IHMC, 40 S. Alcaniz St, Pensacola, FL, 32502, USA.
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Nov 9;14(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12984-017-0324-0.
As a research scientist, my work tends to focus on scientific investigations. Our group occasionally makes discoveries or has a successful demonstration, and sometimes we can even repeatedly demonstrate something working on the hardware. This mode of operation works for research, but not for competitions. In the past few years, I have participated in two international robotics competitions, the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) and the Cybathlon; the research and development process for these competitions is significantly different from our typical research work. This commentary discusses our experience preparing for the Cybathlon, and contrasts it with our experience with the DRC.
The human in the loop for the Cybathlon was the biggest differentiator between the DRC and the Cybathlon. Having the human at the center of the competition not only changed the way we developed, but changed how we viewed the impact of our work. For the DRC, a physics based dynamic simulation was a powerful, and invaluable, tool for not only the algorithm developers, but the robot operator as well. For the Cybathlon, simulation was of little use because the all of closed-loop control was performed by the pilot. In the software development cycle for the Cybathlon, the push was to just come up with something that works and "lock it down" and do not change it, so that the pilot could train with a given set of motions that would not change and make up for any deficiencies with his own abilities. The Cybathlon was more of an athletic challenge for the human who was assisted by technology. The DRC was the opposite, it was a robotics challenge assisted by a human. This commentary focuses on describing the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition's (IHMC) experience leading up to and at the Cybathlon, with some comparisons to the DRC experience.
The Cybathlon was a very worthwhile experience me, my team, and of course our pilot. Knowing that our development could improve the quality of life and health for a group of people was very motivating and rewarding. Engineering competitions accelerate development, engage the public, and in the case of the Cybathlon, increase public awareness of issues for people with disabilities. The Cybathlon also revealed that the powered exoskeleton technology is still nascent in its ability to be a viable alternative to the wheelchair. But with continued developments toward the 2020 Cybathlon, we hope the capabilities of these devices can offer will be significantly improved.
作为一名研究科学家，我的工作往往侧重于科学研究。我们的团队偶尔会有新发现或成功的演示，有时我们甚至可以在硬件上多次演示某个东西的工作。这种运作模式适用于研究，但不适用于竞赛。在过去的几年里，我参加了两项国际机器人竞赛，即 DARPA 机器人挑战赛（DRC）和 Cybathlon；为这些竞赛做准备的研发过程与我们典型的研究工作有很大的不同。本文讨论了我们为 Cybathlon 做准备的经验，并将其与我们参加 DRC 的经验进行了对比。
在 Cybathlon 中，人类是参赛的关键，这是 DRC 和 Cybathlon 之间的最大区别。将人类置于比赛的中心不仅改变了我们的研发方式，也改变了我们对工作影响的看法。对于 DRC，基于物理的动态模拟不仅对算法开发人员，而且对机器人操作员来说都是一种强大且无价的工具。对于 Cybathlon，模拟几乎没有用处，因为所有的闭环控制都是由飞行员完成的。在 Cybathlon 的软件开发周期中，重点是想出一些可行的方案并“锁定”它，而不要更改它，以便飞行员可以使用一组给定的动作进行训练，这些动作不会改变，并弥补他自己能力的任何缺陷。Cybathlon 对人类来说更像是一项技术辅助的运动挑战。而 DRC 则相反，它是一项由人类辅助的机器人挑战。本文重点描述了佛罗里达人类与机器认知研究所（IHMC）在参加 Cybathlon 之前和期间的经验，并与 DRC 的经验进行了一些比较。
Cybathlon 对我、我的团队以及当然还有我们的飞行员来说都是一次非常有价值的经历。知道我们的开发可以提高一群人的生活质量和健康水平，这非常激励人心，也很有收获。工程竞赛可以加速发展，吸引公众参与，而在 Cybathlon 的情况下，还可以提高公众对残疾人士问题的认识。Cybathlon 还表明，动力外骨骼技术在成为轮椅的可行替代品方面还处于起步阶段。但是，随着 2020 年 Cybathlon 的持续发展，我们希望这些设备的功能能够得到显著改善。
