|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 323
SYNOPSIS OF GENERAL AUDIENCE DISCUSSION
~JES1IONS AND ANSWER
The first question was focusseJ on a comment, made by Professor Larry
Stark, that wide-field-of-view displays are particularly needed An
flight simulators. The question was prefaced with the suggestion that
this is a limiting technology for anyone who is interested in robotics
applications in space, where (a) the location of the observer is likely
be maying, and (b) the observer needs to be concerned, not only
about the orientation of the object being manipulated, but also about
his or her own orientation with respect to some larger coordinate
range. It was noted that there are some state-of-the-art wide filed of
view displays that cost millions of dollars and proposed that some kind
of research to lower the cost of wide-field-of-view displays eight be
In order at this point in time.
Professor Stark replied that, in this c pinion, wide-field-of-view
technology is very important. He provided the following example:
When people lose their wide field-of-view (e.g., have tunnel
vision due to some neurological disease) they find that they can
read and their visual acuity is 20-20; they find, however, that
it is hard for them to merely waLk through a doorway because
they are lacking a functional flow-field, the lateral and
vertical expansion flow-fields, which are directly connected by
primitive neurc-path ways to the vestibular system and are
coordinated in the foculcus of the cerebellum as shown in some
brilliant studies by Jerry Simpson and other neurophysiologists
recently; the lateral and vertical expansion flow-fields give us
our orientation.
On the other hand, when people lose their foveal vision while
retaining their flow fields, they are legally blind (with a
vision rating of 20/200~; they may not be able to ream, however,
they can still walk through rooms, get Who a car, and drive
(patients say -"You know, Doctor, I can drive very well, I just
can't read the freeway signs, so I don't know when to get off")
323
OCR for page 324
324
Professor Stark concluded that, when people are doing some tasks
(manipulating, inspecting) they need foveae vision. In other race=
(moving about within an area) they may need a wide-field-of-view. The
human visual system is a *ual system--we have both--and it should be
possible to design something (perhaps using inexpensive TV cameras) to
provide wide-field-of-view for gross movement tasks, and high
resolution (like reading glasses) for manipulation tacks.
The second question was directed at Professors Sheridan's comment
that there is yet no good way of describing (or representing) the
process of manipulation. It was suggested that something like the
notation system used by choreographers, to represent complex dance
motions, might be useful in this context.
Professor Sheridan agreed that "labanotation" (dank- scoring) or
nnlci~1 scoring (which is more thoroughly developed), is the kind of
thing that ~ ght be useful ~ given a substantial amount of additional
develop m£nt. One problem discussed in relation to the use of this type
of notation, was the fact that, for a given instrument, the range of
manipulations (speed or fingering) is fairly constrained.
In t=1eoperations and robotics manipulations, the notation system
wed have to be able to cope with continuous geometry, hy~ace, and
time. In this type of manipulation, considerations include: multiple
degrees of freedom (si~degr~cof freedman for any object, plus maybe
the six derivatives, plus He six ac~erations~and that is juice the
beginning) and multiple cbjects/~onents in motion (when three or
four things are m Wiry In relation to one another you is ~ lately get
into a twelve or twen~y-four dimensional space and problems of dealing
with trajectory in state-space to describe a manipulation). It is a
very big order to develop a notational scheme which is both
sufficiently complex, and sufficiently comprehensible, to be useful.
Professor Newell noted that the problem of telepresence (generating
a feeling, on the part of a remote operator, of "being there" at the
work site) is an interesting example of a situation where researchers
are working with only a seat-of-the-pants notion of the underlying
concepts. He suggested an immense need for a theory an] a plausible
mcdel of Presence a theory of what happens to humans (and why) when
they project themselves to a remote work site.
Professor Sheridan suggested caution in the use of of terms like
"project oneself". He noted that it might be possible to project
oneself through drugs, or some other method, which would not be
particularly helpful in terms of performance. In addition, he
suggested that "being in control of" a remote operation might not
r ~ a feeling of "being there" that telepresence by itself is not
the gab- it is realty performance that makes the difference.
These caveats notwithstanding, Professor Sheridan agreed that the
develcpment of a cognitive theory of presence would be a highly
desirable gang. He suggested that "pieces of it are lying arching
(e.g., the work of Murray and others in image rotation, etc.~.
Professor Stark suggested that "teleprojection" is a very natural
phenomenon. He noted, for example, that when an athlete swings a
baseball bat, that he or she as an operator/tooI user is able to
"project" kinesthetically and visually to the end of the bat. He
OCR for page 325
325
pointed out that people automatically develop models for activities
that they do on a regular basis (e.g., picking up a pen, using
tweezers), and sugg~1 that persons operating remote equipment (e.g.,
a robotic arm 200 miles away) would develop the same sorts of
mcdels--as long as there is some sort of causal relationship between
their behaviors and the behavior of the remote system.
CONCLUDING REDS
An conclusion, one should note that telepresence and supervisory
~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ needed in
control are not mutually exclusive. Telepre~-ce is
supervisory control. The supervisory control language, for example,
represents only one abstract operator output I.' erface to the remote
system. The perceptive element in supervisory control, that is, the
information Input to the operator fern the remote system, should be in
the form of telepresence "frames" in order to help the operator to
determine the necessary abstract commands.
We should also note that telepresence has both qualitative and
quantitative aspects. The qualitative aspects of telepresence are
use fur for stabilizing a control situation. The quantitative aspects
of telepresence are not well understood (as indicated by control
experiments). For instance, when I am working in a force field, and I
have active force feedback to my hand, then I am stable--but I have a
poor quantitative perception of the acting forces. However, if I show
the values of the acting forces on a display simultaneously with the
active force feedback to may hand, then I am stable an] reasonably good
quantitatively. m is type of cross medal reference should also be
considered On creating telepresence capabilities.
OCR for page 326
Representative terms from entire chapter:
supervisory control
