Within this work, we explore intention inference for user actions in the context of a handheld robot setup. Handheld robots share the shape and properties of handheld tools while being able to process task information and aid manipulation. Here, we propose an intention prediction model to enhance cooperative task solving. Within a block copy task, we collect eye gaze data using a robot-mounted remote eye tracker which is used to create a profile of visual attention for task-relevant objects in the workspace scene. These profiles are used to make predictions about user actions i.e. which block will be picked up next and where it will be placed. Our results show that our proposed model can predict user actions well in advance with an accuracy of 87.94 (500ms prior) for picking and 93.25 (1500 ms prior) for placing actions.
The intention model we present in this paper is mainly driven by eye gaze data. Therefore, we review work on human gaze behaviour to inform the underlying assumptions of our model. One of the main contributions in this field is the work by who found that fixations towards an object often precede a subsequent manual interaction by around 0.6 s @cite_9 . Subsequent work revealed that the latency between eye and hand varies between different tasks @cite_3 . Similarly, @cite_5 found that objects are most salient for human's when they are relevant for tasks planning and preceding saccades were linked to short-term memory processes in @cite_0 . The purpose of preceding fixations in manual tasks was furthermore explored through virtual @cite_10 and real @cite_17 block design tasks. The results show that humans gather information through vision rather than memorising e.g. all object locations.
@cite_9 @cite_3 @cite_0 @cite_5 @cite_10 @cite_17
2016711711 2074693532 1926515346 2067450646 2102530345
The aim of this study was to determine the pattern of fixations during the performance of a well-learned task in a natural setting (making tea), and to classify the types of monitoring action that the eyes perform. We used a head-mounted eye-movement video camera, which provided a continuous view of the scene ahead, with a dot indicating foveal direction with an accuracy of about 1 deg. A second video camera recorded the subject's activities from across the room. The videos were linked and analysed frame by frame. Foveal direction was always close to the object being manipulated, and very few fixations were irrelevant to the task. The first object-related fixation typically led the first indication of manipulation by 0.56 s, and vision moved to the next object about 0.61 s before manipulation of the previous object was complete. Each object-related act that did not involve a waiting period lasted an average of 3.3 s and involved about 7 fixations. Roughly a third of all fixations on objects could be defin... Two recent studies have investigated the relations of eye and hand movements in extended food preparation tasks, and here the results are compared. The tasks could be divided into a series of actions performed on objects. The eyes usually reached the next object in the sequence before any sign of manipulative action, indicating that eye movements are planned into the motor pattern and lead each action. The eyes usually fixated the same object throughout the action upon it, although they often moved on to the next object in the sequence before completion of the preceding action. The specific roles of individual fixations could be identified as locating (establishing the locations of objects for future use), directing (establishing target direction prior to contact), guiding (supervising the relative movements of two or three objects) and checking (establishing whether some particular condition is met, prior to the termination of an action). It is argued that, at the beginning of each action, the oculomotor system is supplied with the identity of the required object, information about its location, and instructions about the nature of the monitoring required during the action. The eye movements during this kind of task are nearly all to task-relevant objects, and thus their control is seen as primarily ‘top-down’, and influenced very little by the ‘intrinsic salience’ of objects. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. We analyzed the coordination between gaze behavior, fingertip movements, and movements of the manipulated object when subjects reached for and grasped a bar and moved it to press a target-switch. Subjects almost exclusively fixated certain landmarks critical for the control of the task. Landmarks at which contact events took place were obligatory gaze targets. These included the grasp site on the bar, the target, and the support surface where the bar was returned after target contact. Any obstacle in the direct movement path and the tip of the bar were optional landmarks. Subjects never fixated the hand or the moving bar. Gaze and hand bar movements were linked concerning landmarks, with gaze leading. The instant that gaze exited a given landmark coincided with a kinematic event at that landmark in a manner suggesting that subjects monitored critical kinematic events for phasic verification of task progress and subgoal completion. For both the obstacle and target, subjects directed saccades and fixations to sites that were offset from the physical extension of the objects. Fixations related to an obstacle appeared to specify a location around which the extending tip of the bar should travel. We conclude that gaze supports hand movement planning by marking key positions to which the fingertips or grasped object are subsequently directed. The salience of gaze targets arises from the functional sensorimotor requirements of the task. We further suggest that gaze control contributes to the development and maintenance of sensorimotor correlation matrices that support predictive motor control in manipulation. The very limited capacity of short-term or working memory is one of the most prominent features of human cognition. Most studies have stressed delimiting the upper bounds of this memory in memorization tasks rather than the performance of everyday tasks. We designed a series of experiments to test the use of short-term memory in the course of a natural hand-eye task where subjects have the freedom to choose their own task parameters. In this case subjects choose not to operate at the maximum capacity of short-term memory but instead seek to minimize its use. In particular, reducing the instantaneous memory required to perform the task can be done by serializing the task with eye movements. These eye movements allow subjects to postpone the gathering of task-relevant information until just before it is required. The reluctance to use short-term memory can be explained if such memory is expensive to use with respect to the cost of the serializing strategy. Relatively little is known about movements of the eyes, head, and hands in natural tasks. Normal behavior requires spatial and temporal coordination of the movements in more complex circumstances than are typically studied, and usually provides the opportunity for motor planning. Previous studies of natural tasks have indicated that the parameters of eye and head movements are set by global task constraints. In this experiment, we explore the temporal coordination of eye, head, and hand movements while subjects performed a simple block-copying task. The task involved fixations to gather information about the pattern, as well as visually guided hand movements to pick up and place blocks. Subjects used rhythmic patterns of eye, head, and hand movements in a fixed temporal sequence or coordinative structure. However, the pattern varied according to the immediate task context. Coordination was maintained by delaying the hand movements until the eye was available for guiding the movement. This suggests that observers maintain coordination by setting up a temporary, task- specific synergy between the eye and hand. Head move- ments displayed considerable flexibility and frequently diverged from the gaze change, appearing instead to be linked to the hand trajectories. This indicates that the coordination of eye and head in gaze changes is usually the consequence of a synergistic linkage rather than an obligatory one. These temporary synergies simplify the coordination problem by reducing the number of control variables, and consequently the attentional demands, necessary for the task.