Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kinematics Affect People’s Judgments of a Wheeled Robot’s Ability to Climb a Stair

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effect of wheel height and weight on people’s affordance judgements of a wheeled robot climbing a step was assessed in two experiments. Users must be able to understand their personal service robots’ abilities to perform tasks, such as climbing steps. Robots’ action capabilities can be considered using the theory of affordances. Affordances are the action-relevant relationships between attributes of an actor and attributes of its environment. There is ample evidence that people are sensitive to other people’s affordances. However, only limited research has been conducted to determine whether this generalizes to non-human actors, such as robots. We conducted two experiments which assessed whether people’s affordance judgements of a wheeled robot climing a step are affected by changes in the relationship between step height and robot wheel radius (Experiment 1) as well as weight (Experiment 2). Participants watched brief videos of different robots approaching steps. The participants indicated whether the robot could or could not climb the step. Participants correctly judged that robots which have larger wheel radiuses or are lighter would be able to climb taller steps compared to robots that have smaller wheel radiuses or are heavier. However, participants’ judgments were significantly different from the robots’ actual climbing abilities. This research provided evidence that participants can be sensitive to affordances for non-human actors and might use kinematics when perceiving them. The results indicate that robot users may benefit from viewing a robot’s appearance and movements when judging a robot’s affordances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Federation of Robotics (2016) Service robots. Retrieved from http://www.ifr.org/service-robots/

  2. Elkmann N, Hortig J, Fritzsche M (2009) Cleaning automation. In: Nof SY (ed) Springer handbook of automation. Springer, Berlin, pp 1253–1264

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Hockstein NG, Nolan JP, O’Malley BW, Woo YJ (2005) Robotic microlaryngeal surgery: a technical feasibility study using the daVinci surgical robot and an airway mannequin. Laryngoscope 115:780–785

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hicks RW II, Hall EL (2000) Survey of robot lawn mowers. In: Casasent DP (ed) Intelligent robots and computer vision XIX: algorithms, techniques, and active vision. international society for optics and photonics, bellingham, pp 262–269

  5. Watanabe A, Ikeda T, Morales Y, Shinozawa K, Miyashita T, Hagita N (2015) Communicating robotic navigational intentions. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 5763–5769

  6. Green A, Hüttenrauch H, Norman M, Oestreicher L, Eklundh KS (2000) User centered design for intelligent service robots. In: Proceedings on 9th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN 2000. IEEE, pp 161–166

  7. Pasteau F, Narayanan VK, Babel MM, Chaumette F (2016) A visual servoing approach for autonomous corridor following and doorway passing in a wheelchair. Robot Auton Syst 75:28–40

    Google Scholar 

  8. Robinson M (2017) Tiny self-driving robots have started delivering food on-demand in Silicon Valley—take a look. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/doordash-delivery-robots-starship-technologies-2017-3

  9. Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (Original work published 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chemero A, Turvey MT (2007) Complexity, hypersets, and the ecological perspective on perception-action. Biol Theory 2:23–36

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stoffregen TA (2003) Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecol Psychol 15:115–134

    Google Scholar 

  12. Turvey MT (1992) Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecol Psychol 4:173–187

    Google Scholar 

  13. Duchon AP, Kaelbling LP, Warren WH (1998) Ecological robotics. Adapt Behav 6:473–507

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jamone L, Ugur E, Cangelosi A, Fadiga L, Bernardino A, Piater J, Santos-Victor J (2016) Affordances in psychology, neuroscience, and robotics: a survey. IEEE Trans Cogn Dev Syst 10:4–25

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mantel B, Hoppenot P, Colle E (2012) Perceiving for acting with teleoperated robots: ecological principles to human–robot interaction design. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 42:1460–1475

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rome E, Hertzberg J, Dorffner G (2008) Toward affordance-based robot control. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ugur E, Nagai Y, Sahin E, Oztop E (2015) Staged development of robot skills: behavior formation, affordance learning and imitation with motionese. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 7:119–139

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tipler PA (1999) Physics for scientists and engineers, 4th edn. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Runeson S, Frykholm G (1983) Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. J Exp Psychol Gen 112:585–615

    Google Scholar 

  20. Runeson S, Frykholm G (1981) Visual perception of lifted weight. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7:733–740

    Google Scholar 

  21. Runeson S (1983) On visual perception of dynamic events. Ada Univ Ups Studio Psychol Ups 9:1–56 (Originally published, 1977)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mark LS (2007) Perceiving the actions of other people. Ecol Psychol 19:107–136

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ramenzoni VC, Riley MA, Davis T, Shockley K, Armstrong R (2008) Tuning in to another person’s action capabilities: perceiving maximal jumping-reach height from walking kinematics. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:919–928

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ramenzoni VC, Davis TJ, Riley MA, Shockley K (2010) Perceiving action boundaries: learning effects in perceiving maximum jumping-reach affordances. Atten Percept Psychophys 72:1110–1119

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stoffregen TA, Gorday KM, Sheng YY, Flynn SB (1999) Perceiving affordances for another person’s actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:120–136

    Google Scholar 

  26. Weast JA, Shockley K, Riley MA (2011) The influence of athletic experience and kinematic information on skill-relevant affordance perception. Q J Exp Psychol 64:689–706

    Google Scholar 

  27. Armstrong ME, Jones KS, Schmidlin EA (2014) Tele-operation training the effect of exploration on driveability judgments. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 58:1676–1680

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jones KS, Johnson BR, Schmidlin EA (2011) Teleoperation through apertures passability versus driveability. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 5:10–28

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jones KS, Schmidlin EA, Wheeler NJ (2012) Can users judge the stair-climbing abilities of two-wheeled self-balancing robots? Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 56:1326–1330

    Google Scholar 

  30. Moore KS, Gomer JA, Pagano CC, Moore DD (2009) Perception of robot passability with direct line of sight and teleoperation. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 51:557–570

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidlin EA, Jones KS (2016) Do tele-operators learn to better judge whether a robot can pass through an aperture? Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 58:360–369

    Google Scholar 

  32. Katz JE, Halpern D (2014) Attitudes towards robots suitability for various jobs as affected robot appearance. Behav Inf Technol 33:941–953

    Google Scholar 

  33. Heft H (1993) A methodological note on overestimates of reaching distance: distinguishing between perceptual and analytic judgments. Ecol Psychol 5:255–271

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jacobs DM, Michaels CF, Runeson S (2000) Learning to perceive the relative mass of colliding balls: the effects of ratio scaling and feedback. Percept Psychophys 62:1332–1340

    Google Scholar 

  35. Runeson S, Vedeler D (1993) The indispensability of precollision kinematics in the visual perception of relative mass. Percept Psychophys 53:617–632

    Google Scholar 

  36. Warren WH (1984) Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:683–703

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cornsweet TN (1962) The staircase-method in psychophysics. Am J Psychol 75:485–491

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wetherill GB, Chen H, Vasudeva RB (1966) Sequential estimation of quantal response curves: a new method of estimation. Biometrika 53:439–454

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Wetherill GB (1963) Sequential estimation of quantal response curves. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol) 25:1–48

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Rubin M, Paolini S, Crisp RJ (2010) A processing fluency explanation of bias against migrants. J Exp Soc Psychol 46:21–28

    Google Scholar 

  41. Orne MT (2009) Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (eds) Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow’s classic books. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 110–137

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rosner B (1983) Percentage points for a generalized ESD many-outlier procedure. Technometrics 25:165–172

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. Br J Med 314:570

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jones KS, Derby PL, Schmidlin EA (2010) An investigation of the prevalence of replication research in human factors. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 52:586–595

    Google Scholar 

  45. Konczak J, Meeuwsen HJ, Cress ME (1992) Changing affordances in stair climbing: the perception of maximum climbability in young and older adults. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:691–697

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vertesi J (2012) Seeing like a rover: visualization, embodiment, and interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission. Soc Stud Sci 42:393–414

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jacobs DM, Michaels CF (2007) Direct learning. Ecol Psychol 19:321–349

    Google Scholar 

  48. Fajen BR (2008) Perceptual learning and the visual control of braking. Percept Psychophys 70:1117–1129

    Google Scholar 

  49. Fajen BR, Devaney MC (2006) Learning to control collisions: the role of perceptual attunement and action boundaries. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:300–313

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jacobs DM, Michaels CF (2006) Lateral interception I: operative optical variables, attunement, and calibration. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:443–458

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jacobs DM, Runeson S, Michaels CF (2001) Learning to visually perceive the relative mass of colliding balls in globally and locally constrained task ecologies. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:1019–1038

    Google Scholar 

  52. Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys 14:201–211

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Simple Interact, Inc., Dallas, TX, 75204, USA

    Noah J. Wheeler

  2. Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

    Keith S. Jones

Authors
  1. Noah J. Wheeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith S. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noah J. Wheeler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The data presented in this manuscript was previously published as part of the first author’s dissertation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wheeler, N.J., Jones, K.S. Kinematics Affect People’s Judgments of a Wheeled Robot’s Ability to Climb a Stair. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 117–128 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00625-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00625-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation