchant and Wendell Wallach The Ethics of Information Technologies Edited by Keith W. Miller and Mariarosaria Taddeo Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics Edited by Wendell Wallach and Peter Asaro The Ethics of Military Technology Edited by Braden Allenby Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics Wendell Wallach, Yale University, USA, and Peter asaro, New School for Public Engagement, USA THE LIBRAY OF ESSAYS ON THE ETHICS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Editorial material and selection © 2017 Wendell Wallach and Peter Asaro; individual owners retain copyright in their own material. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet of Robotic Things – Converging Sensing/Actuating, Hyperconnectivity, Artificial Intelligence and Iot Platforms
    4 Internet of Robotic Things – Converging Sensing/Actuating, Hyperconnectivity, Artificial Intelligence and IoT Platforms Ovidiu Vermesan1, Arne Broring¨ 2, Elias Tragos3, Martin Serrano3, Davide Bacciu4, Stefano Chessa4, Claudio Gallicchio4, Alessio Micheli4, Mauro Dragone5, Alessandro Saffiotti6, Pieter Simoens7, Filippo Cavallo8 and Roy Bahr1 1SINTEF, Norway 2SIEMENS AG, Germany 3National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland 4University of Pisa, Italy 5Heriot-Watt University, UK 6Orebro¨ University, Sweden 7Ghent University – imec, Belgium 8Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Italy Abstract The Internet of Things (IoT) concept is evolving rapidly and influencing new developments in various application domains, such as the Internet of Mobile Things (IoMT), Autonomous Internet of Things (A-IoT), Autonomous Sys- tem of Things (ASoT), Internet of Autonomous Things (IoAT), Internet of Things Clouds (IoT-C) and the Internet of Robotic Things (IoRT) etc. that are progressing/advancing by using IoT technology. The IoT influence represents new development and deployment challenges in different areas such as seamless platform integration, context based cognitive network inte- gration, new mobile sensor/actuator network paradigms, things identification (addressing, naming in IoT) and dynamic things discoverability and many others. The IoRT represents new convergence challenges and their need 97 98 Internet of Robotic Things – Converging Sensing/Actuating to be addressed, in one side the programmability and the communication of multiple heterogeneous mobile/autonomous/robotic
    [Show full text]
  • MILO: Personal Robot Platform
    MILO: Personal Robot Platform Behnam Salemi Jorge Reis, Arash Saifhashemi, Fred Nikgohar Department of Computer Science RoboDynamics USC/Information Sciences Institute 2215 S. Sepulveda Blvd 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, Ca.90292USA Los Angles, Ca 90064., USA [email protected] {jorge, arash, fred}@robodynamics.com Abstract – Recent advances in mobile robotic technology has ActivMedia Pioneer and PeopleBot [11] service robots, given rise to new types of robotic applications called Personal Evolution Robotics ER1 [12], and entertainment robots such Robotics. The main feature of these applications is that they as the Sony Aibo [13], and the Wow Wee RoboSapien [14]. require low cost robots that involve assisting people in doing Requirements of these new applications have raised new their everyday jobs such as providing personal assistance, challenges for robotic research community which includes commercial security, mobile tele-conferencing, tele-presence, home services, entertainment, and elderly care. In this paper we developing robots that are cost effective, reliable, safe, will introduce a low cost and general purpose mobile robotic efficient, flexible, expandable, secure, and easy to program, platform called MILO. It offers unique hardware and software maintain and interact with. Successful solutions to these features which make MILO suitable for a wide spectrum of challenges require novel designs that take issues such as personal robotic applications. MILO possesses PC architecture expandability, efficiency, extensibility, modularity, and and runs on Windows XP. We have experimentally evaluated reusability of the software and hardware components into MILO’s performance. Preliminary results show that MILO can account. be effectively used to develop personal robotic applications. Index Terms – Mobile robots, Internet robots, Personal robots, Service Robots, Tele-presence.
    [Show full text]