{ŒGplllGp•›Œ™•ˆ›–•ˆ“Gj–•Œ™Œ•ŠŒG–•G
p•‹œš›™ˆ“Gp•–™”ˆ›ŠšGOpukpuGYWW_P
kjjSGkˆŒ‘Œ–•SGr–™ŒˆGqœ“ GXZTX]SGYWW_
Intelligent User Interface for Human-Robot Interaction
T. H. Song, J. H. Park, S. M. Chung
School of Information and Communication Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Suwon, Korea
{ thsong, fellens, kuni80 }@ece.skku.ac.kr
Abstract - Human-Robot Interaction technology, used to
command a robot or to acquire information from a robot, is
defined as the communication method between humans and the
robot. Human-robot interaction consists of the input facility,
environment display, intuitive command and reaction, and the
architecture of the interface program. This research focuses on
the framework of the interface program that contains the
controls, communication architecture and robot mark-up
languages. The application that builds the Intelligent User
Interface uses the functions: Plug-and-play for robot peripherals;
Self-diagnosis; and Multimodal sensor fusion. This research
proposes the robot’s architecture to make the decision based on
the robot’s level of autonomy. Our Intelligent User Interface
system consists of Ultrasonic, Position sensitive detector (PSD),
and DC motors. We verify operation of the Intelligent User
Interface for the Human-Robot Interaction through evaluating a
scenario: the remote control of the mobile robot’s navigation in
an environment containing obstacles.
I. INTRODUCTION
Much research in robot technology focuses on human-
robot interaction to enable robots to perform services instead
of humans. The development of robot technology is becoming
more complex. Many fields of endeavor are required:
electronic; electrical; communication; semiconductor; and
Industrial engineering. Among these, artificial intelligence and
human engineering are important technologies for human-
robot interaction. A robot’s working paradigm is dependent on
a robot’s type of work. In the past a robot was designed to
perform repetitive simple actions to carry out standard tasks.
There is a trend towards designing robots to perform more
varied, complex services requiring advanced ‘intelligence’.
Robots were designed to rapidly carry out instructions without
mistake. Current robot developments require them to perform
services replacing humans, especially in situations that would
otherwise compromise a human’s quality of life. Examples
where robots might be employed include welfare services,
medical treatment, mechanized agriculture, atomic power
plants, and electric/gas work. Nanotechnology and component
minimization techniques allow robots to improve a human's
quality of life in the human's life space. The robots can take
various forms as well as being miniaturized. Living in the
same space as a person opens up the possibilities for personal
service robots that offer convenience to humans that can be
easily utilized.
`^_TXT[Y[[TYX^XT_VW_VKY\UWWGⓒYWW_Gplll X[]Z
K. H. Kwon and J. W. Jeon
School of Information and Communication Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Suwon, Korea
{ khkwon, jwjeon }@yurim.skku.ac.kr
Any interface should be based on as natural and intuitive
interaction as possible. Therefore, such a personal service
robot must be based on embedding the robot with high
intelligence and designed with safety in mind [1. 2].
Zenn Z.’s research discusses the necessary information
exchange between operator and service robot and proposes a
human friendly MRI(Magnetic Resonance Imaging). The
resulting intelligent human-robot system should be able to
solve many service tasks even in unknown situations using a
natural form of communication between human and service
robot [3]. Perzanowski D.’s research focused on a multimodal
interface for mobile robots. He assumed a model of
communication and interaction that, in a sense, mimics how
people communicate. It incorporates both natural language
understanding and gesture recognition as communication
modes [4]. Other human-robot interface research uses a
combination of methods to guide the design of service robots.
The work is multi-disciplinary and draws on methods and
theories from user centric system design, industrial design,
natural language processing and robotics. The design process
is iterative, applying results from user trials to refine the
design of a prototype or component [5].
Human-robot interaction consists of four types of
technique. First, the interaction method contains an input
device and an input method. The basic input mechanism uses
keyboard and mouse [6. 7]. A haptic interface device is more
sensitive and accurate than either keyboard or mouse. Haptic
devices and wearable input devices may be specially designed
for robot control of, for instance, mobile or humanoid robots
[8. 9. 10. 11]. Second, technology is configured to build maps
of and display unknown environments. Cognition can be built
into the robot to sense and estimate the environment using
ultrasonic, position sensitive detectors, cameras, and laser
range finders. A robot can simultaneously build 2D or 3D
environment maps. It can remotely monitor the area around
the robot [12. 13]. The third technology of human-robot
interaction is the cognition: sensitivity to user's commands and
reaction. The commands for interaction between human and
robot are the senses of voice, gesture, emotion, touch, and
force, etc [14. 15. 16. 17]. Last of all, the technique for
efficient control of the interaction method is the framework
for the user interface program. The newest interface
framework or robot middleware architecture method is the
semantic web and multimodal sensor interface [20. 21].
 In this paper, the focus is on the user interface program fast polling period is used, the processor’s performance
framework. We propose the new user interface program decreases. This mechanism of polling saves the processor’s
architecture for interaction with a robot. The special resources. If the slave processor detects a signal from the
components for the interactive framework solution are the plug-in sensor, then the slave processor transfers the sensor
function of Plug-and-Play, the function of self-diagnosis, and information to the master processor through the Serial
the multi-modal sensor fusion algorithm. These proposed Peripheral Interface (SPI) protocol (Fig. 1).
functions of the user interface framework can improve the
B. Self-diagnosis
ease and efficiency of robotic control. The number of mistakes
Early forms of robot were largely industrial, performing
made by the robot is decreased by checking the self-diagnosis
repetitive simple tasks. Current designs look at service robots
function when the robot sensor is out of order.
whose function is to help human life in any environment:
The paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the
office, home, public area, hospital and so forth. The robot’s
components of the intelligent user interface. Section III
fault tolerance and safety are thus important. The focus of
presents the decision level of robot autonomy. Section IV
much research and technological innovation is to develop the
defines the intelligent user interface for each level of
robot’s fault-tolerance and safe operation. The “A Study of
autonomy. The experimental results of the intelligent user
Self-diagnosis Systems for an Autonomous Mobile Robot”
interface for the human-robot interaction are shown in Section
proposed a method that copes with self-conditioning using
V. Section VI presents a brief conclusion for our proposal.
internal sensory information by multiple sensors in the system.
II. COMPONENTS OF INTELLIGENT USER INTERFACE Its focus is on functional units in a single robot system. The
method that divides fault conditions into three levels is also
A. Plug-and-Play
examined. The behavior, which must cope with the faulty
Generally, the robot recognizes its surrounding
condition, is set at each level to continue to execute the task
environment using various sensors. It recognizes user's
[24]. Four current sensors are used to measure power variation
command and behavior. The Robot sensor is an important
and redundant methods are used to manage, detect and
element. It acts like a human sense. Actually, many kinds of
diagnosis current sensor status [25]. The other self-diagnosis
robot sensors are imitations of human sense. Therefore, the
research considers the design and implementation of a
sensor’s initialization (e.g. sensor set up and start-up process)
prototype redundancy management scheme for on-line
is important. So research of sensor plug in, sensor
detection and isolation of faulty sensors that can be used as an
initialization, and sensor calibration has been promulgated by
integral part of intelligent instrumentation systems in strategic
many researchers. “Toward a practical robot programming
facilities [26].
framework” presents a set of design goals that an ideal robot
framework should achieve using Player 2.0. As a step toward
the goal of building a useful robot framework, this research
developed Player to meet the goals of a robot framework. It
provides compatibility with the Player 1.x code base
developed by the existing Player user community [22].
However it lacks hard real-time performance. The “Prototype
design of the plug-and-play desktop robotic system” presents
a prototype of a desktop robotic system that enables the plug-
and-play function via the internet through a Universal Serial
Bus (USB) port of a Personal Computer (PC). A distinct
feature of the design is to bring plug-and-play functionality
into this design using a high speed USB interface device. An
internal distributed control system is also adopted in our
design. This enables improved performance by including
advanced control schemes. In addition, versatility, stability
and system cost are taken into consideration [23]. Previous Fig. 1. Plug-and-play algorithm by polling method.
"Plug-in" methods, based on the USB interface, cannot use a
low cost processing unit or microprocessor if they do not TABLE I
support USB functionality. Other “Plug-and-Play” PENDING_FAULT_VALUE BY USER COMMAND
implementations are PC-based only. Therefore these two USER COMMAND PENDING_FAULT_VALUE
methods cannot be adapted to low cost robotic systems. MOVE GO 5 sec
MOVE BACK 5 sec
This proposed “Plug-and-Play” functionality can utilize a TURN LEFT 5 sec
low cost processor. It uses a polling input port in the TURN RIGHT 5 sec
processor. The polling method is efficient in continuously REQUEST SENSOR DATA 3 sec
checking the signal. This is better than the alternative of using REQUEST ROBOT STATUS 3 sec
an interrupt function. But the polling period is not fast. If a MOVE POINT TO POINT 30 sec

X[][
 In this paper, the proposal of self-diagnosis for the robot
consists of three parameters. First, a check parameter
measures how faithfully the robot executes user commands.
The user can order the robot to move or to perform a task. The
movement command controls the robot’s navigation. The task
command performs something of service to the human. Our
self-diagnosis only checks the move command. The fault
check procedure for the robot measures the difference
between the intent of the user's command and actual
repositioning of the robot. If the difference is above the
POSITION_FAULT_VALUE threshold then the
FAULT_POSITION_COUNT is incremented. The second
parameter is the time taken to perform the user command. If
robot does not response within the expected time after it
receives the user’s command then the
FAULT_PENDING_COUNT is incremented. The expected
time for each command is specified in Table 1. The third
parameter is whether or not the sensor is operating normally.
The sensor check is complex. However, our proposed system
of sensor checking is defined by sensor type. So we define
sensor types and the number of sensors: one CMOS camera; 5
ultrasonic sensors; and 5 position-sensitive detectors. The
fault checking of the CMOS camera uses the mean color
image (RGB). If the result of fault checking is a failure, then
the FAULT_CAMERA_COUNT is incremented. A CMOS
camera’s fault checking is based on the decision whether the
mean value of the color image is larger than the
FAULT_PIXEL_HIGH_VALUE or smaller then the
FAULT_PIXEL_LOW_VALUE. The fault decision value for
the camera can be defined by the user monitoring it. The fault
checking mechanism for the ultrasound sonar and position
sensitive detectors can be detected by the sensor’s setting in
the robot. The ultrasound sonar sensor and position sensitive
detectors are crosschecked against distance data. If a sensor
fault is detected then the FAULT_SONAR_COUNT or
FAULT_PSD_COUNT is incremented.
Fig. 2. The detection range of Position sensitive detector and Ultrasonic.
X[]\
C. Multi-modal Sensor Fusion
Research in multi-modal sensors focuses on the
acquisition of useful sensor data, similar to human senses,
through the sensor fusion. Special technologies for sensor data
fusion have been developed by many researchers. The
“Decision-Theoretic Multi-sensor Planning and Integration for
Mobile Robot Navigation” presents a decision-theoretical
framework that allows for rational decision making under
uncertainty. It is a highly modular system that facilitates easy
system integration [27]. Other multi-modal sensor fusion
research creates simple and intuitive user interface and tele-
operations to control the slave robot easily. It provides multi-
modalities such as visual, auditory and haptic senses. It
enables an operator to easily control every function of a robot
deployed in a field, ROBHAZ-DT2 [28].
This paper presents a sensor fusion algorithm using a
CMOS camera, ultrasonic, and position sensitivity detector.
The position sensitivity detector (GP2D120) has a cone type
characteristic of about 15 degrees. It detects nearby obstacles
(about 4cm ~ 40cm from the robot). The ultrasonic sensor
(SRF08) has a cone type characteristic of about 60 degrees,
the detection range is 30 ~ 1100 cm. The ultrasonic sensor’s
minimum range is limited from 30cm to 300cm from the
robot. As a result, the position sensitive detector measures
obstacles in the near proximity, whereas the ultrasonic sensor
can measure long distances. The CMOS camera senses the
shape of obstacles using ultrasonic sensors and position
sensitive detector arrays. We used a low cost CMOS camera
in this prototype (Fig. 2).
III. DECISION LEVEL OF AUTONOMY
The decision level of autonomy for a robot is important in
human-robot interaction. The level of autonomy of human-
robot interaction consists of environment recognition, action
decision, and intelligent behavior. The research into autonomy
level for robots is in its developmental stages. “A Model for
Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation”
outlines a model for types and levels of automation. This
provides a framework and an objective basis of automation for
making such choices. It proposes that automation can be
applied to four broad classes of function: 1) information
acquisition 2) information analysis, 3) decision and action
selection, and 4) action implementation. Within each of these
types, automation can be applied across a continuum of levels
from low to high [29]. Other research on the level of
autonomy is to design a robot user interface for mobile
devices. Human robot interaction (HRI) as well as the limited
input and output functions of mobile devices should be
considered [30].
This paper follows existing research based on ten steps in
the level of automation of decision and action selection. Our
level of autonomy will be decided by a proposed cognition
algorithm and self-diagnosis mechanism. Our cognitive
algorithm includes plug-and-play functions and multi sensor
fusion algorithm. The cognitive algorithm on the level of
decision-making is based on the number of plug-in sensors
and is the result of multi sensor fusion. The cognitive ability
has a higher level when the number of sensors is greater. The
function of self-diagnosis is based on the present ability level
to perform the desired action. If the result of self-diagnosis is
a fault then the robot cannot operate and does not perform the
user’s mission. The robot’s level of autonomy consists of two
parameters. One is the ability of cognition: plug-and-play;
multi-modal sensor fusion. Another parameter is the self-
diagnosis function. The level of autonomy for the robot is
decided by fuzzy control logic output. The input of fuzzy
control logic uses the level of autonomy and decision level.
The fuzzy controller output is generated by a fuzzy rule set by
the level of decision and level of action (Table 2-4 and Fig. 3-
5).
TABLE II
COGNITIVE VARIABLE
VARIABLE MEAN
Z There is no sensor fusion ability
S Sensor fusion ability is few
M Sensor fusion ability is normal
B Sensor fusion ability is high
VB Sensor fusion ability is very high
TABLE III
SELF-DIAGNOSIS VARIABLE
VARIABLE MEAN
Z There is no problem to robot
S There is some problem to robot
M Problem of robot is normal
B There is much problem to robot
VB There is very much problem to robot
Fig. 5. Level of autonomy membership function.
IV. INTELLIGENT USER INTERFACE
An intelligent user interface manages the user commands
and display of sensor data autonomously. If the robot has a
low level of autonomy, then the intelligent user interface
focuses on the sensor display. At a high level of autonomy the
robot’s display is more detailed and visual than for a low level
of autonomy robot. Low level autonomy’s user interface uses
simpler commands. At a high level of autonomy the user
interface display is complex visualize than for the low level of
autonomy. The user can control a robot through intuitive
commands. Therefore, an intelligent user interface supports a
high level of human-robot interaction for processing intuitive
user commands. The function of sequencing the user interface
display screen is the key point along with the robot’s level of
autonomy. Our intelligent user interface is show in Fig. 6.
User interface for level of autonomy 2~4 is text based display.
User can be decision robot environment using CMOS camera,
Ultrasonic, and Position sensitive detector. Therefore robot
ability is can be upgrade by user’s judgment.
The intelligent user interface for level of autonomy 5 ~ 7
is more complex visualize sensor display than user interface
level of autonomy 2~4. But user can be control easily (Fig. 7).

TABLE IV
LEVEL OF AUTONOMY VARIABLE
VARIABLE MEAN
L1 Level of Autonomy 1
L2 Level of Autonomy 2
L3 Level of Autonomy 3
L4 Level of Autonomy 4
L5 Level of Autonomy 5
L6 Level of Autonomy 6
L7 Level of Autonomy 7
L8 Level of Autonomy 8
L9 Level of Autonomy 9
L10 Level of Autonomy 10
Fig. 6. Intelligent User Interface (IUI1) for LOA 2 ~ 4.

Fig. 3. Ability of cognitive membership function.

Fig. 4. Self-Diagnosis membership function.

Fig. 7. Intelligent User Interface (IUI2) for LOA 5 ~ 7.

X[]]

Fig. 8. The obstacle distance display using color.
V. EXPERIMENT INTELLIGENT USER INTERFACE FOR
HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTION
The experiment evaluating our proposal for an intelligent
user interface, accounting for the robot’s level of autonomy, is
as follows (Fig. 11). The robot used in the experiment consists
of motor part, sensor part, and control part. The motor is
powered by DC 12 voltage, the maximum torque is 2kg/cm,
and normal toque is 102rpm. The motor part consists of four
motors in all. It also includes two encoders. The encoders are
set on the front of the robot on the left and right motors. There
are three types of sensor: one 1.3 Mega-pixels CMOS camera
module; 5 ultrasonic sensor (SRF08); and 5 position sensing
devices (GP2D120). All of the sensors and motors are
controlled by low cost microcontrollers in the sensor interface
board. The sensor interface board can communicate between
the robot server and robot through RS-232C protocol.

Fig. 9. Robot indicator.

The interface display screen for level of autonomy 5~7 is Fig. 11. Test environment.
fill with graphical sensor display and indicator. The sensor
display part is present 3 colors. The display of virtual stick
shows Fig. 8. User can be known avoid direction for obstacle
avoidance simultaneously by indicator in user interface for
level of autonomy 5~7. The indicator operating mechanism
shows Fig. 9.
The intelligent user interface for level of autonomy 8
~ 10 has most complex visualize graphical display. However
user can to do operate by user intuitive command. This user
interface is best support for human-robot interaction. The
robot can do autonomously navigation without human
command and control through robot’s auto navigation
algorithm. Our high level of autonomy robot is contain the
virtual force field intuitive navigation algorithm (Fig. 10). Fig. 12. Test of user performance.

Fig. 10. Intelligent User Interface (IUI3) for LOA 8 ~ 10. Fig. 13. Test of user error.

X[]^
 The experiment for the intelligent user interface
demonstrates the plug-and-play function, self-diagnosis, and
multi-modal sensor fusion. It also performs the robot’s
navigation at each level of autonomy via user command. The
results of our propose function are proved by determining the
usability (Fig. 12-13).
VI. CONCLUSION
Our proposed function of an intelligent user interface
provides an easy and intuitive control based on the autonomy
level of the robot. Our useful functions, plug-and-play, self-
diagnosis, and multi-modal sensor fusion, are shown to help
upgrade the human-robot interaction. Our features are
embedded in the software of a functionally operating robot for
novice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported by the MIC (Ministry of
Information and Communication), Korea, under the ITRC
(Information Technology Research Center).
REFERENCES
[1] IFR UN-ECE, World Robotics 2000.
[2] J. Heinzmann, and A. Zelinsky, “A safe-control paradigm for human-
robot interaction”, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 25(4), pp.
295-310, 1999.
[3] Z. Zenn, J. Jung, and K. Park, “Human-friendly Man-Machine
Interaction in Smart Home”, IEEE International Workshop on Robot and
Human Communication, pp. 177-182, 1996.
[4] D. Perzanowski, A. Schultz, W. Adams, E. Marsh, M. Bugajska,
“Building a Multimodal Human-Robot Interface”, Intelligent Systems
Publication Date, Volume: 16, no.1, pp. 16-21, Jan-Feb 2001.
[5] A. Green, H. Huttenrauch, M. Norman, “User Centered Design for
Intelligent Service Robots”, Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International
Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication Osaka,
Japan, pp. 161-166, September 27-29, 2000.
[6] H. Yanco, J. Drury, J. Scholtz, “Analysis of Human-Robot Interaction at
a Major Robotics Competition”, Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
2004.
[7] B. Maxwell, N. Ward, and F. Heckel, “Game-Based Design of Human-
Robot Interfaces for Urban Search and Rescue”, CHI 2004 Fringe, 2004.
[8] S. Zhai, “User performance in Relation to 3D Input Device Design”,
Computer Graphics 32(4), ACM, pp. 50-54, November 1998.
[9] S. Zhai, E. Kandogan, Barton, A. Smith and T. Selker, “ Design and
Experimentation of a Bimanual 3D Navigation Interface”, Journal of
Visual Languages and Computing, 3-17, Oct. 1999.
[10] J. Lapointe, N. Vinson, “Effects of joystick mapping and field-of-view
on human performance in virtual walkthroughs”, Proceeding of th 1st
International Symposium on 3D Data Processing Visualization and
Transmission Padova, Italia, June 18-21, 2002.
[11] H. Hasunuma, M. Kobayashi, H. Moriyama, T. Itoko, Y. Yanagihara, T.
Ueno, K. Ohya and K. Yokoi, “A Tele-operated Humanoid Robot
Drives a Lift Truck”, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation Washington, D.C, pp. 2246-2252, May. 2002.
[12] J. Park, Y. Lee, J. Song, “Intelligent Update of a Visual Map Based on
Pose Reliability of Visual Features”, International Conference on
Advanced Robotics, Jeju, Korea, August 21-24, 2007.(3D)
X[]_
[13] H. Ahn, I. Sa, J. Choi, “3D Remote Home Viewer for Home Automation
Using Intelligent Mobile Robot”, International Joint Conference 2006,
Busan, Korea, pp. 3011-3016, Oct. 18-21, 2006.
[14] J. Trafton, N. Cassimatis, M. Bugajska, D. Brock, F. Mintz, and A.
Schultz, “ Enabling Effective Human-Robot Interaction Using
Perspective-Tacking in Robot”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
And Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol.35, No. 4. , pp. 460-
470, July 2005.
[15] K. Kim, K. Kwak and S. Chi, “Gesture Analysis for Human-Robot
Interaction”, ICACT, pp. 1824-1827, Feb 2006.
[16] R. Mourant and P. Sadhu, “ Evaluation of Force Feedback Steering in a
Fixed Based Driving Simulator”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, pp. 2202-2205, 2002.
[17] M. Scheutz, P. Schermerhorn, C. Middendorff, J. Kramer, D. Anderson
and A. Dingler, “Toward Affective Cognitive Robots for Human-Robot
Interaction”, Amerian Association for Artificial Intelligence
(www.aaai.org), 2006.
[18] Y. Ha, J. Sohn, Y. Cho, and H. Yoon, “Design and Implementation of
Ubiquitous Robotics Service Framework”, ETRI Journal, Vol. 27,
Number 6, pp. 666-676, December 2005.
[19] H. Yanco, J. Drury, “A Taxonomy for Human-Robot Interaction”, AAAI
Technical Report FS-02-03, pp. 111-119, November 2002.
[20] D. Ryu, S. Kang, M. Kim, “Multi-modal User Interface for
Teleoperation of ROBHAZ-DT2 Field Robot System”, Proceedings of
2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on intelligent Robots and
Systems, Sendai, Japan, pp. 168-173, Sep. – Oct. 2, 2004.
[21] R. Sharma, V. Pavlovic, T. Haung, “Toward multimodal human-
computer interface”, Proc. IEEE, vol.86, pp. 853-869, May 1998.
[22] T. Collett and B. Macdonald, B. Gerkey, “Toward a Practical Robot
Programming Framework”, Proceedings of the Australasian Conference
on Robotics and Automation, 2005.
[23] Y. Zuang, J. Su, “Prototype Design of The Plug-and-Play Desktop
Robotic System”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Shanghai, pp. 26-29, August 2004.
[24] K. Kawabata, S. Okina, T. Fujii, H. Asama, “A Study of Self-diagnosis
System for an Autonomous Mobile Robot”, The 27th Annual Conference
of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 381-386, 2001.
[25] K. Su, T. Chien, C. Liang, “Develop a Self-diagnosis Function Auto-
recharging Device for Mobile Robot”, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE
International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Kobe,
Japan, pp. 1-6, June 2005.
[26] H. Polenta, A. Ray, J. Bernard, “ Microcomputer-Based Fault Detection
Using Redundant Sensors”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
vol. 24. No. 5, pp. 905-912, September/October 1988.
[27] S. Kristensen, H. Christensen, “Decision-Theoretic Multisensor
Planning and Integration for Mobile Robot Navigation”, Proceeding of
the 1996 IEEE/SICE/RSL International Conference on Multisensor
Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems, pp. 517-524, 1996.
[28] D. Ryu, S. Kang, M. Kim, J. Song, “Multi-modal User Interface for
Teleoperation ROBHAZ-DT2 Field Robot System”, Proceedings of
2004 IEEE/RSJ Internatioal Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems September 28-October, Sendal, Japan, pp. 168-173, 2004.
[29] R. Parasuraman, T. Sheridan, Fellow, C. Wickens, “A Model for Types
and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation”, IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, Part a: Systems and Humans, vol.
30, No.3, pp. 286~297, May 2000.
[30] J. Park, T. Song, P. Xuan, K. Kwon, G. Kim, S. Hong, and J. Jeon, “A
Mobile Terminal User Interface for Intelligent Robots”, Proceedings of
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Beijing,
China, pp. 903~911, July, 2007