robotics
The Passenger Saw What the Physical Robot Saw
A live robot-to-VR link averaged 29.63-millisecond state updates and 2.28% route-progress error over 20 trials.
Summary
A live robot-to-VR link averaged 29.63-millisecond state updates and 2.28% route-progress error over 20 trials.
Passenger-facing autonomous-vehicle studies often use simulated motion or scripted scenes. This framework links a physical ROS 2 robot vehicle to a Unity application on a VR headset, transmitting state and onboard video separately so the virtual vehicle mirrors real motion and exposes navigation decisions. Across 20 closed-loop trials, the authors report 29.63 ms mean state-update latency, 2.28% mean relative route-progress error, 10.006 video frames per second and 0.25% frame loss, with all monitored decisions reflected correctly. The laboratory-scale setup demonstrates synchronization, not passenger trust or road deployment.
Why it matters
A live robot-to-VR link averaged 29.63-millisecond state updates and 2.28% route-progress error over 20 trials.
Limits and context
- The laboratory-scale setup demonstrates synchronization, not passenger trust or road deployment.
Key claims
A live robot-to-VR link averaged 29.63-millisecond state updates and 2.28% route-progress error over 20 trials.
Qualification: The laboratory-scale setup demonstrates synchronization, not passenger trust or road deployment.
Evidence: source-2026-09-15-012
Sources
- arXiv preprint 2609.13224arXiv · primary research
Corrections
No corrections have been recorded for this story.