An optional questionnaire was administered to
visitors after controlling the robotic fish, to acquire
feedback on the usability of the platform and learn
their thoughts on pertinent environmental issues.
Users indicated that the experience was enjoyable,
rating the exhibit on average 4. 6 out of 5 stars, and
identified marine pollution, overfishing, and climate change as the most pressing environmental
issues we are currently facing.
To allow visitors additional time to interact
with the platform and to examine uninterrupted
interactions with Commodore, the platform
was customized to operate in a 1000 liter tank
(Figure 6) and demonstrated to the public in
New York City, at The River Project from
August 19, 2014 to September 22, 2014 and at
the Brooklyn Children’s Museum from October
9, 2014 to January 19, 2015. In this platform,
the robotic fish was presented alongside
educational material that was created based
on the usability studies and interactions with
OUTLOOK ON FU TURE RESEARCH
To further expand on the degree of interactivity of Commodore, we are exploring natural user
FIGURE 7 Natural user interface
for controlling a robotic fish.
1 H. L. Ainsworth and S. E. Eaton, Formal, Non-formal
and Informal Learning in the Sciences. Calgary, Canada:
Onate Press, 2010.
2 J. Banks, K. Au, A. Ball, P. Bell, E. Gordon, K. Gutiérrez,
et al., “Learning in and out of school in diverse environ-
ments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep,“ The LIFE Center,
3 J. H. Falk and J. D. Balling, “The ;eld trip milieu: Learn-
ing and behavior as a function of contextual events,“
J. Educ. Res., vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 22-28, 1982.
4 C. Wilkinson, K. Bultitude, and E. Dawson, “Oh yes,
robots! People like robots; the robot people should
do something: perspectives and prospects in public
engagement with robotics,“ Sci. Commun., vol. 33, no. 3,
pp. 367-397, 2010.
5 D. P. Miller, I. R. Nourbakhsh, and R. Siegwart, “Robots
for education,“ in Springer Handbook of Robotics, ed
Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008, pp. 1283-1301.
6 I. Nourbakhsh, E. Hamner, E. Ayoob, E. Porter, B.
Dunlavey, D. Bernstein, et al., “The Personal Exploration
Rover: Educational assessment of a robotic exhibit for
informal learning venues,“ Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 22,
no. 4, pp. 777-791, 2006.
7 J. Yu, M. Wang, M. Tan, and J. Zhang, “Three-dimen-
sional swimming,“ IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 18,
no. 4, pp. 47-58, 2011.
8 J. Laut, S. Wright, O. Nov, and M. Por;ri, “Gowanus
Voyage: Where mechatronics, public art, community
members, and environmental science meet,“ IEEE Control
Syst., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 60-64, 2014.
9 Y. Terada and I. Yamamoto, “An animatronic system
including lifelike robotic ;sh,“ Proc. IEEE, vol. 92, no. 11,
pp. 1814-1820, 2004.
10 H. Hu, “Biologically inspired design of autonomous
robotic ;sh at Essex,“ in Proc. IEEE SMC UK-RI Chapter
Conf., She;eld, UK, 2006, pp. 3-8.
11 J. H. Falk, E. M. Reinhard, C. Vernon, K. Bron-nenkant, J. E. Heimlich, and N. L. Deans, Why zoos &
aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo
or aquarium. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos &
12 S. Allen, “Designs for learning: Studying science
museum exhibits that do more than entertain,“ Sci.
Educ., vol. 88, no. S1, pp. S17-S33, 2004.
13 B. Schneider and N. Cheslock, Measuring Results:
14 P. Phamduy, R. LeGrand, and M. Por;ri, “Design and
Gaining Insight on Behavior Change Strategies and Evalu-
ation Methods from Environmental Education, Museum,
Health, and Social Marketing Programs. San Francisco, CA:
Coevolution Institute, 2003.
characterization of an interactive iDevice-controlled
robotic ;sh for informal science education,“ IEEE Robot.
Automat. Mag., accepted for publication, 2015.
15 D. S. Barrett, M. S. Triantafyllou, D. K. P. Yue, M. A.
Grosenbaugh, and M. J. Wolfgang, “Drag reduction in
;sh-like locomotion,“ J. Fluid Mech., vol. 392, no. 1, pp.
16 H. M. J. Hsu, “The potential of Kinect in education,“
Int. J. Inform. Educ. Technol., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 365-370,
17 T. M. Alisi, A. Del Bimbo, and A. Valli, “Natural inter-
faces to enhance visitors' experiences,“ IEEE Multimedia,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 80-85, 2005.
18 K. Johnson, J. Pavleas, and J. Chang, “Kinecting
to mathematics through embodied interactions,“
Computer, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 101-104, 2013.
19 B. Lange, C. Y. Chang, E. Suma, B. Newman, A. S.
Rizzo, and M. Bolas, “Development and evaluation of low
cost game-based balance rehabilitation tool using the
Microsoft Kinect sensor,“ in Proc. Ann. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng.
Med. Biol. Soc., Boston, MA, USA, 2011.
At these events, data from 224 visitors were recorded: users
spent on average 85 seconds in the manual mode, 69 seconds in
the semi-autonomous mode, and 5 seconds in the autonomous
mode. Due to the nature of the events, the popularity of the
exhibit amongst youngsters, and the high visitor traffic, when
opportunity arose to use the iDevice application, visitors
were inclined to select an interactive control mode over the
autonomous, passive mode.