Telerobot physician consulting with nurse………….credit: InTouch Technologies, Inc.
What’s halfway between an autonomous robot and an avatar? You’ve probably seen avatars in the movies (James Cameron’s Avatar being the prime example). No doubt you’ve also seen various kinds of (semi) autonomous robots that move about under their own power and have a kind of intelligence, in movies of course, but also possibly in commercial use. In reality neither a fully-fledged autonomous robot nor a true avatar exists, yet. What does exist, and in fact is becoming more real all the time, is the thing in the middle between robot and avatar: The telepresence robot or telerobot.
The autonomous robot is supposed to be able to think for itself, using artificial intelligence of some kind. Since AI is still primitive (at best), we don’t really have autonomous robots, at least none outside of very specialized applications. Nor do we have anything like the avatar of the eponymous movie (which happens to be a biological robot, a fantasy) or any other robotic device that can contain a person’s consciousness. What we do have in relatively great variety and growing sophistication are robots that are ‘driven’ (controlled) by someone.
The concept of robots operated remotely is hardly new, in fact, given the limited ‘intelligence’ capability; almost all robots in the laboratory or out of it are controlled by a remote operator. Governments, particularly the military have used remotely operated robots for decades. The unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – drones – have garnered much attention in recent U.S. wars, as have the remotely operated submarine robots involved in dealing with the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
One aspect of telerobotics deserves highlighting – the rapid growth of uses for mobile telerobotics, particularly in applications where the robot can participate in tasks that require expertise by the remote operator. This is an important area of robotics that is now moving out of the laboratory and establishing a commercial market. It’s also an area that promises to have considerable real impact on people.
Mobility is an obvious distinguishing factor for many telerobots. Otherwise the approach is little different from a teleconference. Not all telerobots can move from place to place on their own; but all of them can provide some kind of movement capability, if only to swivel the camera to get different views for the operator. While there are skeptics, operators of mobile robotics will testify that beyond the practicality, mobility makes a qualitative difference. The feeling of ‘presence’ (for both operator and client) is much stronger when the robot is mobile.
The notion of presence is important to the use of telerobotics where the operator’s expertise is required. The example cited most frequently is in medical circumstances: A doctor, often a specialist, at some remote location can use a telerobot to see and communicate with a patient. Unlike a conference call, the robot can move where the patient is located and often use ‘arms’ and ‘hands’ to probe or communicate with a patient. The remote doctor can also use the mobility to scan monitoring devices, interact with attending staff (nurses, other doctors) and in some cases participate in medical procedures. While this is obviously not the same as having the doctor in the room, it does generate a useful feeling of presence.
Perhaps the key to the success of telerobotics is that it doesn’t require ‘far out’ technology. The video, audio, and communications are taken from teleconferencing technology. The robotics are (for the most part) built upon various mobile robot models developed many years ago. Of course, the pace of innovation in robotics and communications means that there are improvements and refinements happening all the time. Between the academic research, the military applications, and now the commercial competition this branch of robotics is expanding rapidly.
While the concept behind telerobotics is relatively easy to understand and the enabling technologies not very difficult to assemble, there are two important hurdles to widespread use: Acceptance and Price. They are related, of course.
Manufacturing telerobots currently tends to be a matter of custom unit assembly. There is no mass production. Yes, there are ‘standard’ parts, but the robots are built from the parts by hand and generally on demand. Testing and supporting telerobots is also expensive. Most participants in the field conduct extensive R&D programs and may be involved in design and manufacture of custom parts – all of which is costly overhead. Consequently, with very few exceptions telerobots are expensive relative to their target markets. (The military can afford to spend up to millions [$] for telerobot systems, but in most civilian applications there is a price ceiling, usually in the tens of thousands [$].)
The relatively high price of telerobots means that each purchase is usually the result of a deliberative and sometimes competitive process. Generally telerobots are bought on the onesy or twosy basis (one or two at a time). Lower prices because of mass demand are not yet in play. In fact, part of the deliberation is acceptance. How will the people who operate the telerobot adjust to the demands of the technology? More importantly, how will the people who are on the receiving end of the robots – patients in a hospital for example – feel about dealing with a robot? The idea of working with robots, even with the knowledge that a skilled operator (like a doctor) is controlling it, is novel and strange for many people.
Telerobotics is one of the points where what used to be science fiction is touching human lives. In situations where telerobots are used, the need is usually pretty clear – but that doesn’t mean human beings are culturally ready for it. Resistance to the use of telerobots – on a personal level, or as a change in the way labor is employed – can translate into a barrier for their development. As the article in the New York Times (reference below) points out, how would you like it if your boss rolled up behind you in the form of a telerobot?
It doesn’t take much imagination to believe that telerobots will become cheaper, more sophisticated, and more versatile. This translates into ever more applications. They will become a factor in daily life, especially when it comes to care for the sick and elderly. Impact on humanity: Considerable.
Here are a couple of quick and informative references to fill-out an overview of telerobotics:
Wikipedia: Telerobotics
New York Times: The Boss Is Robotic, and Rolling Up Behind You
Halfway between robot and avatar
Telerobot physician consulting with nurse………….credit: InTouch Technologies, Inc.
What’s halfway between an autonomous robot and an avatar? You’ve probably seen avatars in the movies (James Cameron’s Avatar being the prime example). No doubt you’ve also seen various kinds of (semi) autonomous robots that move about under their own power and have a kind of intelligence, in movies of course, but also possibly in commercial use. In reality neither a fully-fledged autonomous robot nor a true avatar exists, yet. What does exist, and in fact is becoming more real all the time, is the thing in the middle between robot and avatar: The telepresence robot or telerobot.
The autonomous robot is supposed to be able to think for itself, using artificial intelligence of some kind. Since AI is still primitive (at best), we don’t really have autonomous robots, at least none outside of very specialized applications. Nor do we have anything like the avatar of the eponymous movie (which happens to be a biological robot, a fantasy) or any other robotic device that can contain a person’s consciousness. What we do have in relatively great variety and growing sophistication are robots that are ‘driven’ (controlled) by someone.
The concept of robots operated remotely is hardly new, in fact, given the limited ‘intelligence’ capability; almost all robots in the laboratory or out of it are controlled by a remote operator. Governments, particularly the military have used remotely operated robots for decades. The unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – drones – have garnered much attention in recent U.S. wars, as have the remotely operated submarine robots involved in dealing with the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
One aspect of telerobotics deserves highlighting – the rapid growth of uses for mobile telerobotics, particularly in applications where the robot can participate in tasks that require expertise by the remote operator. This is an important area of robotics that is now moving out of the laboratory and establishing a commercial market. It’s also an area that promises to have considerable real impact on people.
Mobility is an obvious distinguishing factor for many telerobots. Otherwise the approach is little different from a teleconference. Not all telerobots can move from place to place on their own; but all of them can provide some kind of movement capability, if only to swivel the camera to get different views for the operator. While there are skeptics, operators of mobile robotics will testify that beyond the practicality, mobility makes a qualitative difference. The feeling of ‘presence’ (for both operator and client) is much stronger when the robot is mobile.
The notion of presence is important to the use of telerobotics where the operator’s expertise is required. The example cited most frequently is in medical circumstances: A doctor, often a specialist, at some remote location can use a telerobot to see and communicate with a patient. Unlike a conference call, the robot can move where the patient is located and often use ‘arms’ and ‘hands’ to probe or communicate with a patient. The remote doctor can also use the mobility to scan monitoring devices, interact with attending staff (nurses, other doctors) and in some cases participate in medical procedures. While this is obviously not the same as having the doctor in the room, it does generate a useful feeling of presence.
Perhaps the key to the success of telerobotics is that it doesn’t require ‘far out’ technology. The video, audio, and communications are taken from teleconferencing technology. The robotics are (for the most part) built upon various mobile robot models developed many years ago. Of course, the pace of innovation in robotics and communications means that there are improvements and refinements happening all the time. Between the academic research, the military applications, and now the commercial competition this branch of robotics is expanding rapidly.
While the concept behind telerobotics is relatively easy to understand and the enabling technologies not very difficult to assemble, there are two important hurdles to widespread use: Acceptance and Price. They are related, of course.
Manufacturing telerobots currently tends to be a matter of custom unit assembly. There is no mass production. Yes, there are ‘standard’ parts, but the robots are built from the parts by hand and generally on demand. Testing and supporting telerobots is also expensive. Most participants in the field conduct extensive R&D programs and may be involved in design and manufacture of custom parts – all of which is costly overhead. Consequently, with very few exceptions telerobots are expensive relative to their target markets. (The military can afford to spend up to millions [$] for telerobot systems, but in most civilian applications there is a price ceiling, usually in the tens of thousands [$].)
The relatively high price of telerobots means that each purchase is usually the result of a deliberative and sometimes competitive process. Generally telerobots are bought on the onesy or twosy basis (one or two at a time). Lower prices because of mass demand are not yet in play. In fact, part of the deliberation is acceptance. How will the people who operate the telerobot adjust to the demands of the technology? More importantly, how will the people who are on the receiving end of the robots – patients in a hospital for example – feel about dealing with a robot? The idea of working with robots, even with the knowledge that a skilled operator (like a doctor) is controlling it, is novel and strange for many people.
Telerobotics is one of the points where what used to be science fiction is touching human lives. In situations where telerobots are used, the need is usually pretty clear – but that doesn’t mean human beings are culturally ready for it. Resistance to the use of telerobots – on a personal level, or as a change in the way labor is employed – can translate into a barrier for their development. As the article in the New York Times (reference below) points out, how would you like it if your boss rolled up behind you in the form of a telerobot?
It doesn’t take much imagination to believe that telerobots will become cheaper, more sophisticated, and more versatile. This translates into ever more applications. They will become a factor in daily life, especially when it comes to care for the sick and elderly. Impact on humanity: Considerable.
Here are a couple of quick and informative references to fill-out an overview of telerobotics:
Wikipedia: Telerobotics
New York Times: The Boss Is Robotic, and Rolling Up Behind You