Flying Head: A Head-Synchronization Mechanism for Flying Telepresence
Keita Higuchi∗
The University of Tokyo
The Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science

Katsuya Fujii†

Jun Rekimoto ‡The University of Tokyo

The University of Tokyo
Sony Computer Science
Laboratory

A BSTRACT
Flying Head is a telepresence system that remotely connects humans and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). UAVs are teleoperated robots used in various situations, including disaster area
inspection and movie content creation. This study aimed to integrate humans and machines with different abilities (i.e., flying) tovirtually augment human abilities. Precise manipulation of UAVs
normally involves simultaneous control of motion parameters andrequires the skill of a trained operator. This paper proposes a new
method that directly connects the user’s body and head motion tothat of the UAV. The user’s natural movement can be synchronized with UAV motions such as rotation and horizontal and vertical movements. Users can control the UAV more intuitively sincesuch manipulations are more in accordance with their kinesthetic
imagery; in other words, a user can feel as if he or she became aflying machine.
Index Terms: 5.2 [Information interfaces and presentation]: User
Interfaces—User-centered design;1

Figure 1: Flying Head is a telepresence system that remotely connects humans and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The system
synchronizes the operator’s head motions with the UAV’s movement
and it enables the operator to experiences augmented abilities as if
he or she become a flying robot.

I NTRODUCTION

The underlying idea of telexistence and telepresence comes from
“Waldo”, which is a science fiction story by Robert Heinlein; heproposed a master-slave manipulator system for big scale robot
control[6].This master-slave manipulator system of controlling arobot using the human body has been introduced as the researcharea of telepresence [26, 2, 3]. Remote-operated robots have many
applications, such as telecommunication [16] and disaster site inspection [14, 25]. Technologies involved in remote operation areoften called telexistence or telepresence.
An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a flying robot that canmove freely through the air and circumvent poor ground conditions
such as uneven roads and non-graded areas. When the TohokuPacific Ocean Earthquake occurred, human-controlled UAVs wereused to survey the damage at the Fukushima Dai-1 nuclear plant.
In a recent study, UAVs were used to capture 3D reconstructed
images of indoor and outdoor environments using mounted cameras [11, 31]. Open-hardware UAVs such as MikroKopter [19] andQuaduino [23] have also contributed to projects.
This paper addresses the challenge of realizing telepresence using a UAV. “Flying Telepresence”is the term we use for the remote operation of a flying surrogate robot. We propose a headsynchronization mechanism called Flying Head. Flying Head synchronizes user head motions with the movements of a flying robot,
which can be easily manipulated with motions such as walking,looking around, and crouching. Thus, an operator can feel as if heor she became the flying machine.
We have already reported the prototype of this system configuration [9]. In the previous paper, we conducted the study about the∗ e-mail: khiguchi@acm.org† e-mail:katsuyaf@acm.org‡ e-mail:rekimoto@acm.org

operability of this system. In this paper, we aim to focus on user experience and potential applications using Flying Head. By adding
extra values to the moving parameters, the operator can experience
augmented abilities when controlling a UAV. In the user test, Flying Head showed better control of a UAV compared to a joystickand hand-synchronization methods. The same result was obtained
when twice the values were added to the moving parameters.
2 F LYING H EAD M ECHANISM
Flying Head is a head-synchronization mechanism that uses humanhead motions to control UAV movements. In this method, the operator wears a head-mounted display (HMD) and moves his or her
body. With these body motions, the operator can intuitively manipulate a UAV as the movement of the vehicle is mapped to the user’skinesthetic imagery. For example, when an operator walks forward,
the UAV flies in the same direction. When the operator crouches,
the UAV also lowers itself to the ground. When the operator looks
right or left, the UAV rotates to the same direction.
2.1 Superiority of body control
The Flying Head characteristics with regard to UAV control are as
follows.
• Operators can intuitively determine the UAV’s position andorientation.
• Operators can obtain the movement distance of the UAV
based on kinesthetic imagery.
With the Flying Head system, an operator can easily control a
UAV’s location and orientation using a set of head motions (Figure 2). To control UAV movements, the user should generally set
parameters for horizontal and vertical movements and orientations.
UAV operation requires simultaneous control of several parameters: pitch, roll, yaw, and altitude. Currently, many UAV systems
are controlled by hand-operated devices such as proportional R/Cs,

and two rudimentary slave hands [18]. From 1983 to 1988, Hightower et al. demonstrated the possibility of remote presence bydeveloping Green Man, which is an anthropomorphic manipulator
with arthroarms [13]. Heuring et al. developed a visual telepresence system that slaves a static pan-tilt camera to human headmotions [7]. Although flying robots must engage in up-and-down
spatial movements, these developed robots are static plane robots
incapable of generating differing vertical motions.
3.2 UAV operations

Figure 2: This mechanism synchronizes positions and orientations ofhumans and UAVs. For parameters (pitch, roll, yaw and throttle) aresent to control the UAV .

joysticks, and keysets. However, such device control methods are
difficult and require long training times With Flying Head, humanmotions such as walking and looking around are used to set theflight parameters, which allows the operator to input parallel control parameters of the UAV simultaneously.
When controlling any vehicle or remote robots for the first time,
the operator finds it difficult to send accurate parameters. For instance, when an operator uses a lever to manipulate a UAV, he or
she needs training in order to get a sense of the mapping parameters like how strong he or she should press the lever. With Flying
Head, where an operator’s kinesthetic information is used to control
the UAV motion, the operator can intuitively manipulate the UAV.
In the Flying Head, in which operator’s kinesthetic information isused to control a UAV motion, an operator intuitively can manipulate a UAV.
2.2 Filling in the Gaps
However, a UAV is not supposed to be synchronized to all humanmotions owing to human physical limitations compared to UAV
flight capability. UAVs can fly at higher/lower altitudes than theoperator, which makes postural control of flight uncomfortable oreven impossible. Thus, we combined Flying Head with other control methods for altitude control. We focused on a small device that
does not constrain human body movement. The UAV can move tohigh altitudes with easy manipulation of the device. The device isalso applicable to horizontal movements.
Flying Head enables a user to experience augmented abilities by
the addition of extra values to the moving parameters. When the
mapping rate is doubled, the UAV moves 2 m when the operator
walks 1 m. As the operator’s small movement can be extended toa large movement by the UAV, the operator can control the speedof the UAV and feel less fatigue. Though a 10 times mapping rate
might result in difficulty with control, we think that a double or
triple mapping rate would be effective.
3

R ELATED W ORK

A telepresence robot can conduct a wide range of tasks including
telecommunications and remote operations. In recent years, telepresence robots have been used in office environments [27]. Telepresence robots have even attracted attention for use in military applications [20].
3.1 Body motion input
In research applications, telepresence robots are manipulated by human body motions. Mancini et al. developed Mascot (Manipulatore
Servo Controllato Transistorizzato), which has two stereo cameras

Quigley et al. described how devices such as PDAs, joysticks, andvoice recognition systems can be used to set UAV control parameters [24]. Giordano et al. developed a situation-aware UAV control
system that provides vestibular and visual sensation feedback usinga CyberMotion simulator [4]. This system represents UAV motion
information within the operator’s vestibular system. Naseer et al.
developed a person following UAV using gesture recognition technique. [21]. Shan et al. demonstrated a hand gesture-controlled
UAV that uses six different gestures to control movements such as
takeoffs, landings, climbing, and descending [29]. However, thesegestures are essentially just a replacement for the device input, sousing them for inputting parallel control parameters of the UAV isdifficult. Vries et al. developed a UAV mounted with a head-slave
camera [28]. We focus operator’s kinesthetic imagery for instinctive controlling the UAV.
3.3 Interactive applications with UAVs
Recently, UAVs are used in many types of field such as entertainment, sports training, and media art. Iwata demonstrated a interactive installation ”Floating Eye”, which can show out-of-body images from a floating camera [12]. Yoshimoto et al. developed aunmanned blimp system, which has four types of use-case in entertainment computing fields [32]. Okura et al. proposed a augmented reality entertainment system using autopilot airship andomni-directional camera [22]. Previously, our group proposed a
autonomous UAV to capture out-body-vision images for entertainment contents and sports training [8, 10]. Graether et al. alsopresented a jogging support UAV ”Joggobot”, which accompanies
user’s jogging to motivate exertion activities [5]. We aim to realize
telexistance and telepresence fields with UAVs.
4

P ROTOTYPE S YSTEM

The prototype system comprises a positioning measurement system, mini UAV, and HMD. Figure 3 shows the configuration of
the system control using point information. An operator wears an
HMD to represent the UAV’s camera image, which allows the operator to control successive motions of the UAV.
To synchronize the operator’s body motion with that of the UAV,the system requires position information. We used OptiTrack as
an optical motion capture system for positional measurements. An
OptiTrack S250e IR camera with a high frame rate can capture 120
fps, and motion capture allows the marker’s position to be calculated to an accuracy of 1 mm. We captured the marker motions
by installing eight cameras in a room divided into human and UAV
areas: each was 3.0 m long × 1.5 m wide.
4.1 Micro-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
We used AR.Drone as the flying telepresence robot: this is a small
quadcopter with four blade propellers that can be controlled using
Wi-Fi communication. AR.Drone has two cameras: one on thefront and the other at the bottom. Flying Head uses the front camera
for visual feedback.
AR.Drone has four control parameters: pitch, roll, yaw, andthrottle. The pitch controls the forward and backward movements,
and the roll controls the right and left movements. When the yaw
parameter is changed, AR.Drone rotates on its site, and when theUi = {xi , yi , θi } (i = 0..n)Di = NHi − Ui

Motion Capture Cameras	

UAVʼs area	

(2)
(3)

At time i, pitchi , rolli and yawi are calculated based on the following equation.
(
) (
)(
)
pitch
cos θUyD
sin θU
=
(4)
roll
xD
−cos θU sin θU

Operatorʼs area	

θD
(5)
π
The system also estimates the future position (expression 6) of
the UAV based on the position history for a fast-converging UAV
movement. The system transforms the control condition (expression 8) so that the future position is greater than the current position(C:constant).
yaw =

y	

Inside-camera	
Trackable markers	
HMD	

PC	

Cable tothe ceiling	

UAV	

x	
Figure 3: System configuration: The prototype system incorporates
a position measurement system using eight motion capture cameras,a mini-UAV, and an HMD. The system is capable of several mapping
scales.

throttle parameter is changed, AR.Drone moves up or down. The
system sends the control parameters to AR.Drone once every 30
ms.
4.2 Visual Feedback
The operator wears a device with an HMD to represent images captured from the UAV cameras. For the HMD, we adopted a SonyHMZ-T2, which provides high-definition (HD) image quality. The
HMD has markers that the system uses to track the operator’s body
motions. The user determines the next manipulation of the UAV
based on visual feedback from the previous manipulation. The
wearable device is connected to 12 m long HDMI and power source
cables that are extended to the ceiling. The inner camera of the
AR.Drone has a QVGA resolution of 320 × 240 pixels with a capture speed of 30 fps. This camera is located at the front side of the
AR.Drone.
4.3

Control of horizontal movement

The system uses the position information of the operator and UAV
generated from the positioning measurement system. The positioning parameters include the plane point [x, y, z] and its direction[θ ]. Horizontal movement control does not use the height direction.
Therefore, the system sets the pitch (front and back), roll (right andleft) and yaw (rotation) parameters.
The system obtains the location points of the HMD (Hi ) and UAV(Ui ) at time i (i = 0...k). At N times, the mapping scale, the system
calculates different Di in Hi at each time (N=1 means 1:1 mapping
scale).
Hi = {xi , yi , θi } (i = 0..n)(1)

Fi+1 = Ui + (Ui − Ui−1 )∆t(6)

pitch = −pitch ×C
roll = −roll ×C

(7)
(8)

4.4 Altitude Control
Flying Head provides two methods for UAV altitude control: equal
control and a combination of devices. Equal control is used to move
the UAV up and down the same distance moved by the operator’shead: for example, if the operator lowers his or her head by 20 cm,
the UAV descends by 20 cm. When the mapping rate is 2 times,
the horizontal or vertical movement is double that of the operator’s
movement.
For the combination of devices, the operator uses a combinationof body motions for most movements and the control device for altitude control only. Initially, the altitude baseline is the head heightof the operator, and the device can switch its baseline height. We
adopted a Wii remote controller connected to a PC through Bluetooth. The operator changes the baseline by pressing the remotecontroller’s arrow keys.
5 U SER S TUDY
To review the operability of the Flying Head mechanism, we conducted two user studies. We conducted this task in order to reveal
the potential of remotely operated UAV for searching and inspecting a certain object. In the first study, We compared body movement
and joystick controls: the Flying Head (1:1 mapping scale), andthe joystick mechanism. In the second study, we compared headsynchronization and hand-synchronization methods when the mapping scale was changed: the Flying Head (1:2 mapping scale), andthe hand-synchronization mechanism (1:2.5 mapping scale). We
assigned the same task for both of these studies The participants
captured four static markers using the inner camera of the UAVwith the different control methods.
5.1 Environment
We measured the time to task completion. The participants captured
four visible markers using each UAV control mechanism. Figure4(a) shows the experimental environment, which included a poleextending to the ceiling and four 2D markers. The markers were
given the numbers 1-4. The participants captured the markers using
the UAV camera in numerical order. We placed the markers on thepole in a counterclockwise fashion at heights of 80-230 cm. Whenusing Flying Head, the participants combined body and device control to set the altitude. Figure 4(b) shows the image from the inner
camera of the UAV; the detection area of the markers is framed in
the red square. Figure 4(c) shows detection of the marker. The

140	
  
120	
  

Time	
  [s]	
  

100	
  
80	
  
Joys2ck	
  

60	
  

Flying	  Head	  (1:1)	
  

40	
  
20	
  
0	
  
1	
  

2	
  

3	
  

average	
  Session	  Figure 4: Environment of study 1: The participants captured four
visible markers using the each control mechanism. We measured
and compared the completion time of task.

marker is framed by the green square when captured by the operator. Each participant performed three experiment sessions. We preliminarily decided markers positions, which were different in eachsession. However, the participants were not informed in advance.

Figure 5: The result of study 1: A comparison of the average time required for each participant during three sessions, where the shortertime is the better. The Flying Head (1:1) was faster than the joystickfor every session. The average completion time for the three sessions was 40.8 s with Flying Head (1:1) and 80.1 s with the joystickmethod. Black lines show standard deviation.
5	  5.2 Study 1
In the first study, we focused on body movement and joystick controls: Flying Head (1:1 mapping scale), and joystick mechanisms.
R/C-style joystick mechanism is traditional small UAVs control
style. In this study, we compared our system with traditional control
methods. The purpose of this study is to point out which method,
controlling with body movement or with the device, is more suitable for searching and capturing tasks.
We adopted joystick mechanisms for comparison with the Flying
Head. A joystick has one stick and various buttons; the participants
used the joystick to manipulate the UAV’s position in the manner
described in section 4.3. For the joystick control, the participants
wore an HMD for visual feedback (Figure 4(d)). In this study, participants were six people between the ages of 23 and 25 and heightsof 161-175 cm. Figure 5 shows to compare the average completiontime of every participant for all three sessions. Flying Head (1:1)
produced the fastest times for all three sessions. The average completion time for the three sessions was 40.8 s with Flying Head and80.1 s with the joystick method. We conducted a paired t-test fromthe average of each participant, which gave us a p − value < .01.
Figure 6 shows the UAV trajectory during each session plotted ina 3D-point diagram. For the joystick method, the UAV frequently
moved in a rectilinear trajectory. These results suggest that it wasdifficult to set the parallel control parameters each time with thejoystick control. The trajectory of Flying Head suggests that thismechanism can easily control parallel parameters. In particular, thetrajectory during the third session showed a smooth movement.
We conducted a questionnaire survey asking the participants
about Flying Head and the joystick method (Figure 7). The questionnaire consisted of six questions: each was evaluated on a scaleof 1 to 5 with a higher score indicating a better result. Question
items are as follows.
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6

Was control mechanism simple to control?
Could you control it properly?
Was Study 1 easy?
Did the latency interfere with the operation?
Did you enjoy the experiment?
Did you become tired with the experiment?

4	
  Joys-ck	  3	
  Flying	  Head	
  
2	
  

1	
  
Q1	
  

Q2	
  

Q3	
  

Q4	
  

Q5	
  

Q6	
  

Figure 7: Result of the questionnaire: The questionnaire consists of
six items each of which was evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5, with thehigher score indicating the better. Black lines show standard deviation.

5.3 Study 2
In the second study, we compared head-synchronization and handsynchronization methods when the mapping scale was changed:
the Flying Head (1:2 mapping scale), and the hand-synchronization
mechanism (1:2.5 mapping scale). The purpose of this study is toreveal if the operator’s head is better way to map the trajectory of
the UAV or if the operator’s hand is more suitable when controllingin the master-slave method that synchronizes the UAV’s movementwith the one of operator. In this method, we set the mapping ration
as 1:2.5 so that users didn’t have to move their arms too widely.
This ratio can be changed depending on areas where UAVs are deployed. In the hand-synchronization, the operator determines the
UAV’s position and direction by controlling a small dummy of the
UAV with his/her hand (Figure 4(e)). In this experiment, the UAV
moved 2.5 times more than the movement of the dummy UAV. The
user sees the view from the display, not from the HMD. In thisstudy, participants were six people between the ages of 23 and 30
and heights of 154-180 cm. We instructed each method to partic-

Participant A	
Joystick	

Flying Head	

Participant B	
Joystick	

Session 1	

Session 1	

Session 2	

Session 2	

Session 3	

Session 3	

Flying Head	

Figure 6: Trajectory of the UAV in study 1: where each line is the migration path of the UAV. The red line is trajectory with the Flying Head, andthe blue line is trajectory with the joystick.

ipants for 10 minutes. Figure 8 compares the average completiontime of every participant for all three sessions. Flying Head (1:2)
produced the fastest times for all three sessions. The average completion time for the three sessions was 53.1 s with Flying Head (1:2)
and 99.1 s with the hand-synchronization method. We conducted apaired t-test from the average of each participant, which gave us ap − value < .01. No tracking error was found during the study.
Even when the mapping rate was doubled, the same result was
produced as at the 1:1 scale. The participants said the control
method surprised them the first time, but they managed to get used
to it soon after they started. They also said that they could control
the UAV without a problem no matter what the mapping ratio was,and they did not feel any sickness when controlling it.
The hand-synchronization mechanism received worse results
than Flying Head. The reason of this result would be that
it is difficult to recognize the UAV’s trajectory with the handsynchronization mechanism and also hard to understand the position difference between the dummy and the UAV. With the Flying
Head, on the other hand, as the UAV synchronizes with the head
movement, it would be easier to recognize the position difference
between the head and the UAV.

6D ISCUSSION

In this section, we discuss some plans for future research and applications of flying telepresence

6.1 Limitations
In an outdoor environment, Flying Head cannot use optical motion
capture to locate the UAV owing to sunlight or disturbances in the
air. We intend to develop a new localization system for outdoor
use that will possibly involve the use of GPS, Wi-Fi, or ultra wideband technology. Due to its accuracy, we feel that the use of an
Ubisense ultra wide-band system as a real-time locator may be avalid approach. On the other hand, UAVs can estimate position andorientation using sensor devices such as, GPS, gyro, acceleration
sensor, and visual odometry. Although this method is low accuracy,
operators may able to easily manipulate UAV because they can beaware of self head trajectory.
6.2 Combination with other control methods
In this study, the UAV only flew within ranges commensurate withthe distances walked by their operators. However, in some telepresence exercises, the operator and the robot will not move at equal
scales, in which case the system should be able to perform distancescaling. For instance, if the operational range of the robot is threetimes that of the operator, a distance of 1 m walked by the operator
would be mapped to a UAV movement of 3 m. We plan to expand
the Flying Head system to include such scalability and to measureits usability as well as combine and creatively use additional manipulation methods.
We developed another UAV control mechanism to be matchedwith the Flying Head mechanism. This mechanism maps the humanhead inclination with the UAV movement (Figure 9). This method

140	
  
120	
  

Time	
  [s]	
  

100	
  
80	
  
Hand-­‐Synchroniza9on	
  

60	
  

Flying	  Head	  (1:2)	
  

40	
  
20	
  
0	
  
1	
  

2	
  

3	
  

average	
  Session	  Figure 9: another UAV control mechanism to be matched with the
Flying Head mechanism.: This mechanism is mapping human head
inclination with the UAV movement. Future work is needed to identify
the viability of combining this method with Flying Head.

Figure 8: The result of study 2: A comparison of the average timerequired for each participant during three sessions, where the shortertime the better. The Flying Head (1:2) was faster than the handsynchronization method for every session. The average completion
times for the three sessions were 53.1 s with the Flying Head (1:2)
and 99.1 s with the hand-synchronization. Black lines show standard
deviation.

is switched on by the A key of the Wii Remote controller, which issimilarly used for altitude control. When the operator inclines hisor her head forward, the UAV moves forward. When the operator
raises his or her head, the UAV also continually rises. Each yaw
rotation is synchronized between the operator and UAV like with
the Flying Head mechanism. Future work is needed to identify theviability of combining this method with Flying Head.

Figure 10: Example: a specialist provides instructions to a nonspecialist situated in a remote location. (A) The specialist points with
fingers. (B) an remote operator gets assistance via a flying telepresence robot

6.3 Future Flying Telepresence Applications
6.3.1 Inspection
With this mechanism, the operator can control a UAV as if he or
she was a flying robot; this is useful for remote operations such as
inspections. A UAV is better able to get into areas inaccessible topeople than ground robots. By setting a small UAV in certain facilities, we can always connect to it for inspections or in the event ofan emergency. Tiny helicopters (around 15 cm wide) can currently
be purchased at low prices; we can consider scenarios of putting
this kind of helicopter in every room of a facility.
6.3.2 Remote Collaboration
Figure 10 shows an application that provides instructions to a remote operator using a laser pointer mounted to the UAV as an example of flying telepresence. This function is used by a specialist
to provide instructions to a non-specialist situated in a remote location. For example, people in a disaster-affected area may receive
instructions to manipulate a certain device from a specialist withthe assistance of pointing. In many cases, audio instructions are inadequate to provide instructions at the remote location. Therefore,
visual instructions such as pointing are required to increase communication efficiency. For tasks in large indoor areas or those involving the manipulation of large devices, UAVs need to move andprovide instructions simultaneously. Flying Head can realize thesetasks because the UAV has hands-free control, and the operator canthus simultaneously point to provide visual instructions.
6.3.3 Teleoperation
Flying telepresence can also be used to facilitate remote operations.
For example, UAVs with manipulation equipment can be employedin tasks such as disaster relief or high-altitude construction. However, current UAVs lack free manipulation equipment comparable
to the hands of a human operator. NASA has developed Robonaut, which is a telepresence robot for exterior work in outer space[1]. Robonaut has two arms that are synchronized to the operator’s hand motions. Lindsay et al. demonstrated the constructionof a cubic structure using mini-UAVs with a crane [17]. Figure 11
shows a potential future two-armed flying telepresence robot thatcan be used for teleoperation. The operator can manipulate this flying telepresence robot’s hands as if they were his or her own by
using motion capture.
6.3.4 Capturing platform
The VR system can set the location and orientation as a virtual
camera using instinctive devices. Ware et al. proposed the handmanipulation of a virtual camera [30]. We believe that Flying Headcan be used to manipulate physical camera systems such as digitalmovie cameras for motion pictures and game creation for shooting
high-realistic movies. Flying Head can be used in future video content creation systems in which a camera operator would capture theaction through the highly effective employment of positioning andorientation. Laviola proposed hands-free camera navigation, which
introduce user’s head movements in virtual reality environments[15]. We plan to introduce this technique to move wide length fields
with Flying Head.
6.3.5 Entertainment Platform
Flying telepresence may also provide an out-of-body experience or
the sensation of leaving one’s own body. When we demonstrateda Flying Head prototype to a large audience (more than 300 people), many participants noted the novelty of the experience of see-

Disaster Area

Operation
Operation Room	
room

Figure 11: An Example of Future flying telepresence robot: The
UAV’s two-arms are synchronized with operator’s hands

ing themselves from outside their bodies; this reflects the ability offlying telepresence operators to observe themselves through UAV
cameras. By changing the mapping ratio of the movement, a user
can experience an augmented ability. This can be regarded as a newexperience and has potential for an entertainment platform.
7 C ONCLUSION
Flying telepresence is a term used for the remote operation of aflying surrogate robot so that the operator’s “self” seemingly takes
control. In this paper, we propose a control mechanism termed Flying Head that synchronizes the motions of a human head and a UAV.
The operator can manipulate the UAV more intuitively since suchmanipulations are more in accord with his or her kinesthetic imagery. The results of study indicated that Flying Head provides
easy operability that is preferable to that of hand-operation. Second study’s result also shows that head-synchronization mechanism
is We discussed additional flying telepresence applications such as
capturing platforms, teleoperation, and entertainment platform.
R EFERENCES[1] W. Bluethmann, R. Ambrose, M. Diftler, S. Askew, E. Huber,
M. Goza, F. Rehnmark, C. Lovchik, and D. Magruder. Robonaut:
A robot designed to work with humans in space. Autonomous Robots,
14(2):179–197, 2003.
[2] M. A. A. Eimei, Oyama. Taro and T. Susumu. Robots for telexistence
and telepresence: from science fiction to reality. In ICAT 2004, 2004.
[3] C. L. Fernando, M. Furukawa, T. Kurogi, K. Hirota, S. Kamuro,
K. Sato, K. Minamizawa, and S. Tachi. Telesar v: Telexistence surrogate anthropomorphic robot. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2012 Emerging Technologies, SIGGRAPH ’12, pages 23:1–23:1, New York, NY,
USA, 2012. ACM.
[4] P. Giordano, H. Deusch, J. Lächele, and H. Bülthoff. Visual-vestibular
feedback for enhanced situational awareness in teleoperation of uavs.
In Proc. of the AHS 66th Annual Forum and Technology Display,
2010.
[5] E. Graether and F. Mueller. Joggobot: a flying robot as jogging
companion. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended
Abstracts, CHI EA ’12, pages 1063–1066. ACM, 2012.
[6] R. Heinlein. Waldo. Astounding Science Fiction, August 1942.
[7] J. Heuring and D. Murray. Visual head tracking and slaving for visual
telepresence. In Robotics and Automation, 1996, volume 4, pages
2908–2914. IEEE, 1996.
[8] K. Higuchi, Y. Ishiguro, and J. Rekimoto. Flying eyes: free-spacecontent creation using autonomous aerial vehicles. In Proceedings ofthe 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors incomputing systems, pages 561–570. ACM, 2011.
[9] K. Higuchi and J. Rekimoto. Flying head: a head motion synchronization mechanism for unmanned aerial vehicle control. CHI EA’13, pages 2029–2038, 2013.
[10] K. Higuchi, T. Shimada, and J. Rekimoto. Flying sports assistant:external visual imagery representation for sports training. In Proceedings of the 2nd Augmented Human International Conference, page 7.
ACM, 2011.
[11] A. Huang, A. Bachrach, P. Henry, M. Krainin, D. Maturana, D. Fox,
and N. Roy. Visual odometry and mapping for autonomous flightusing an rgb-d camera. In Int. Symposium on Robotics Research(ISRR),(Flagstaff, Arizona, USA), 2011.
[12] H. Iwata. Art and technology in interface devices. In Proceedingsof the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology,
VRST ’05, pages 1–7, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
[13] D. S. J.D. Hightower. Teleoperator technology development. In Proc.
of the 12th Meeting of the United States-Japan Cooperative Programin Natural Resource, 1983.
[14] T. Kamegawa, T. Yamasaki, H. Igarashi, and F. Matsuno. Development of the snake-like rescue robot. In Robotics and Automation,
2004. Proceedings. ICRA’04. 2004 IEEE International Conference on,volume 5, pages 5081–5086. IEEE, 2004.
[15] J. J. LaViola, Jr., D. A. Feliz, D. F. Keefe, and R. C. Zeleznik. Handsfree multi-scale navigation in virtual environments. In Proceedings ofthe 2001 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics, I3D ’01, pages 9–15,
New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM.
[16] S. Lee. Automatic gesture recognition for intelligent human-robot
interaction. In Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, 2006. FGR
2006. 7th International Conference on, pages 645–650. Ieee, 2006.
[17] Q. Lindsey, D. Mellinger, and V. Kumar. Construction of cubic structures with quadrotor teams. Proc. Robotics: Science & Systems VII,
2011.
[18] C. Mancini and F. Roncaglia. Il servomeccanismo elettronico mascot
i del cnen. 32(6):379–392, 1963.
[19] MikroKopter. http://www.mikrokopter.de/.
[20] MITRE. http://www.mitre.org/.
[21] T. Naseer, J. Sturm, and D. Cremers. FollowMe: Person following
and gesture recognition with a quadrocopter. In Proc. of the Int. Conf.
on Intelligent Robot Systems (IROS), 2013.
[22] F. Okura, M. Kanbara, and N. Yokoya. Augmented telepresence using
autopilot airship and omni-directional camera. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2010 9th IEEE International Symposium on,
pages 259–260, 2010.
[23] quaduino. http://code.google.com/p/quaduino-ng/.
[24] M. Quigley, M. Goodrich, and R. Beard. Semi-autonomous humanuav interfaces for fixed-wing mini-uavs. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on, volume 3, pages 2457–2462. IEEE, 2004.
[25] J. Scholtz, J. Young, J. Drury, and H. Yanco. Evaluation of humanrobot interaction awareness in search and rescue. In Robotics andAutomation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA’04. 2004 IEEE International
Conference on, volume 3, pages 2327–2332. IEEE, 2004.
[26] S. Tachi. Real-time remote robotics-toward networked telexistence.
Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 18(6):6–9, 1998.
[27] VGo. http://www.vgocom.com/.
[28] P. Vries, Sjoerd C.; Padmos. Steering a simulated unmanned aerial
vehicle using a head-slaved camera and hmd: effects of hmd quality,
visible vehicle references, and extended stereo cueing. In Proc. SPIE,
volume 3362, pages 80–91.
[29] E. S. Wai Shan (Florence) Ng. Collocated interaction with flying
robots. In RO-MAN, 2011 IEEE, pages 143–149. IEEE, 2011.
[30] C. Ware and S. Osborne. Exploration and virtual camera control in virtual three dimensional environments. In ACM SIGGRAPH Computer
Graphics, volume 24, pages 175–183. ACM, 1990.
[31] A. Wendel, M. Maurer, G. Graber, T. Pock, and H. Bischof. Dense
reconstruction on-the-fly. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition(CVPR), 2012 IEEE Conference on, pages 1450 –1457, june 2012.
[32] H. Yoshimoto, K. Jo, and K. Hori. Designing interactive blimps as
puppets. Entertainment Computing ICEC 2009, 5709:204–209, 2009.