## 4 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation of Performance Gain of the Proposed Method  
A set of experiments has been carried out in order to compare the performance gain of the system with MIS (i.e., the proposed system) over the system without MIS (i.e., the system explained in [20]). For this experiment, the users were asked to navigate the robot from a given initial position to a given goal position marked on the floor as shown in Figure 8. The number of steps taken for navigating the robot towards the goal has been considered as the parameter for the evaluation work based on the experimental evaluation carried out in the work presented in [26]. The same task was repeated for both systems and the information related to the systems was recorded. Ten different layout arrangements (i.e., with different initial and goal positions) have been selected by randomly choosing the initial and goal positions. The initial and goal positions for a particular layout scenario have been kept within the same room since it is impractical to navigate the robot from one room to another room using only this kind of simple motion command. Furthermore, such navigation tasks could be deduced into this kind of problem by using the ability of the robot to understand a command like \"move to the kitchen\" as explained in [23]. All the participants have been given the chance to perform one by one in all 10 layout arrangements and the results have been analyzed in order to evaluate the value addition of the proposed MIS. It should be noted that this experimental scenarios are independent of the experimental scenarios discussed in experiment 1 (i.e., in Section 4.2). The data of the experiments for user 1 in layout arrangement 1 (i.e., named as case 1) and user 1 in layout arrangement 2 (i.e., named as case 2) are given in Table 3 as sample results. The corresponding positions of the robot after executing each user instruction are marked on the map shown in Figure 9. The positions are annotated with the corresponding indexes given in Table 3.  
Figure 8: This shows the experimental scenario of the case 1 of the experiment for comparing the performance of the system with the MIS and the system without the MIS. The user was asked to navigate the robot to the goal position marked on the floor by implementing both the system in the robot. The goal area is annotated as “goal” in here. Figure 9: The positions of the robot after executing each user instructions given in Table 3 for cases 1 and 2 are marked on the map with the corresponding indexes. The shaded areas represents the objects in the environment. The light color solid areas represent the positions of the goals. The map is drawn to a scale. However, it should be noted that the markers do not represent the actual size of the robot. In this case, the initial position of the robot was '\(I_{1}\)' and the goal position is annotated as 'goal 1' in the map. In the system with the MIS event, first the robot was commanded, \"move medium forward\" while being shown a gesture that expresses the requirement of switching the intention to navigate the robot beyond the obstacle in the front. \(D_{r}\) and \(D_{gesture}\) were 57 cm and 128 cm, respectively. The intention of the robot was switched by the MIS since \(D_{gesture}>\delta_{max}D_{r}\) and \(D_{a,max}\) was assigned to the perceptive distance (\(D\)). Therefore, \(D\) was 275 cm and subsequently the quantified distance output was 183 cm which resulted the movement of the robot to location '\(A_{1}\)'. Then the robot was commanded, \"move little forward\" and a pointing gesture was not detected by the system since a pointing gesture was not issued by the user. Therefore, the intention of the robot was not switched and the robot moved 36 cm by considering \(D_{r}\) as perceptive distance (\(D\)). The moved position was '\(B_{1}\)' that was inside the given goal area. Therefore, this was considered as the completion of the task.