Human–robot interaction in industrial settings: perception of multiple participants at a crossroad intersection scenario with different courtesy cues

• Autor(a) principal: Alves, Carla
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Cardoso, André, Colim, Ana, Bicho, Estela, Braga, A. C., Cunha, João, Faria, Carlos, Rocha, Luís A.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/79979
• topic: human–robot interaction; AMR navigation; AMR safety; human perception; courtesy cues; forward and backward scenarios; HTA questionnaire; shop floor configuration; Engenharia e Tecnologia::Engenharia Eletrotécnica, Eletrónica e Informática; Science & Technology

In environments shared with humans, Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) should be designed with human-aware motion-planning skills. Even when AMRs can effectively avoid humans, only a handful of studies have evaluated the human perception of mobile robots. To establish appropriate non-verbal communication, robot movement should be legible and should consider the human element. In this paper, a study that evaluates humans’ perceptions of different AMR courtesy behaviors at industrial facilities, particularly at crossing areas, is presented. To evaluate the proposed kinesic courtesy cues, we proposed five tests (four proposed cues—stop, deceleration, retreating, and retreating and moving aside—and one control test) with a set of participants taken two by two. We assessed three different metrics, namely, the participants’ self-reported trust in AMR behavior, the legibility of the courtesy cues in the participants’ opinions, and the behavioral analysis of the participants related to each courtesy cue tested. The retreating courtesy cue, regarding the legibility of the AMR behavior, and the decelerate courtesy cue, regarding the behavioral analysis of the participants’ signs of hesitation, are better perceived from the forward view. The results obtained regarding the participants’ self-reported trust showed no significant differences in the two participant perspectives.