An official website of the United States government
Safely catching aerial micro-robots in mid-air using an open-source aerial robot with soft gripper
More Like this
-
This article presents an understanding of naive users’ perception of the communicative nature of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) motions refined through an iterative series of studies. This includes both what people believe the UAV is trying to communicate, and how they expect to respond through physical action or emotional response. Previous work in this area prioritized gestures from participants to the vehicle or augmenting the vehicle with additional communication modalities, rather than communicating without clear definitions of the states attempting to be conveyed. In an attempt to elicit more concrete states and better understand specific motion perception, this work includes multiple iterations of state creation, flight path refinement, and label assignment. The lessons learned in this work will be applicable broadly to those interested in defining flight paths, and within the human-robot interaction community as a whole, as it provides a base for those seeking to communicate using non-anthropomorphic robots. We found that the Negative Attitudes towards Robots Scale (NARS) can be an indicator of how a person is likely to react to a UAV, the emotional content they are likely to perceive from a message being conveyed, and it is an indicator for the personality characteristics they are likely to project upon the UAV. We also see that people commonly associate motions from other non-verbal communication situations onto UAVs. Flight specific recommendations are to use a dynamic retreating motion from a person to encourage following, use a perpendicular motion to their field of view for blocking, simple descending motion for landing, and to use either no motion or large altitude changes to encourage watching. Overall, this research explores the communication from the UAV to the bystander through its motion, to see how people respond physically and emotionally.more » « less
-
We understand very little about the timing and origins of bioluminescence, particularly as a predator avoidance strategy. Understanding the timing of its origins, however, can help elucidate the evolution of this ecologically important signal. Using fireflies, a prevalent bioluminescent group where bioluminescence primarily functions as aposematic and sexual signals, we explore the origins of this signal in the context of their potential predators. Divergence time estimations were performed using genomic-scale datasets providing a robust estimate for the origin of firefly bioluminescence as both a terrestrial and as an aerial signal. Our results recover the origin of terrestrial beetle bioluminescence at 141.17 (122.63–161.17) Ma and firefly aerial bioluminescence at 133.18 (117.86–152.47) Ma using a large dataset focused on Lampyridae; and terrestrial bioluminescence at 148.03 (130.12–166.80) Ma, with the age of aerial bioluminescence at 104.97 (99.00–120.90) Ma using a complementary Elateroidea dataset. These ages pre-date the origins of all known extant aerial predators (i.e. bats and birds) and support much older terrestrial predators (assassin bugs, frogs, ground beetles, lizards, snakes, hunting spiders and harvestmen) as the drivers of terrestrial bioluminescence in beetles. These ages also support the hypothesis that sexual signalling was probably the original function of this signal in aerial fireflies.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.1030515
