Upload
vuongkien
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSTI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA
HUMAN ROBOT INTERACTION (HRI) USING SIMPLE,
INTERACTIVE ROBOTS
This report is submitted in accordance with requirement of the Universiti Teknikal
Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for the Bachelor Degree of Manufacturing Engineering
(Robotics and Automation) (Hons.)
by
AHMAD FARIS BIN AZMIN
B051210190
930420-03-6001
FACULTY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
2016
DECLARATION
I hereby, declared this report entitled “Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) using Simple,
Interactive Robot” is the results of my own research except as cited in references.
Signature : …………………………………………
Author’s Name : AHMAD FARIS BIN AZMIN
Date : 24 JUN 2016
APPROVAL
This report is submitted to the Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering of UTeM as a
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Manufacturing
Engineering (Robotics and Automation) with Honours. The member of the
supervisory committee is as follow:
…………………………………………………………….
(Project Supervisor)
(DR. SYAMIMI BINTI SHAMSUDDIN)
ABSTRACT
Most of the robots used in human-robot interaction (HRI) studies are very expensive
due to their advance complexities and function. This has become a limitation in this
research area. Thus, this project is motivated to investigate how simple, interactive
robots such as My Keepon and RoboBuilder robot can be feasible alternative for HRI
studies. Simple robots can be the key platform in HRI studies since they are cheap
and are re-programmable for many purposes. In this project, HRI interaction
programs were developed using My Keepon, a simple toy like-creature and also
RoboBuilder, a simple humanoid robot. These robots will give initial exposure to the
children about robotic technologies. The feedback on My Keepon and RoboBuilder
features that are attractive to the children during HRI are analyzed using Kansei
Engineering method. Kansei Engineering is used to analyze whether the children are
attracted towards simple robot or not. Four children consisting of both girls and boys
from age 4 and 5 years old were selected from a kindergarten for the HRI
observation. The children interacted with My Keepon through static interaction and
active interaction for RoboBuilder. Video records of the interaction are analyzed
using Kansei Engineering by giving scores on eight different emotions. An interview
session after the experiment showed how the children emotionally perceive My
Keepon and RoboBuilder as a robotic play companion. From the results, the children
showed positive reactions when interacting with both robots. It is suggested that a
simple robot can be a play companion for the children in a kindergarten.
i
ABSTRAK
Kebanyakan robot yang dicipta untuk interaksi manusia-robot (HRI) adalah sangat
mahal disebabkan oleh kerumitan untuk menciptanya dan juga fungsi robot tersebut.
Ini telah menjadi satu limitasi bagi pengkaji di dalam bidang ini. Projek ini adalah
didorong oleh keadaan ini, bagaimana robot yang mudah dan interaktif seperti robot
My Keepon dan RoboBuilder boleh digunakan sebagai alternatif untuk kajian HRI.
Robot seperti ini boleh menjadi platform utama dalam kajian HRI dan mereka
senang diprogramkan semula untuk pelbagai tujuan. Projek ini membangunkan
program-program interaksi berasaskan HRI untuk My Keepon, robot yang seakan-
akan sebuah permainan dan juga RoboBuilder, sebuah robot yang berbentuk seperti
badan manusia. Robot ini akan memberi pendedahan awal kepada kanak-kanak
tentang teknologi robot. Maklum balas kepada ciri-ciri My Keepon dan RoboBuilder
yang menarik kepada kanak-kanak semasa interaksi HRI dianalisis menggunakan
kaedah Kansei Engineering. Kansei Engineering digunakan untuk menganalisisa
sama ada kanak-kanak tertarik ke arah robot mudah atau tidak. Empat kanak-kanak
yang terdiri daripada dua kanak-kanak perempuan dan dua kanak-kanak lelaki yang
berumur 4 dan 5 tahun akan dipilih daripada sebuah tadika untuk interaksi HRI.
Kanak-kanak berinteraksi dengan My Keepon melalui interaksi statik manakala
interaksi aktif untuk RoboBuilder. Video ini akan dianalisa menggunakan kaedah
Kansei Engineering dengan memberi skor kepada lapan emosi yang berbeza. Sesi
temuduga selepas eksperimen menunjukkan bagaimana kanak-kanak melihat My
Keepon dan RoboBuilder sebagai teman sepermainan. Dari keputusan itu, kanak-
kanak ini menunjukkan reaksi positif apabila berinteraksi dengan kedua-dua buah
robot. Ciri-ciri yang mudah pada kedua-dua robot berjaya menarik perhatian kanak-
kanak tersebut. Daripada ini, dapat dicadangkan bawaha robot mudah boleh menjadi
teman sepermainan kanak-kanak di sesebuah tadika.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,
In the first place, Alhamdulillah praises to the Almighty God, Allah SWT, with His
willing has given me the opportunity to successfully complete this Final Year Project
(FYP).
Secondly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my project supervisor, Dr
Syamimi Binti Shamsuddin for the continuous support throughout this project. Her
patience, motivation, enthusiasm and professionally giving advice had help me a lot
in making this project possible and running smoothly as per planning schedule.
Not to mention all those lecturers and staffs in Faculty of Manufacturing
Engineering, UTeM who helped me in many ways in this project especially to those
who are under the Department of Robotics and Automation. Their tireless
cooperation, insightful comments and inspiration had given me the ideas to run this
project successfully.
Thanks also to my friends who have been with me and contributed well in my project
by constantly supporting me, giving ideas, and always stay beside me when I am
having hard time during this project.
Last but not least, I would like to thank all my family especially to my parents for
giving me support spiritually and for their endless support and prayer to see me
completely finish this project.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract i
Abstrak ii
Acknowledgement iii
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
List of Abbreviations x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Project Objectives 4
1.4 Scope and Limitation 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 What is a robot? 6
2.1.1 Types of Robot 8
2.2 Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) 10
2.2.1 Types of Robot Used in HRI 12
2.3 Kansei Engineering 15
2.4 My Keepon Robot 17
2.5 Review of Past Studies 20
2.6 Summary 28
iv
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Flowchart of Project Methodology 29
3.2 Stage 1: Preliminary Study 31
3.3 Stage 2 and 3: Programming & Modification 32
3.3.1 Program Flow for My Keepon 32
3.3.2 Part A: My Keepon Hardware and Software 32
3.3.2.1 My Keepon Structure and Function 34
3.3.3 Part B: Designing circuit and Program 36
3.3.3.1 Arduino Shield 36
3.3.3.2 Developing the Program 37
3.3.4 Part C: Commisioning of My Keepon System 40
3.3.4.1 Hardware Testing and Analysis 41
3.3.5 Program Flow for RoboBuilder 41
3.3.5.1 Software Overview for RoboBuilder 43
3.3.6 Part F: Commissioning of RoboBuilder System 46
3.3.7 Part G: Debugging Process 46
3.3.8 Hardware Testing and Analysis 46
3.3.8.1 Uploading Programming 46
3.4 Stage 4: Experimental Setup for HRI 49
3.4.1 Experimental Procedures 51
3.4.2 Results & Documentations 53
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS & DOCUMENTATION
4.1 Designing Programming 55
4.2.1 Flowchart for the First Session Interaction (My Keepon) 55
4.2.2 Flowchart for the Second Session Interaction (RoboBuilder) 57
v
4.2 Results 58
4.2.1 Survey Results 59
4.2.1 Kansei Engineering Results 61
4.3 Discussion 66
4.3.1 Survey Clustering (My Keepon) 66
4.3.2 Survey Clustering (RoboBuilder) 68
4.3.3 Kansei Engineering Analysis (My Keepon) 70
4.3.4 Kansei Engineering Analysis (RoboBuilder) 72
4.3.5 Comparison on Kansei Engineering Results 74
4.4 Summary 75
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion 76
5.2 Recommendation for Future Works 77
5.3 Sustainability 77
REFERENCES 79
APPENDICES
A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY (MY KEEPON)
B QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY (ROBOBUILDER)
C KANSEI EVALUATION SHEET
D KANSEI EVALUATION SHEET
E SUBJECT INFO SHEET FOR PARENT
F ETHICS APPROVAL LETTER
G GANTT CHART FOR PSM I
H GANTT CHART FOR PSM II
vi
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Type of HRI used based on remote and proximate interaction 14
2.2 Comparison on previous research 21
3.1 Functions & Descriptions of MotionBuilder 44
4.1 Survey result for My Keepon 60
4.2 Survey result for RoboBuilder 60
4.3 Results on Kansei Engineering Method Analysis for My Keepon (Boys) 62
4.4 Results on Kansei Engineering Method Analysis for My Keepon (Girls) 63
4.5 Results on Kansei Engineering Method Analysis for RoboBuilder (Boys) 64
4.6 Results on Kansei Engineering Method Analysis for RoboBuilder (Girls) 65
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 NAO robot 2
1.2 Keepon Pro robot 3
2.1 Unimate, the first industrial robot builds 7
2.2 Classification of type of robot 8
2.3 U-Bots sorting objects 11
2.4 An example of HRI 12
2.5 The Micto Surge System 13
2.6 A furniture-assembling robot in IKEA 14
2.7 The Process of Kansei 15
2.8 Kansei Gateways 16
2.9 Keepon’s deformable body 17
2.10 Keepon’s kinematic mechanism 18
2.11 Keepon’s trajectory movement 18
2.12 Internal and external structures of Keepon 19
2.13 An example of kid playing with Keepon 20
3.1 Flowchart of the project methodology 30
3.2 Concept of Literature Review 31
3.3. Sub-Processs for Stage 2 33
3.4 Keepon trajectory movement 34
3.5 Keepon;s four degree of freedom 34
3.6 Keepon controller board 35
3.7 Connection between the systems 35
3.8 Arduino Shield 37
3.9 Systematic approach to programming 38
3.10 User Interface of ViKeepon 40
3.11 Programming process flow for RoboBuilder 42
3.12 MotionBuilder software 43
3.13 RoboBuilder Robot Configuration 45
viii
3.15 Debuggging Process Flowchart (RoboBuilder) 47
3.16 RoboBuilder Download Tool 48
3.17 Process flow for the experiment 49
3.18 Experimental plan layout for My Keepon 52
3.19 Experimental plan layout for RoboBuilder 53
4.1 The process flow for first session 56
4.2 The process flow for second session 57
4.3 My Keepon interaction session 58
4.4 RoboBuilder interaction session 59
4.5 Video evaluation session using Kansei Engineering 61 4.5 Understanding Rating (My Keepon) 66
4.6 Experience Rating (My Keepon) 67
4.7 Enjoyment Rating (My Keepon) 67
4.8 Understanding Rating (RoboBuilder) 68
4.9 Experience Rating (RoboBuilder) 69
4.10 Enjoyment Rating (RoboBuilder) 69
4.11 Kansei Graph (My Keepon) (+ve) 70
4.12 Kansei Graph (My Keepon) (-ve) 71
4.13 Kansei Graph (RoboBuilder) (+ve) 72
4.14 Kansei Graph (RoboBuilder) (-ve) 73
4.15 Radar graphs (+ve) 74
4.16 Radar graphs (-ve) 75
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HRI - Human-Robot Interaction
HCI - Human-Computer Interaction
KE - Kansei Engineering
UART - Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter
FKP - Fakulti Kejuruteraan Pembuatan
UTeM - Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
DOF - Degree of Freedom
DOE - Design of Experiment
ECE - Early Childhood Education
S.Pos - Start Position
D.Pos - Display Position
x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 will give a brief explanation about this project, starting with the
background of the project title, “Human-robot Interaction (HRI) with a Simple,
Interactive Robot”. This chapter will also discuss about the problem statement,
objectives, scope and limitation, and also the project planning..
1.1 Background
According to Fong et al. (2001) robot can be generally considered as a machine or
device in which it can performs tasks according to what the human command. Some
robots require some degree of guidance, which may be done using a remote control,
robot manipulator or with a computer interface that can be program and re-program
by human operator. This re-programmability characteristic can helps to distinguish
between robots and other automatic machine.
With the advancing technologies and rapid progress of digital computer that has
brought about the era of intelligent robots, they have evolved so much and are
capable of mimicking humans that they seem to have a mind of their own. In this 21st
century, robots are increasingly being developed for real world application areas,
such as robots as diseases treatment, rehabilitation, eldercare, or as household
appliance. Since intelligent robots can accomplish more complex and varied tasks,
the role of human control over the robot also dramatically increased.
1
Human-robot interaction (HRI) is an emerging field aimed at improving the
interaction between human beings and robots in various activities in which operate in
changing real-world environments. It is suggested that robots as partners can help us
accomplish more meaningful work and achieve better results (Fong et al., 2001)
Nowadays, HRI have been widely used in many fields to help us to achieve a better
life in the future. However, in this country that we live, HRI is still very unfamiliar
because not so many people have taken the step do the study and experimenting the
HRI due to some difficulties.
In order to do research in HRI field, the robot must be design in the simplest way
possible so that the human may feel comfortable and ease when interacting with the
robot. Robots such as Asimo and NAO (Figure 1.1) are designed based on human-
like structure or also can be called as humanoid robot while robot like Keepon Pro
(Figure 1.2) has a toy-like structure for the purpose of interacting with children
especially those with autistic disorder (Kozima. et al., 2005). There is several more
robots structure that is designed for the purpose of HRI study with each robot shape
suits different application
Figure 1.1: Humanoid robot NAO
(Source: https://www.ald.softbankrobotics.com/en/cool-robots/nao)
2
Figure 1.2: My Keepon robot
(Source: http://www.mykeepon.com)
1.2 Problem Statement
There are three problems statement that need to be highlighted in relation to this
project.
a) Most of the robots platforms used for research and study for HRI are very
expensive. Successful robots such as Asimo, NAO, Keepon Pro have a very high
price tag due to their complexity with high degrees of freedom. On the contrary,
low cost and simpler robots like Furby, Pleo or Ono are not officially modifiable.
Thus, modifying cheap commercial robots can be a key to develop low-cost
programmable platforms for HRI studies.
b) Advancements in technology are happening every single day. Kids around the
world are being exposed to the robotic technologies. Simple interactive HRI robot
can help to expose the children about the ever advancing robotic technologies
c) Robot developed for child-robot interaction is still at an early stage. To develop
robot which is suitable for children, experiment is done to analyze whether the
children are more attracted to complex or simple robot. By using the Kansei
Engineering method in this experiment, it can study and analyze the features of
the robot that managed to attract the attention of the children thus improving the
HRI robot for future studies.
3
1.3 Project Objectives
The ultimate goal of this project is to program My Keepon and RoboBuilder robot to
interact with children. The specific objectives that need to be achieved are;
a) To develop HRI programs for My Keepon and RoboBuilder to interact with the
children at a kindergarten
b) To analyze the emotional feedback of the children towards the robot through
interview session and Kansei Engineering Method
1.4 Scope and Limitation
The purpose of this project is to develop Human-Robot Interaction using a simple
interactive robot. The HRI involves both software and hardware to integrate the robot
to interact with humans.
This project involves theoretically and practically study on the development of My
Keepon and RoboBuilder robot to interact with children. The scope and limitation of
this project shall be indicated as follow.
a) This project concentrates on the programming of My Keepon robot using Arduino
Uno as the interface. Microsoft C# and Arduino will be used as the computer
languages to do the programming.
b) For RoboBuilder, MotionBuilder software which is provided by the manufacturer
will be used to program the robot.
c) 4 kindergarten children (age 4 – 5 years old) will be the participants for this study
since children are very sincere in giving opinion and expression.
d) The children that participate must be able to at least understand English since
there will be survey and questionnaire question at the end of the experiment.
e) The analysis of Kansei Engineering method will be focusing based on the
response from the children and their facial reaction towards the features of the
robot that they may find interesting during the interaction.
4
f) The children will do static interaction with My Keepon and spontaneous
interaction with RoboBuilder.
5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a literature summary at the beginning of a research which aims
to review the critical points of the research. Literature review has been conducted in
order to obtain the information on the current technology available and the
methodology being used by other researchers on the same topic or field all around
the world. This chapter provides the key points related to human-robot interaction
(HRI) and Kansei Engineering method as a tool to evaluate HRI.
2.1 What is a robot?
Girme et al. (2007) proposed that a robot is an electro-mechanical device that can
accomplish either one of autonomous or semi-autonomous or pre-programmed tasks.
According to Robot Institute of America (1979), a robot is defined as a
reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts,
tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the
performance of a variety of tasks. (Bekey, 1999) stated in his thesis that robots are
generally machines that can sense, think and act which also frequently called as
intelligent agents.
However, as strange as it might seem, there is really no standard definition for a
robot. Joseph Engelberger, a pioneer in industrial robotics once said that even he
cannot define what actually is a robot but he know it is a robot when he see one
(Harris, 2007).
The word ‘robot’ was first cited by the Czech playwright and novelist Karel Capek
(1890 – 1938) from the Czech word, robota, meaning “forced labor”. The use of the
6
word Robot was introduced into his play R.U.R (Rossum’s Universal Robot) in the
early 1921. In the play, robot featured as fictional humanoid devices as the servants
for humans in which the robots eventually overthrow their human creators.
In the year 1954, George Devol invented the first digital and programmable robot
known as Unimate, the first kind of robot manipulators. Unimate (Figure 2.2) were
proposed by Devol in the United States; a company started by Devol and
Engelberger produced the first commercial versions of these machines in 1962.
Waurzyniak and Patrick (2006) said that the invention of Unimate has ultimately laid
the foundation in technology of modern industrial robotics. Industrial robots had
rapidly grown as an important role in the manufacturing industries since then.
Figure 2.1: Unimate, the first industrial robot build
(Source: http://www.computerhistory.org/)
Since robots are agents in the world they are also subject to the laws, rules, or
principles which are designed to ensure a friendly robot behavior environment is
created. Asimov has proposed in his book back on year 1950, ‘I, Robot’ the three
laws in robotics, also known as Asimov’s Laws. He then latter added a ‘zeroth law’.
\
7
• Law Zero : A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow
humanity to come to harm.
• Law One : A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm, unless this would violate a higher
order law.
• Law Two : A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where
such orders would conflict with a higher order law.
• Law Three : A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with a higher order law.
2.1.1 Types of Robot
In the recent years there have been drastic improvements of robot whereby robots
do a lot of different tasks in many fields and the robot becomes more complex as
greater number of jobs are entrusted to them. In order to identify the robots, we
divide them by their application. A robot needs to be above all functional and
designed with qualities that suit its primary tasks. It depends on the task at hand
whether the robot is big, small, and able to move or nailed to the ground. Each and
every task means different qualities, form and functions; a robot needs to be
designed with the task in mind. Figure 2.2 further shows the classification of type
of robots.
Figure 2.2: Classification of type of robots
Type of robots
Mobile robot Stationary robot
Autonomous robot
Remote Control robot
8
Mobile robots are robots that are able to move freely according to the design and
programs setup. Usually they perform task such as loading and unloading of load in
factory, search areas, used in war, delivering heavy parts in industrial factories. For
an instant, AGV robots are used in industry to autonomously delivering parts
between several stations in a factory. Mobile robots are utilized for task where
individual cannot access without risking their lives.
Stationary robot is a robot that is completely contra to the mobile robot. Most
stationery robots are big and heavy, and created to perform repeating tasks without
ever for them need to move. Particularly dull, repeating and heavy tasks are
suitable for this kind of robots. Stationery robot is used for dull and repeating task
because robot will never be exhausted or tired, it can continuously perform its duty
day and night without ever complaining. Once the task is done, the robot can be re-
programmed easily to perform another task.
Autonomous robots are intelligent machine that capable to works on their own or
independently in which they can rely on the brains instead of human operator.
Autonomous robots run programs that give them the opportunity to decide the
action that they want to perform depending on the surroundings or environments.
Autonomous robots can learn or gain new knowledge by adjusting themselves to
the new environments or by adjusting new methods of accomplishing task instead
of doing it the same way.
In case where a robot must to perform more complicated yet undetermined tasks, an
autonomous robot is not the right decision to practice. Complicated tasks are still
best performed by human beings with genuine intellectual brainpower to make the
critical decision. Generally, a robot can only make decisions based on what the
human program them, whereas human can make decision based on emotional and
environment factors. Thus, in some situation, a human decision is needed whereby
a robot capability is used to perform task. In this way, a human can guide a robot
by remote control to do task which cannot be done by the human. A person can
perform difficult and usually dangerous tasks without being at the spot where the
tasks are performed.
9
For the purpose of studying HRI, robots should be designed to interact with human in
the simplest way possible. Robots used in HRI field are usually autonomous and
have living-like creatures so that the human will feel more comfortable when
interacting with them. The robot can be in the form of animal, human or other things
that it may look like it is alive. The design of the robot is different based on the
application and environment.
2.2 Human Robot Interaction (HRI)
From the earliest starting point of naturally enlivened robots, researchers have been
interested by the likelihood of robots interfacing with one another. Universally, the
world is moving forward into a situation where there is a significant desire within the
society to see useful robots ubiquitous in our day-to-day lives. In the modern era of
21st century, robots are not developed only to do heavy job in the industrial field,
instead they are also created to help humans in various activities. Humans seem to
have a specific interest about understanding and mimicking the nature in general,
and, specifically, human beings (Dautenhanh, 2007). The nature of interactivity and
social behavior in robot and humans are the main obstacles in the research field of
HRI.
Human-robot interaction research are closely affiliated with human-computer
interaction (HCI), as most of the modern robotic system employ hardware and
software components are used in other common computing system. Nonetheless, a
clear comparison can be made between them. Human-computer interaction basically
deals with user interface technologies such as the input devices; keyboard, mouse,
etc, in which the input is done manually by human operators. Whereby, HRI deals
with direct interaction between the human and robot itself, the robot interact with the
world and physically with the human operators.
As the field of simulated life developed, scientists started applying standards, for
example, indirect communication between individuals via modifications made to the
shared environment to accomplish "aggregate" or "swarm" robot conduct. Grass’e
10
clarify how social insect societies can collectively produce complex behavior
patterns and physical structures, regardless of the possibility that every individual
seems to work alone (Bonabeau, 1999). Deneubourg and his collaborators pioneered
the first experiments in simulated and physical “ant-like robots” (Deneubourg et al.,
2000) in the early 1990’s. Since then, numerous researchers have developed robot
collectives (Kube, Bonabeau, 2000) and have used robots as models for studying
social insect behavior.
Figure 2.3: U-Bots sorting objects (Melhuish, Holland and Hoddell, 1998)
However, the research shown above only as far uses the methods of self-organization
and behavior inspired by social insect societies. Such social orders are unknown,
homogeneous gatherings in which individuals don't make any difference. This kind
of "social conduct" has ended up being an attractive model for robotics technology,
especially due to the abilities of the simple robot to perform difficult task (e.g.,
soccer, basketball playing). (Dautenhahn, Billard, 1999) proposed that social robots a
part of the heterogeneous group; a society consisting of both robots and humans.
They are able to recognize each other and engage in social interaction, interpret the
environment based on their experience, and explicitly communicate with and learn
from each other.
HRI robot represents an interaction technology, which breaks the boundaries of
interaction between human and robot. Behaviours and appearances of robot have
drastically changed since early 1990s, and with the never ending technologies, they
still and will continue to change. Charles Rich in 2008 said we need to understand
how to program human-like robots if we want them to move freely among us.
11