| Literature DB >> 28417944 |
Zhijiang Du1, Wei Wang2, Zhiyuan Yan3, Wei Dong4, Weidong Wang5.
Abstract
In order to get natural and intuitive physical interaction in the pose adjustment of the minimally invasive surgery manipulator, a hybrid variable admittance model based on Fuzzy Sarsa(λ)-learning is proposed in this paper. The proposed model provides continuous variable virtual damping to the admittance controller to respond to human intentions, and it effectively enhances the comfort level during the task execution by modifying the generated virtual damping dynamically. A fuzzy partition defined over the state space is used to capture the characteristics of the operator in physical human-robot interaction. For the purpose of maximizing the performance index in the long run, according to the identification of the current state input, the virtual damping compensations are determined by a trained strategy which can be learned through the experience generated from interaction with humans, and the influence caused by humans and the changing dynamics in the robot are also considered in the learning process. To evaluate the performance of the proposed model, some comparative experiments in joint space are conducted on our experimental minimally invasive surgical manipulator.Entities:
Keywords: minimally invasive surgical robot; physical human-robot interaction; reinforcement learning; variable admittance control
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28417944 PMCID: PMC5424721 DOI: 10.3390/s17040844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Variable admittance controller.
Figure 2Flow chart of FSL.
Figure 3(a) Minimally invasive surgery manipulator; (b) The structure diagram of RCM.
Figure 4Target positons in the experiments.
The parameters of reinforcement learning.
| 0.9 | 0.03 | 0.95 | 85 | 0.004 |
The universe of discourse of the state variable and the parameters of the intention estimator.
| X1 (Nm) | X2 (deg/s) | X3 (deg/s2) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −2.5 ~ 0.0 | −8.5 ~ 0.0 | −4.5 ~ 4.5 | 3.06 | 0.01 | 0.04 |
Figure 5The trend of the evaluation criteria in the experiments.
Figure 6(a) Compared with low fixed admittance models; (b) Compared with high fixed admittance models.
Figure 7Compared with variable admittance model without damping adjustment ().
Figure 8(a) Accuracy; (b) Energy transferred from the operator to the robot; (c) Accumulated jerk in the episode.
Figure 9(a) The score of naturalness; (b) The score of sense of control.