Infant Control of a Mobile Robot more |
2308 views |
HRI and RESNA 2010
RESNA
Annual
Conference
–
June
26
–
30,
2010
–
Las
Vegas,
Nevada
Making Assistive Technology and Rehabilitation Engineering a Sure Bet
Infants Control of a Robotic Mobility Device
Madeline E. Smith, Carole Dennis, Sc.D., OTR, Sharon Stansfield, PhD, Hélène Larin, PT, PhD Ithaca College Ithaca, NY 14850
ABSTRACT
Independent
mobility
is
crucial
in
the
development
of
typical
infants.
Children
with
physical
disabili9es
may
experience
concomitant
emo9onal
and
psychological
limita9ons
a<ributable
to
restric9on
of
movement.
Robots
with
sonar
have
been
suggested
as
a
viable
means
of
providing
mobility
for
infants
with
physical
disabili9es.
We
have
developed
such
a
system
using
a
Pioneer
3
robot
and
various
input
devices.
In
our
system
the
infant
is
posi9oned
in
a
commercial
child
seat
on
top
of
the
robot
and
allowed
to
control
the
robot’s
movement
with
various
control
methods.
This
paper
describes
one
control
method
for
our
system
that
uses
a
Wii
balance
board
to
detect
when
the
infant
leans
and
then
moves
the
robot
in
the
direc9on
of
the
lean.
We
use
parameter
files
to
customize
the
system
for
each
child.
KEYWORDS
Infant,
Mobility,
Robot,
Balance
Board,
Posture
Tracking
BACKGROUND
The
first
independent
mobility
of
the
human
being
is
achieved
with
the
development
of
crawling
and
walking,
which
occurs
in
typically
developing
infants
between
six
and
14
months
of
age.
Independent
mobility
is
crucial
in
the
development
of
typical
infants,
as
it
allows
them
to
acquire
a
broad
range
of
skills
in
the
cogni9ve,
perceptual,
emo9onal,
and
social
domains
[(1),
(2),
(3)].
Typically
developing
children
whose
mobility
has
been
restricted
for
even
rela9vely
short
periods
of
9me
have
been
found
to
demonstrate
apathe9c
behavior
and
depressed
mo9va9on
(4).
Children
with
physical
disabili9es
and
restricted
mobility
have
been
found
to
demonstrate
increased
dependence,
frustra9on,
depressed
mo9va9on,
lack
of
curiosity,
and
a
lack
of
confidence
(4).
Several
inves9gators
have
reported
that
children
with
physical
disabili9es
may
achieve
significant
developmental
benefits
from
the
use
of
powered
mobility,
including
increased
interac9on
with
the
environment
and
contact
with
others,
self-‐ini9ated
independent
movement,
posi9ve
affect,
and
communica9on
[(5),
(6)].
Powered
mobility
is
costly,
imposes
safety
risks,
and
tradi9onally
has
not
been
recommended
un9l
children
are
24
to
36
months
of
age
[(7),
(8)].
Younger
children
may
also
benefit
from
the
developmental
opportuni9es
provided
through
the
use
of
powered
mobility.
However,
very
limited
research
has
been
conducted
to
inves9gate
these
poten9al
benefits.
Galloway,
Rhu,
and
Agrawal
(8)
have
suggested
that
the
use
of
a
robot
may
be
a
viable
means
of
providing
mobility
for
infants
and
young
children
with
physical
disabili9es.
PROJECT GOALS
The
long-‐term
goal
of
this
research
is
to
inves9gate
the
developmental
benefits
of
providing
safe
powered
mobility
to
infants
with
physical
disabili9es
who
are
less
than
two
years
of
age.
Our
immediate
Copyright © 2010 RESNA 1700 N. Moore St., Suite 1540, Arlington, VA 22209-1903 Phone: (703) 524-6686 - Fax: (703) 524-6630 1
RESNA
Annual
Conference
–
June
26
–
30,
2010
–
Las
Vegas,
Nevada
Making Assistive Technology and Rehabilitation Engineering a Sure Bet
goal
is
to
develop
a
custom
system
allowing
pre-‐mobile
infants
to
display
goal-‐directed
movement.
We
will
be
running
a
pilot
study
in
early
2010
to
determine
an
op9mal
control
method
for
our
robo9cs
system
that
will
allow
typically
developing
infants
to
demonstrate
purposeful
mobility
within
a
structured
environment.
We
hope
to
work
with
approximately
15
typical
infants
between
the
ages
of
4
and
12
months
of
age.
The
infants
will
provide
informa9on
about
which
systems
can
be
controlled
by
the
infant
at
an
early
age;
that
informa9on
will
allow
us
to
calibrate
the
soeware
systems
to
allow
babies
of
different
weights,
lengths,
and
motor
abili9es
to
efficiently
control
the
robot.
Following
tes9ng
with
typically
developing
infants,
we
expect
to
determine
the
Photo 1: Robot best
op9on
for
control
of
the
robot,
develop
an
infant
training
program
to
use
the
device,
and
then
to
assess
developmental
benefits
that
may
be
associated
with
the
use
of
the
robot.
ROBOT SYSTEM
The
robot
system
we
are
using
consists
of
a
Pioneer
3
robot,
a
custom
sea9ng
plahorm,
a
commercial
child’s
seat,
commercial
input
devices,
and
custom
robo9cs
soeware.
The
Pioneer
3
robot
is
commercially
available
and
is
equipped
with
sonar
which
we
use
to
detect
obstacles
and
prevent
collisions.
Photo
1
shows
the
robot
and
its
sonar
sensors.
We
designed
and
built
the
custom
plahorm
to
fit
over
the
robot
and
support
the
weight
of
the
child,
seat
and
input
devices.
A
commercial
wireless
joys9ck
acts
as
a
master
override
switch
and
allows
the
therapist
to
remotely
control
the
robot
and
to
stop
movement
at
any
9me
for
safety
reasons.
The
other
commercial
input
devices
we
are
using
include
a
gaming
joys9ck,
a
child’s
joys9ck
and
a
Wii
Fit
Balance
Board.
We
have
developed
the
robo9cs
soeware
to
run
on
the
robot’s
on-‐board
computer,
allowing
an
infant
to
control
movement
using
one
of
these
input
devices.
Our
soeware
monitors
the
sonar
to
prevent
collisions
while
gathering
robot
mo9on
data
from
the
robot
wheel
encoders.
BALANCE BOARD CONTROL
The
most
novel
of
our
control
methods
makes
use
of
the
balance
board.
This
device
is
designed
for
use
with
the
Nintendo’s
Wii
gaming
system
for
fitness
games
and
Figure 2: Balance Board Control
Copyright © 2010 RESNA 1700 N. Moore St., Suite 1540, Arlington, VA 22209-1903 Phone: (703) 524-6686 - Fax: (703) 524-6630 2
RESNA
Annual
Conference
–
June
26
–
30,
2010
–
Las
Vegas,
Nevada
Making Assistive Technology and Rehabilitation Engineering a Sure Bet
exercises.
For
our
robot
system,
the
child
sits
in
the
commercial
seat
on
top
of
the
balance
board,
which
lies
on
the
custom
plahorm.
The
balance
board
has
responsive
pressure
sensors
in
each
of
its
four
corners
and
built
in
Bluetooth
capabili9es.
We
use
a
commercial
Bluetooth
adapter
and
WiiYourself!
C++
library
(9)
to
access
balance
board
data
within
our
robo9cs
soeware.
Our
soeware
compares
the
values
of
the
four
pressure
sensors
to
determine
which,
if
any,
direc9on
the
infant
is
leaning.
When
a
sustained
lean
is
detected
the
robot
begins
to
move
in
that
direc9on.
When
the
child
reaches
out
for
an
item,
he
or
she
leans
in
the
direc9on
of
the
item
and
moves
toward
it.
We
believe
this
will
be
the
most
intui9ve
method
for
a
young
child
to
learn
to
use.
CUSTOMIZATION
Each
child
moves
in
different
ways.
To
account
for
this
our
robo9cs
soeware
has
a
number
of
parameters
to
adjust
opera9on.
The
balance
board
method
uses
four
threshold
values
to
determine
the
percentage
of
a
child’s
weight
that
must
be
on
one
side
to
cons9tute
a
lean.
Other
parameter
values
include
the
speed
at
which
the
robot
should
move
and
the
stopping
distance
to
avoid
collisions.
We
create
a
file
to
store
these
values
for
each
child.
The
first
9me
a
child
uses
the
system
,the
therapist
can
input
parameter
values,
use
default
values,
or
use
calibrated
values.
During
the
calibra9on
the
child
is
prompted
to
lean
in
each
of
the
four
direc9ons.
Readings
are
taken
during
these
leans
to
compute
the
threshold
values.
The
parameter
values
can
be
easily
adjusted
at
any
9me
to
improve
system
performance
by
edi9ng
this
file.
OBSERVATIONS
While
we
have
not
yet
performed
any
formal
studies,
we
have
had
three
infants,
aged
7
to
9
months,
use
the
system
as
we
developed
the
soeware.
All
of
the
infants
were
able
to
move
the
robot
as
they
leaned
to
get
an
offered
toy
or
drink.
Children
were
also
observed
to
move
the
robot
spontaneously
when
they
were
not
being
directly
offered
something
or
coaxed.
The
robot
was
responsive
to
the
infants'
upper
body
weight
shie
as
they
leaned,
moving
to
the
lee,
forward,
and
the
right
according
to
the
direc9on
of
the
child's
movement.
Although
it
is
not
possible
at
this
9me
to
determine
whether
the
children
realized
that
their
leaning
caused
the
robot
to
move,
we
an9cipate
that
this
will
become
apparent
as
children
are
offered
repeated
experiences
with
the
robot.
REFERENCES
1. Bertenthal,
B.L.,
Campos,
J.J.,
&
Barre<,
K.
(1984).
Self-‐produced
locomo9on:
An
organizer
of
emo9onal,
cogni9ve,
and
social
developments
in
infancy.
In
Robert
N.
Emde
and
Robert
J.
Harmon
(Eds.),
Con9nuites
&
incon9nui9es
in
development,
pp.
175-‐210.
.
New
York
and
London:
Plenun
Press 2. Bertenthal,
B.L.,
&
Campos,
J.J.
(1987).
New
direc9ons
in
the
study
of
early
experience.
Child
Development,
58,
560-‐567.
3. Thelen,
E.
(2000).
Grounded
in
the
world:
developmental
origins
of
the
embodied
mind.
Infancy,
1,
3-‐28.
Copyright © 2010 RESNA 1700 N. Moore St., Suite 1540, Arlington, VA 22209-1903 Phone: (703) 524-6686 - Fax: (703) 524-6630 3
RESNA
Annual
Conference
–
June
26
–
30,
2010
–
Las
Vegas,
Nevada
Making Assistive Technology and Rehabilitation Engineering a Sure Bet
4. Butler,
C.
(1986).
Effects
of
powered
mobility
on
self-‐ini9ated
behaviors
of
very
young
children
with
locomotor
disability.
Developmental
Medicine
&
Child
Neurology,
28,
325-‐332. 5. Deitz,
J.,
Swinth,
Y.,
&
White,
O.
(2002).
Powered
mobility
and
preschoolers
with
complex
developmental
delays.
The
American
Journal
of
Occupa9onal
Therapy,
56,
86-‐96. 6. Nicholson,
J.,
&
Bonsall,
M.
(2002).
Powered
mobility
for
children
under
five
years
of
age
in
England.
Bri9sh
Journal
of
Occupa9onal
Therapy,
68,
291-‐293. 7. Cox,
D.
L.
(2003).
Wheelchair
needs
for
children
and
young
people:
a
review.
Bri9sh
Journal
of
Occupa9onal
Therapy,
66(5),
219-‐223. 8. Galloway,
J.
C.,
Ryu,
J.,
&
Agrawal,
S.K.
(2008).
Babies
driving
robots:
Independent
mobility
in
very
young
infants.
Journal
of
Intelligent
Service
Robo9cs,
1,
123-‐134. 9. gl.<er
(2007).
Wii
Yourself!
Na9ve
C++
Wiimote
Library.
h<p://wiiyourself.gl.<er.org/
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Keith
Taylor
(Washington
State
’10)
and
Virginia
Nearing
(Saint
Mary’s
’10)
also
worked
on
developing
this
robo9cs
soeware
as
part
of
a
summer
2009
Research
Experiences
for
Undergraduates
project
at
Ithaca
College
funded
by
the
Na9onal
Science
Founda9on.
Lauren
Cresser
(Ithaca
College
’11)
is
assis9ng
with
this
project,
funded
by
an
Ithaca
College
DANA
internship.
Author Contact Information:
Madeline
E.
Smith,
Ithaca
College,
Williams
Hall,
953
Danby
Rd,
Ithaca,
NY
14850,
PHONE:
(610)
730-‐2837
EMAIL:
msmith11@ithaca.edu
Copyright © 2010 RESNA 1700 N. Moore St., Suite 1540, Arlington, VA 22209-1903 Phone: (703) 524-6686 - Fax: (703) 524-6630 4