Document Open Access Logo

Targeted Cognitive Training of Spatial Skills: Perspective Taking in Robot Teleoperation

Authors Liel Luko, Avi Parush

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.12.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.33 MB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Liel Luko
Avi Parush

Cite As Get BibTex

Liel Luko and Avi Parush. Targeted Cognitive Training of Spatial Skills: Perspective Taking in Robot Teleoperation. In 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 86, pp. 12:1-12:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.12

Abstract

Spatial skills are critical for robot teleoperation. For example, in order to make a judgment of relative direction when operating a robot remotely, one must take different perspectives and make decisions based on available spatial information. Training spatial skills is thus critical for robot teleoperation, yet, current training programs focus primarily on psycho-motoric skills of the task, and less on the essential cognitive aspects of spatial skills. This work addresses this need by considering previous findings on relative direction judgments in training robot teleoperation. We developed and tested a basic training paradigm of perspective taking skill targeting the cognitive skill rather than psycho-motoric skill. An experiment tested a basic training paradigm using a stationary robot, with a training group receiving perspective taking training and a control group without training, and both tested on a transfer test with the robot. The results show that participants who went through a targeted cognitive skill training reached mastery level during the training, and performed better than the control group in an analogue transfer of learning test. Moreover, results reveal that the training facilitated participants with initial poor perspective taking skills reach the level of the high-skilled participants in transfer test performance. The study validates the possibility to target only cognitive aspects of spatial skills and result in better robot teleoperation.

Subject Classification

Keywords
  • Cognitive Training
  • Spatial Information Processing
  • Targeted Training
  • Teleoperation
  • Training Spatial Skills
  • Visual Perspective Taking

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Edith Ackermann. Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. Constructionism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pages 25-35, 1996. Google Scholar
  2. Michel Jose Anzanello and Flavio Sanson Fogliatto. Learning curve models and applications: Literature review and research directions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41(5):573-583, 2011. Google Scholar
  3. Yohanan Arzi and Avraham Shtub. Learning and forgetting in mental and mechanical tasks: a comparative study. IIE transactions, 29(9):759-768, 1997. Google Scholar
  4. Maryann Baenninger and Nora Newcombe. The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Sex roles, 20(5-6):327-344, 1989. Google Scholar
  5. Susan M. Barnett and Stephen J. Ceci. When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological bulletin, 128(4):612, 2002. Google Scholar
  6. Joseph Bukchin, Ruth Luquer, and Avraham Shtub. Learning in tele-operations. Iie Transactions, 34(3):245-252, 2002. Google Scholar
  7. Jessie Y. C. Chen. Uav-guided navigation for ground robot tele-operation in a military reconnaissance environment. Ergonomics, 53(8):940-950, 2010. Google Scholar
  8. Jessie Y. C. Chen and Carla T. Joyner. Concurrent performance of gunner’s and robotics operator’s tasks in a multitasking environment. Military Psychology, 21(1):98, 2009. Google Scholar
  9. C. Christopher et al. Spatial perception and robot operation: Selection, training, gaming, and design. Naval Engineers Journal, 124(1):131-140, 2012. Google Scholar
  10. L. Davidovitch, A. Parush, and A. Shtub. Simulation-based learning in engineering education: Performance and transfer in learning project management. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4):289-299, 2006. Google Scholar
  11. Pio Alfredo Di Tore. Perception of space, empathy and cognitive processes: Design of a video game for the measurement of perspective taking skills. iJET, 9(7):23-29, 2014. Google Scholar
  12. Andrea Frick, Wenke Möhring, and Nora S. Newcombe. Picturing perspectives: development of perspective-taking abilities in 4-to 8-year-olds. Frontiers in psychology, 5:386, 2014. Google Scholar
  13. David L. Georgenson. The problem of transfer calls for partnership. Training &Development Journal, 1982. Google Scholar
  14. Daniel Gopher, Maya Well, and Tal Bareket. Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to flight. Human Factors, 36(3):387-405, 1994. Google Scholar
  15. Rebecca Grossman and Eduardo Salas. The transfer of training: what really matters. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2):103-120, 2011. Google Scholar
  16. Mary Hegarty and David Waller. A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32(2):175-191, 2004. Google Scholar
  17. Darlene Hewitt, Kelli Sprague, Robert Yearout, Donald Lisnerski, and Catherine Sparks. The effects of unequal relearning rates on estimating forgetting parameters associated with performance curves. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 10(3):217-224, 1992. Google Scholar
  18. Douglas L. Hintzman, Carla S. O'Dell, and David R. Arndt. Orientation in cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2):149-206, 1981. Google Scholar
  19. Sherry Hsi, Marcia C Linn, and John E Bell. The role of spatial reasoning in engineering and the design of spatial instruction. journal of engineering education-washington-, 86:151-158, 1997. Google Scholar
  20. Mohamad Y. Jaber and Christoph H. Glock. A learning curve for tasks with cognitive and motor elements. Computers &Industrial Engineering, 64(3):866-871, 2013. Google Scholar
  21. Maria Kozhevnikov and Mary Hegarty. A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory &Cognition, 29(5):745-756, 2001. Google Scholar
  22. Philip Lamb and Dean Owen. Human performance in space telerobotic manipulation. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, pages 31-37. ACM, 2005. Google Scholar
  23. Andrew M. Liu, Charles M. Oman, Raquel Galvan, and Alan Natapoff. Predicting space telerobotic operator training performance from human spatial ability assessment. Acta Astronautica, 92(1):38-47, 2013. Google Scholar
  24. Lindsay O. Long, Joshua A. Gomer, Jessica T. Wong, and Christopher C. Pagano. Visual spatial abilities in uninhabited ground vehicle task performance during teleoperation and direct line of sight. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 20(5):466-479, 2011. Google Scholar
  25. M. Alejandra Menchaca-Brandan, Andrew M. Liu, Charles M. Oman, and Alan Natapoff. Influence of perspective-taking and mental rotation abilities in space teleoperation. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on, pages 271-278. IEEE, 2007. Google Scholar
  26. David A. Nembhard and Mustafa V. Uzumeri. Experiential learning and forgetting for manual and cognitive tasks. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 25(4):315-326, 2000. Google Scholar
  27. Richard M. Onyancha, Matthew Derov, and Brad L. Kinsey. Improvements in spatial ability as a result of targeted training and computer-aided design software use: Analyses of object geometries and rotation types. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2):157, 2009. Google Scholar
  28. Catherine Sparks and Robert Yearout. The impacts of visual display units used for highly cognitive tasks on learning curve models. Computers &Industrial Engineering, 19(1-4):351-355, 1990. Google Scholar
  29. Harold D. Stolovitch and Achi Yapi. Use of case study method to increase near and far transfer of learning. Performance improvement quarterly, 10(2):64-82, 1997. Google Scholar
  30. Debi Stransky, Laurie M. Wilcox, and Adam Dubrowski. Mental rotation: cross-task training and generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(4):349, 2010. Google Scholar
  31. Lana P. Sturm, John A. Windsor, Peter H. Cosman, Patrick Cregan, Peter J. Hewett, and Guy J. Maddern. A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Annals of Surgery, 248(2):166-179, 2008. Google Scholar
  32. Melissa S. Terlecki, Nora S. Newcombe, and Michelle Little. Durable and generalized effects of spatial experience on mental rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns. Applied cognitive psychology, 22(7):996-1013, 2008. Google Scholar
  33. J. Torkington, S. G. T. Smith, B. I. Rees, and A. Darzi. Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task. Surgical endoscopy, 15(10):1076-1079, 2001. Google Scholar
  34. Markus Wilde, Jan Harder, and Ralf Purschke. Operator learning effects in teleoperated rendezvous &docking. In Aerospace Conference, 2013 IEEE, pages 1-11. IEEE, 2013. Google Scholar
  35. Rebecca Wright, William L. Thompson, Giorgio Ganis, Nora S. Newcombe, and Stephen M. Kosslyn. Training generalized spatial skills. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 15(4):763-771, 2008. Google Scholar
  36. Jeffrey M. Zacks, Jon Mires, Barbara Tversky, and Eliot Hazeltine. Mental spatial transformations of objects and perspective. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2(4):315-332, 2000. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact