by Eagle Gamma

ALMOST

NATURALROBOTS AND HUMANS LIVE UNDERONE ROOF AT THE CARIS LABORATORY

A

robot arm gradually adjusts according toa cybernetic algorithm, and its handsmoothly transfers an object to a humanhand. The transfer serves as an analogy
for robots more generally, as they adapt their position inhuman society through gradual feedback. Right now,
we stand on the brink of a transition in how robots andhumans relate.
Already many automata serve in militaryadventures, not to mention the robots doing duty atinternational borders, in factories and nursing homes,

Two robot arms are shown that are used in research on precision movement.

The PR2 Humanoid
robot designed by
Willow Garage, which
does technicalresearch to help
humanity.

60 R O B O T M A G A Z I N E

and – of course – on lawns. With increasing use, robots
more frequently interact with individual humans, andwith society. In the transition, we will have to figure out
how to get along, humans and robots side-by-side. It allcomes down to that handover.
The artificial arm participating in the handover
belongs to Charlie, a partially humanoid robot at the
Collaborative Advanced Robotics and Intelligent
Systems (CARIS) Laboratory, at the University of British
Columbia (Canada). The spacious lab hosts robots ofhugely varying dimensions, which intermingle withresearchers and students. Developments here delve into
individual behaviors, such as balance and manipulation

Here’s looking at you! Detail of the PR2 shows nearly 10
imaging sensors.

and vision, to enable safe human-robot interactions.
Neatly stacked bookshelves serve as dividers, andevery direction and height sports a scattering ofplants and bicycles and cables.
HOW DO YOU DO WHAT YOU DO?

Elizabeth Croft, who directs the CARIS lab, and Dr.
Mike Van der Loos, the associate director, show me
the lab and describe current research anddevelopment. Croft believes that robotics must
incorporate both robots and people. “The whole lab
is about how people and robots work together, how
we can use the technology from the robotics area
and our understanding of human physiology andhuman psychology to bring the two sides together.”
How can predictable robots work effectively in PR2 sideview.
an unpredictable world? Many of the lab’s methods come down toobserving robots and humans together under carefully monitoredconditions, isolating the essence of a specific behavior, then developing
usable implementations of those models.
“I think the interesting thing that we focus on, we focus on
behavior. The things that we’re doing are applicable not just to one
handover one time, or one standing-up occasion one time, or one
hesitation. It’s an embedded behavior that can be used in all sorts ofdifferent circumstances. We’re looking at the lower-level behavior that
we need to give robots so that we will be able to interact with them inan efficient and human-like way.”
The main goal of the lab is to get robots to behave flexibly enoughto adapt to many human situations. When I ask whether that extends
to being flexible enough to decide when to go shopping, or to moral
questions, the roboticists quickly add that it’s in progress. Indeed,some of the research already touches on these issues.
In addition to Charlie, the lab hosts a gigantic robot capable ofsimulating human balance, which I get to ride, and lightweight robot
arms that help to investigate cooperation between humans and robots.
The robot arms conveniently exercise fine motor control, says Croft.
“They’re really nice experimental robots that you can use fordifferent human-robot interaction experiments, because you can pickthem up, they’re not that heavy, you can backdrive them, and we usethem both for industrial applications as well as rehabilitation
applications.”
A few boxes of marbles sit between us and a robot arm. Somecompartments have mixes of marbles, while other compartments areneatly sorted already. Sorting mimics to some extent an industrial
environment, for example, a robot working in an automobile
manufacturing plant. In a plant, some tasks involve a robot picking
parts out of a bin. If a robot could sort through and pick up the rightparts, then it would no longer require separate boxes for separate
parts, a costly setup. Can robots learn to sort well, in tandem withpeople? To do so, they must take turns.
ENTRAINMENT

When people do an activity, such as walking or talking, we naturally
fall into sync with each other, in a process called entrainment. Croft
illustrates the point with a favorite example. “I was doing my Ph.D.
and holding my baby, and I was doing this,” she says, gesturing as if torock her baby back and forth. “I was talking to a professor and they
started swaying. Another professor came up and they saw me, andthey were talking to me and they started swaying. I had ten professors
swaying in the room!”
Croft now wants to know “whether robots can use entrainment tocontrol the cadence of people.” Potential applications use the robot to
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2013

61

ALMOST NATURAL
adjust a person’s speed to unfolding conditions, such as relatively
inner ear’s source of spatial sense. “We’re all inverted pendulums.
busy or free periods. “We’re just trying to explore this aspect.”
We stand up and we don’t fall over, that’s really awesome!”
A robot able to guide a human by gesturing could supervise or
Humans stand up through an ongoing effort to counteract theteach a worker. The machine would monitor the person for any
physical forces that would otherwise knock us over. We sway backerrors, and provide corrective tips. Rather than flashing lights or a
and forth, actively adjusting our balance. (When we sit, our bodycomputer warning, the worker would see a human-like gesture. The
sends the signal to stop monitoring sway.) The CARIS lab aims togesture could take the form of a pointing finger, an outstretchedfind out how exactly we detect and adapt to the frequent changes.
hand, or simply an articulated arm. Croft points out a hefty benefit“We’re trying to understand what the sensing is, what theof a robot arm even in the absence of a hand: “Do people understandphysiology is in terms of the actuation that goes on when we stand.”
it if you don’t have [the hand]? Because if I can take the hand off, I’ve
To study balance, subjects stand on RISER, and balance on top ofjust saved myself fifty-thousand dollars.”
the robot. However, because the robot runs a subtle control system,
To study how humans and robots exchange information, the lab
constantly monitoring conditions, the subject actually balances anrecords a very brief interaction, at around the speed of humanartificial version of the physical setup, not simply the subject’s own
vision, the rate that tunes many of our behaviors. “Basically, the way
body. The robot tilts in response to how the person stands, whether
we measure [the interaction] is we instrument people, and wepushing down on toes or heels, and the human rides the motions.
instrument the robots, and we see how fast
In one experiment, the researchers want to test thethey react.” Observations help to discovervalidity of their models of human balance. One way towhat makes a robot gesture useful, especiallyverify a model is to disable a human’s sense of balance,in situations like automotive assembly.
then let the robot take control. By electrically“The robot can be doing other stuff but
stimulating the vestibular system, or anaesthetizing the
keeping an eye on what the worker is doing,
leg nerves and then stimulating the leg muscles,
and saying, ‘hey, you forgot the handle, get it
researchers can knock out portions of a person’s balanceon there, that one there right now.’ The thing
system, and replace the functions with controls from theis, it has to be done quickly, because thecomputer. Then, the robot balances, along with theturnaround on each operation is on the orderhuman body, “so it feels like you’re standing on theof twenty to sixty seconds, so we really needground, but instead of you rocking back and forth, thethis on-the-job inspection. People habituate towhole robot rocks back and forth,” Croft says.
flashing lights, and sirens, and beeps, and“So you’re standing up in here, your leg isstuff like that. But – people do not habituate toanaesthetized, and instead of your brain controlling that
motion, because we are trained to be able tobig muscle there, we put functional electricalsee the tiger out of the corner of our eye, andstimulation into the leg to control the contractions of the
The author rides the Riser at Carisrun away from it.”muscle. The computer now is saying, ‘Oh! I see that you
Lab. The device can be used to tilt
I mention that our reactions even depend
are falling forward. I need to provide a torque so that
subjects while varying the angle ofon neural hardware, from the evolution of our the platform surface on which the
you will stand up again.’ We had the computer
bodies and minds in complex three- subject stands, for use in medicalbalancing the person.”dimensional environments. Croft agrees: research and rehab.
The experiment allows for comparisons among“We’re wired for motion. Robots provide 3D motion that we’redifferent mathematical models of balance. A control model inspired
wired to see. We’re really, really triggered on gesture, and that’s why
by humans makes a series of discrete shifts, whereas a robot servo
it’s so important.”
motor can make smoothly continuous adjustments. A control model
can operate in real-time, or it can incorporate predictive information
BALANCING ACT
about its trajectory. Each approach offers tradeoffs, in terms of
A large robot right at the lab entrance serves to conduct studies on
performance, energy efficiency, and style.
human balance. The Robot for Interactive Sensory Engagement andHumans stand by falling forward a little bit, then pushing backRehabilitation (RISER) has a motion platform to stand on and useswith leg and foot muscles, and repeating. Lacking the ability to pushforce/torque sensors to measure the interaction between a person’sourselves forward in the same way, if we lean too far backward wefeet and the platform. RISER then adjusts its position appropriately
simply fall all the way. The constant exertion of energy andusing highly tunable control software. The results inform not only
calibration makes activities that require balance – like standing,
how we ourselves stand – on Earth, on the Moon, under any
walking, and riding a bicycle – difficult for children to learn.
conditions – but also how robots stand. Lessons from human balance
We perceive our balance through the inner ear canal, which
and movement data can guide robotic implementations, to make theshould ideally match our actual position. The CARIS lab currently
machines more relatable.
tries to quantify how the information travels between perception
With RISER, Croft notes that “you could experience balancing on
and action. How we sense our movements through space may in facta surfboard, you could experience balancing on the moon, you could
differ from what our bodies do. Shocking the balance system
experience different kinds of dynamic challenges that we wouldn’t
subjects it to experiment.
necessarily be able to do if you were just standing here.” Punch in“To feel different kinds of sway – we can zap behind their ears,
new settings on the control terminal, and the robot behavesand make people feel like they’re twisting this way, or turning thatcompletely differently. Perform the right experiments, and discoverway – that’s electro-stimulation of the vestibular system. We can takehow to keep a body vertical.
that, then we can physically move you and see if we can cancel them“We’re working with people in human physiology, and we’reout! If they cancel out, then basically we determine how thetrying to understand how the human balance system works.” A
stimulation of the nerves is actually mapped to what you’rebetter understanding of balance helps to develop robots. It also helps
physically experiencing. Isn’t that funky? Every day I wake up andto rehabilitate people with damage to the vestibular system, ourgo, ‘oh my goodness!’”
54 R O B O T M A G A Z I N E

TO RIDE A ROBOT
activities. One study proposes a robotic implementation of human-likeI get the opportunity to experience RISER, to ride a robot. First I havehesitation gestures, to communicate uncertainty in order to prevent
to sign a consent form, which notifies me of several safetycollisions. Another study teaches Charlie how to hand over objects. Up
considerations, including two emergency stop buttons: one for me, andto now, handovers between robots and humans feel forced, and often
one for the experimenter. Climbing up a small ladder, I step onto thefail – or as Croft says, “what you’ll observe is a tug-of-war.”large robot. Above its dynamically tilting base, a platform supports
Again, the lab covers people and robots with measuring
torque plates which measure foot forces from the rider. I step onto the
instruments, and carefully observes behavior. When humans handplate markings, and the experimenter straps me in.
over objects, the giver and receiver tacitly coordinate the action.
We start by setting the control parameters – the highly configurable
Multiple repetitions let the lab examine the grip force of the handlers
directions for the robot’s behavior – to react realistically for my bodyand the load force of the object. Learning how we perform a handover
dimensions. The experimenter asks me to balance normally, while theprovides insight to teach robots the same maneuver. Let go too soon
robot counterbalances. I lean back slightly on my heels, and the robot
and the object drops. Let go too late and there is no handover.
leans forward by the same amount. I lean forward slightly on my toes,“Charlie’s been programmed to be a good giver,” Croft says. It turns
and the robot leans back by the same amount. At first it confuses myout that a good giver takes responsibility for the safety of a transfer,senses a little bit, and I make mistakes like leaning in the wrong
while a good receiver takes responsibility for the timing. In test
direction or overcompensating. After a few seconds, though, my bodyhandovers between a robot and a human, people expressed their level
adapts and it feels almost natural to stand up straight.
of confidence in the robot. When the giver holds on too tightly, it feels
Next, the experimenter gets the robot to rotate the pressure plates
like the robot does not want to let go. At the other extreme, it seems
instead of remaining parallel with the floor, so that my feet now tilt
like a risky transaction, or as Croft says, “I’m not going to hand thewith the rest of my body and therobot my Fabergé egg.”
robot. When I lean forward, I now
Humans naturally have arotate my whole body, instead of
rapid proficiency at
bending at the ankles. Lacking
interactive tasks. Van derbalance feedback from my lower
Loos points out that “we arelegs, I have a slightly harder timevery adept, and we can feelstanding up straight, although I
force changes very quickly.
still manage through my
We also have these great
redundant systems: vestibular andshear sensors on ourvisual.
fingertips, so we are very
The experimenter then asks megood at negotiating all thatto close my eyes. With two out of
stuff in half a second.” The
my three balance systems knocked
CARIS lab analyzes ourout, I have to rely on my inner ear Wonka and Nutella control systems are displayed.
behaviors, looking at thecanals alone. All of a sudden thepsychology and physiology.
challenge grows real, like staying up on a unicycle. (I surprise the
Croft concludes that by distilling the control of actions, people canexperimenter with my balance, presumably due to my bicycle riding.)
develop cooperative robots.
We play around with the robot’s settings. It amazes me to experience
VISUAL SERVOING
my focus shift as we switch the setup around. I palpably feel my brain
In an approach called “visual servoing,” the lab aims to enable humans
reroute the responsibility for balance from my ankles to my eyes to my
to communicate with robots by showing the machines what to do:inner ears. Like a roving camera, my attention pans and zooms andmonkey see, artificial monkey do. Traditionally, people control robots
fades to follow the action.
The robot, RISER, is firm yet supple. With one profile, the robot
with “teach pendants,” remote controls for robots. Instead, Croft says,
moves ploddingly against your pressures. A simple switch of the“we’re imagining that what you should do is take a robot, and show it
settings, and RISER follows you lightly and briskly. When we firstwhat to do by grabbing the end.” After a few lessons, the robot
interact, the robot responds gingerly to touch. A delicate finger to thenavigates even in the face of variations in the environment.
force plate suffices to place the platform where one pleases, like a
One emerging area of robotics where visual servoing can help,
dentist’s lamp. Yet, push any part of the robot without sensors, using
telepresence lets people interact with each other over arbitrary
all your might, and the behemoth won’t budge.
distances through robotic actors. Commercial robot suppliers alreadysell telepresence models, such as “Texai” from Willow Garage. A
CHARLIE DON’T SURF… YET
human in one location communicates via robot at the remote location.
Likewise, the distant human could have a three-dimensional avatar at
A little further into the lab, Croft points to Charlie. Next to RISER, an
the near side.
imposing, industrial-looking figure, Charlie looks downright
A telepresence robot embodies all of the controlling person’s actions,residential: likeable, touchable, humanoid. Charlie has grayscale skin, aand perceives the scene. However, if an object comes between robotic
geometrically simple body plan, and plenty of signs of roboticity, yetcamera and target, then it becomes a challenge for the robot to relocate
he has a relatively endearing demeanor. Merely standing in front of
the target. Moving targets further complicate tracking efforts. The
Charlie, an early-model Willow Garage PR2, I struggle against the
CARIS lab strives to give robots enough sense to track the essence of
temptation to reach out and feel him – and the researchers definitely
visual cues – often using off-the-shelf hardware from video gameuse a human pronoun.
devices.
The CARIS lab uses Charlie to test how people interact with robots
The lab has also started a new project called FEATHERS, which has
in everyday scenarios. Do we treat robots as humans or as machines?
yet to accumulate a lot of hardware, to apply robotic control ideas to
How can we coordinate actions? How should robots behave?
health care. For stroke victims, people with cerebral palsy, and others
In experiments, Charlie takes turns with human subjects on shared
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2013

55

ALMOST NATURAL
with hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body), a critical step torecovery involves intense physical rehabilitation. Van der Loos
likens it to becoming an Olympic athlete.
The serious efforts – “thousands and thousands of repetitions
over weeks or months, to get any kind of an effect” – allow people toretain their independence. Loss of independence means
skyrocketing costs, personally and socially.
To assist people with rehabilitation, a small device runs robotics
control software, and provides feedback for a video game system.
Think of a joystick with a hint of artificial intelligence.
The lab hopes to produce an affordable device that responds tothe individual movements of each user. The device would help toprovide incentives to do the difficult physical regimens. Currently,
the researchers prepare prototypes for use by dozens of patients innearby medical clinics.

happened. What about military robots designed to kill? What
determines a robot’s rights and obligations? How should robots
negotiate the human world, both physically and socially?
Fundamentally, many questions seek to know what a robot is. Is arobot a person, a pet, a machine, or in between? Modern researchasks whether humans see robots as more closely resembling living
beings or vending machines. Actually, we may treat robots as awhole new category. (Interestingly, a minority of test subjects don’t
see humans as living beings!)
Currently robots work in plants, but in clearly marked, separate
territories. It is unsafe for a person to enter, even to do quick repairs,
without shutting down the whole area. The CARIS lab hopes tointegrate robot and human workers in the same environment.
Many of the lab’s endeavors focus on transplanting humanbehaviors into robots. I ask about “native” robot behaviors: actions
that ideally suit robots, rather than imitations ofhumanity. Croft cites certain industrial robots, which
operate efficiently, if not safely in the presence of humans.
“If we talk about the paint shop and the welding shop,where exclusively robots – with big gates [enclosingthem] – go zooming around, there’s no people involved.
It’s all gated. Even when you go to repair, you have toshut the whole thing down to go in and do changes.
Because of all the rules, and because those robots aren’t
safe. We’re interested in safe robots.”
Safe robots require a consideration of human
expectations. “It’s about the robots being predictable, andunderstandable, and polite, and following the rules of theroad that we follow. That’s why the human focus,
understanding of how people do things, is a good
metaphor for how we want the robots too.”
CONCLUSION

For the most part, humans and robots live in different
worlds. Humans don’t go safely in robot zones, androbots don’t go competently in human zones. The CARIS
lab wants to change that. By programming robots tointeract safely and cooperatively, we gain the best of bothworlds. A safe and cooperative robot gets humanbehavior.
With enough effort on the robot side and on the humanside, Croft believes that we will discover how to getalong. “We’ve figured out how phones work, we’ve
figured out how computers work, we’ve come up with
The Caris lab is partitioned for informal access to a variety of research desks and lab
new etiquettes of interacting with these devices –benches.
although some people aren’t as good at those etiquettes asothers! We’re going to start to develop both ethics and etiquettes
around interacting with robots.”
EXPLORING THE HUMAN-ROBOT FRONTIER
Experiments in the lab raise questions not just about what we canIn the lab I repeatedly hear the word “explore,” and the CARIS
teach robots, but also about what robots can teach us. Ultimately, we
researchers revel in exploring the future of human-robot relations. I
learn through our interactions with robots about what makes us
get a palpable feeling of impending change, with an optimistic
human. Robots increasingly play prominent roles in our society.
overtone. Already, robots probably hold far more sway than mostFrom conception in ancient times through a rapid rise in the lastpeople believe. Soon, perhaps, robots will leave the factory floor incentury, and perhaps in the future toward mainstream acceptance,
droves, walking into society with a remarkably human-like gait.
robots grow in importance. This growth already puts them in direct
Links
contact with humans. Now, at this juncture we can discover what
Collaborative Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Systems (CARIS)
people expect in robots, and how to realize those expectations.
Laboratory, at the University of British Columbia (Canada), http://caris.
mech.ubc.ca
Human morality stems largely from interactions. The more webump into each other, the more we inspect our behaviors. As
www.popsci.com/technology/gallery/2010-07/gallery-rise-helpfulhumans and robots increasingly live together, new moral questions
machines?image=6
arise. Is it acceptable to build robots that could kill people? Fatal
For more information, please see our source guide on page __.
accidents with industrial and military robots have already24 R O B O T M A G A Z I N E