4.7 Article

Proof of Concept of an Assistive Robotic Arm Control Using Artificial Stereovision and Eye-Tracking

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2950619

Keywords

Manipulators; Robot sensing systems; Cameras; Rehabilitation robotics; Control systems; Human computer interaction; Collision avoidance; human-robot interaction; path planning; rehabilitation robotics; stereo vision

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. le Fonds de recherche du Quebec - Nature et Technologies (FRQNT)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assistive robotic arms have become popular to help users with upper limb disabilities achieve autonomy in their daily tasks, such as drinking and grasping objects in general. Usually, these robotic arms are controlled with an adapted joystick. Joysticks are user-friendly when it comes to a general approach to an object. However, they are not as intuitive when having to accurately approach an object, especially when obstacles are present. Alternatively, the combined use of artificial stereovision and eye-tracking seems to be a promising solution, as the user's vision is usually dissociated from their upper limb disability. Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a proof of concept for the control of an assistive robotic arm using a low-cost combination of stereovision and eye-tracking. Using the developed control system, a typically developed person was able to control the robotic arm successfully reaching and grasping an object for 92 of the trials without obstacles with an average time of 13.8 seconds. Then, another set of trials with one obstacle had a success rate of 91 with an average time of 17.3 seconds. Finally, the last set of trials with two obstacles had a success rate of 98 with an average time of 18.4 seconds. Furthermore, the cost of an eye-tracker and stereovision remains below 400.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available