AdaptiX -- A Transitional XR Framework for Development and Evaluation of Shared Control Applications in Assistive Robotics

With the ongoing efforts to empower people with mobility impairments and the increase in technological acceptance by the general public, assistive technologies, such as collaborative robotic arms, are gaining popularity. Yet, their widespread success is limited by usability issues, specifically the disparity between user input and software control along the autonomy continuum. To address this, shared control concepts provide opportunities to combine the targeted increase of user autonomy with a certain level of computer assistance. This paper presents the free and open-source AdaptiX XR framework for developing and evaluating shared control applications in a high-resolution simulation environment. The initial framework consists of a simulated robotic arm with an example scenario in Virtual Reality (VR), multiple standard control interfaces, and a specialized recording/replay system. AdaptiX can easily be extended for specific research needs, allowing Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) researchers to rapidly design and test novel interaction methods, intervention strategies, and multi-modal feedback techniques, without requiring an actual physical robotic arm during the early phases of ideation, prototyping, and evaluation. Also, a Robot Operating System (ROS) integration enables the controlling of a real robotic arm in a PhysicalTwin approach without any simulation-reality gap. Here, we review the capabilities and limitations of AdaptiX in detail and present three bodies of research based on the framework. AdaptiX can be accessed at https://adaptix.robot-research.de.Comment: Accepted submission at The 16th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS'24

Trust dynamics and verbal assurances in human robot physical collaboration

Trust is the foundation of successful human collaboration. This has also been found to be true for human-robot collaboration, where trust has also influence on over- and under-reliance issues. Correspondingly, the study of trust in robots is usually concerned with the detection of the current level of the human collaborator trust, aiming at keeping it within certain limits to avoid undesired consequences, which is known as trust calibration. However, while there is intensive research on human-robot trust, there is a lack of knowledge about the factors that affect it in synchronous and co-located teamwork. Particularly, there is hardly any knowledge about how these factors impact the dynamics of trust during the collaboration. These factors along with trust evolvement characteristics are prerequisites for a computational model that allows robots to adapt their behavior dynamically based on the current human trust level, which in turn is needed to enable a dynamic and spontaneous cooperation. To address this, we conducted a two-phase lab experiment in a mixed-reality environment, in which thirty-two participants collaborated with a virtual CoBot on disassembling traction batteries in a recycling context. In the first phase, we explored the (dynamics of) relevant trust factors during physical human-robot collaboration. In the second phase, we investigated the impact of robot’s reliability and feedback on human trust in robots. Results manifest stronger trust dynamics while dissipating than while accumulating and highlight different relevant factors as more interactions occur. Besides, the factors that show relevance as trust accumulates differ from those appear as trust dissipates. We detected four factors while trust accumulates (perceived reliability, perceived dependability, perceived predictability, and faith) which do not appear while it dissipates. This points to an interesting conclusion that depending on the stage of the collaboration and the direction of trust evolvement, different factors might shape trust. Further, the robot’s feedback accuracy has a conditional effect on trust depending on the robot’s reliability level. It preserves human trust when a failure is expected but does not affect it when the robot works reliably. This provides a hint to designers on when assurances are necessary and when they are redundant