Abstract
The reality gap is the discrepancy between simulation and reality—the same behavioural algorithm results in different robot swarm behaviours in simulation and in reality (with real robots). In this paper, we study the effect of the reality gap on the psychophysiological reactions of humans interacting with a robot swarm. We compare the psychophysiological reactions of 28 participants interacting with a simulated robot swarm and with a real (non-simulated) robot swarm. Our results show that a real robot swarm provokes stronger reactions in our participants than a simulated robot swarm. We also investigate how to mitigate the effect of the reality gap (i.e., how to diminish the difference in the psychophysiological reactions between reality and simulation) by comparing psychophysiological reactions in simulation displayed on a computer screen and psychophysiological reactions in simulation displayed in virtual reality. Our results show that our participants tend to have stronger psychophysiological reactions in simulation displayed in virtual reality (suggesting a potential way of diminishing the effect of the reality gap).
Highlights
IntroductionSwarms of autonomous robots are likely to be part of our daily life
In a near future, swarms of autonomous robots are likely to be part of our daily life
We study the differences in psychological reactions when a human being passively interacts with a real robot swarm, with a simulated robot swarm displayed in a virtual reality environment, and with a simulated robot swarm displayed on a computer screen
Summary
Swarms of autonomous robots are likely to be part of our daily life. Human-swarm interaction has become an active field of research. Researchers in human-swarm interaction validate their work by performing user studies (i.e., group of human participants performing an experiment of human-swarm interaction). A large majority of the existing user studies are performed exclusively in simulation, with human operators interacting with simulated robots on a computer screen (e.g., Bashyal & Venayagamoorthy, 2008; Nunnally et al, 2012; De la Croix & Egerstedt, 2012; Walker et al, 2012; Kolling et al, 2013; Walker et al, 2013; Pendleton & Goodrich, 2013; Nagavalli et al, 2015).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
