Ivanova Ekaterina, Carboni Gerolamo, Eden Jonathan, Kruger Jorg, Burdet Etienne
Imperial College of ScienceTechnology and Medicine London WC1E 7HT U.K.
Technische Universität Berlin 10623 Berlin Germany.
IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol. 2020 Apr 16;1:133-139. doi: 10.1109/OJEMB.2020.2987885. eCollection 2020.
The last decades have seen a surge of robots for physical training and work assistance. How to best control these interfaces is unknown, although arguably the interaction should be similar to human movement assistance. We compare the behaviour and assessment of subjects tracking a moving target with assistance from (i) trajectory guidance (as typically used in robots for physical training), (ii) a human partner, and (iii) the reactive robot partner of Takagi . Trajectory guidance was recognised as robotic, while the robot partner was felt as human-like. However, trajectory guidance was preferred to assistance from a human partner, which was recognised as less predictable. The robot partner also was felt to be more predictable and helpful than a human partner, and was preferred. While subjects like to rely on predictable interaction, such as in trajectory guidance, the control reactivity of the robot partner is essential for perceiving an interaction as human-like.
在过去几十年中，用于体能训练和工作辅助的机器人数量激增。尽管可以说这种交互应该类似于人类运动辅助，但如何最好地控制这些接口尚不清楚。我们比较了在以下三种辅助情况下，受试者跟踪移动目标的行为和评估：（i）轨迹引导（通常用于体能训练机器人），（ii）人类伙伴，以及（iii）Takagi的反应式机器人伙伴。轨迹引导被认为具有机器人特性，而机器人伙伴则给人一种类似人类的感觉。然而，与人类伙伴的辅助相比，受试者更喜欢轨迹引导，因为他们认为人类伙伴的辅助较难预测。与人类伙伴相比，机器人伙伴也被认为更具可预测性且更有帮助，因此更受青睐。虽然受试者喜欢依赖可预测的交互，如轨迹引导，但机器人伙伴的控制反应对于将交互感知为类似人类至关重要。
