具身性在移动操作机器人直观全身遥操作中的作用与性能评估

Core Insights - The article focuses on the exploration of teleoperation in mobile manipulation robots, emphasizing the need for high-quality datasets in dynamic environments, which are currently lacking [3][4] - It aims to balance three key factors: embodiment, cognitive load, and task efficiency in long-term manipulation tasks [3] Research Background - Existing datasets primarily focus on fixed-base robotic arms, limiting the applicability to stable workspaces [3] - The study addresses the complexities introduced by mobility, which increases the cognitive load on operators and necessitates effective feedback mechanisms [3] Related Work Review - Previous research has mainly optimized short-term tasks, neglecting long-term manipulation scenarios [4] - The study differentiates itself by evaluating the combined effects of control paradigms and feedback modalities on operator experience in high cognitive demand tasks [4] Teleoperation System Design - The teleoperation system utilizes the PAL Tiago++ robot and HTC Vive Pro VR equipment, testing four interface combinations [5] Controller Embodiment Schemes - Two types of controllers are analyzed: - Decoupled embodiment controller (SBC) allows independent control of base and arm movements [6] - Coupled embodiment controller (WBC) integrates full-body control with a focus on task space dynamics [6] Feedback Modalities - The study examines how operators perceive the robot's view through different feedback modalities, including immersive VR and traditional screens [7] User Research Design - The research employs a mixed design to quantify the impact of different interface combinations on operator performance and experience [9] Assessment Metrics - Metrics include usability, workload, performance, and ergonomics, covering task performance and operator experience comprehensively [15] Key Findings - Feedback modality and controller type significantly affect task completion time, with VR increasing completion time by 142 seconds [19] - Success rates remained high across conditions, indicating that VR does not compromise task quality despite longer completion times [19] - Usability scores were lower in VR, with SBC showing slightly better usability than WBC [20][22] - Workload was notably higher in VR, with SBC leading to greater physical demand and WBC causing more frustration [23] - Ergonomic assessments indicated moderate risk during long-term operations, with WBC showing greater variability in physical demand [26] VR-Specific Analysis - SBC users relied more on head camera perspectives in VR, while VR-induced dizziness was noted in real scenarios [32]