Understanding On-the-Fly End-User Robot Programming
Pages 2468 - 2480
Abstract
Novel end-user programming (EUP) tools enable on-the-fly (i.e., spontaneous, easy, and rapid) creation of interactions with robotic systems. These tools are expected to empower users in determining system behavior, although very little is understood about how end users perceive, experience, and use these systems. In this paper, we seek to address this gap by investigating end-user experience with on-the-fly robot EUP. We trained 21 end users to use an existing on-the-fly EUP tool, asked them to create robot interactions for four scenarios, and assessed their overall experience. Our findings provide insight into how these systems should be designed to better support end-user experience with on-the-fly EUP, focusing on user interaction with an automatic program synthesizer that resolves imprecise user input, the use of multimodal inputs to express user intent, and the general process of programming a robot.
Supplemental Material
ZIP File
A zip file containing the teaser preview video and accompanying subtitle file.
- Download
- 8.47 MB
ZIP File
A zip file containing the supplementary video and accompanying subtitle file.
- Download
- 14.46 MB
References
[1]
Gopika Ajaykumar, Maureen Steele, and Chien-Ming Huang. 2021. A survey on end-user robot programming. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 8 (2021), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3466819
[2]
Sonya Alexandrova, Zachary Tatlock, and Maya Cakmak. 2015. RoboFlow: A flow-based visual programming language for mobile manipulation tasks. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 5537–5544. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139973
[3]
Patricia Alves-Oliveira, Kai Mihata, Raida Karim, Elin A Bjorling, and Maya Cakmak. 2022. FLEX-SDK: An Open-Source Software Development Kit for Creating Social Robots. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545707
[4]
Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, 2019. Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
[5]
Ian Arawjo, Chelse Swoopes, Priyan Vaithilingam, Martin Wattenberg, and Elena Glassman. 2023. ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09128 (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.09128
[6]
Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. 2009. Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. J. Usability Studies 4, 3 (may 2009), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.5555/2835587.2835589
[7]
Barbara Rita Barricelli, Fabio Cassano, Daniela Fogli, and Antonio Piccinno. 2019. End-user development, end-user programming and end-user software engineering: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software 149 (2019), 101–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.11.041
[8]
Jenay M Beer, Arthur D Fisk, and Wendy A Rogers. 2014. Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. Journal of human-robot interaction 3, 2 (2014), 74. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.2.Beer
[9]
William L Benzon. 2023. Discursive Competence in ChatGPT, Part 1: Talking with Dragons. (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4318832
[10]
Sara Beschi, Daniela Fogli, and Fabio Tampalini. 2019. CAPIRCI: a multi-modal system for collaborative robot programming. In End-User Development: 7th International Symposium, IS-EUD 2019, Hatfield, UK, July 10–12, 2019, Proceedings 7. Springer, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24781-2_4
[11]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[12]
John Brooke. 1996. SUS: A ‘Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry 189, 3 (1996), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411
[13]
Nina Buchina, Sherin Kamel, and Emilia Barakova. 2016. Design and evaluation of an end-user friendly tool for robot programming. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745109
[14]
Nina G Buchina, Paula Sterkenburg, Tino Lourens, and Emilia I Barakova. 2019. Natural language interface for programming sensory-enabled scenarios for human-robot interaction. In 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956248
[15]
Yuanzhi Cao, Tianyi Wang, Xun Qian, Pawan S Rao, Manav Wadhawan, Ke Huo, and Karthik Ramani. 2019. GhostAR: A time-space editor for embodied authoring of human-robot collaborative task with augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3347902
[16]
Yuanzhi Cao, Zhuangying Xu, Fan Li, Wentao Zhong, Ke Huo, and Karthik Ramani. 2019. V. ra: An in-situ visual authoring system for robot-iot task planning with augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 on designing interactive systems conference. 1059–1070. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322278
[17]
Elizabeth Cha, Anca D Dragan, and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2015. Perceived robot capability. In 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333656
[18]
Tathagata Chakraborti, Sarath Sreedharan, Sachin Grover, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2019. Plan explanations as model reconciliation–an empirical study. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2019.8673193
[19]
Michael Jae-Yoon Chung and Maya Cakmak. 2020. Iterative Repair of Social Robot Programs from Implicit User Feedback via Bayesian Inference. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems. Corvalis, Oregon, USA. https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2020.XVI.028
[20]
Michael Jae-Yoon Chung, Justin Huang, Leila Takayama, Tessa Lau, and Maya Cakmak. 2016. Iterative design of a system for programming socially interactive service robots. In Social Robotics: 8th International Conference, ICSR 2016, Kansas City, MO, USA, November 1-3, 2016 Proceedings 8. Springer, 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_90
[21]
Enrique Coronado, Dominique Deuff, Pamela Carreno-Medrano, Leimin Tian, Dana Kulić, Shanti Sumartojo, Fulvio Mastrogiovanni, and Gentiane Venture. 2021. Towards a modular and distributed end-user development framework for human-robot interaction. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 12675–12692. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3051605
[22]
Andrew Correa, Matthew R Walter, Luke Fletcher, Jim Glass, Seth Teller, and Randall Davis. 2010. Multimodal interaction with an autonomous forklift. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2010.5453188
[23]
Luigi De Russis and Fulvio Corno. 2015. Homerules: A tangible end-user programming interface for smart homes. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2109–2114. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732795
[24]
Maxwell Forbes, Rajesh PN Rao, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Maya Cakmak. 2015. Robot programming by demonstration with situated spatial language understanding. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2014–2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139462
[25]
Olivier Friard and Marco Gamba. 2016. BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in ecology and evolution 7, 11 (2016), 1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12584
[26]
Yuxiang Gao and Chien-Ming Huang. 2019. PATI: a projection-based augmented table-top interface for robot programming. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302326
[27]
Dylan Glas, Satoru Satake, Takayuki Kanda, and Norihiro Hagita. 2011. An Interaction Design Framework for Social Robots. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems. Los Angeles, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2011.VII.014
[28]
Hassan Gomaa and Douglas BH Scott. 1981. Prototyping as a tool in the specification of user requirements. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering. 333–342. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/800078.802546
[29]
Judith Good. 1999. VPLs and novice program comprehension: How do different languages compare?. In Proceedings 1999 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages. IEEE, 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1109/VL.1999.795912
[30]
Javi F Gorostiza and Miguel A Salichs. 2011. End-user programming of a social robot by dialog. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 59, 12 (2011), 1102–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2011.07.009
[31]
Thomas R. G. Green and Marian Petre. 1996. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 7, 2 (1996), 131–174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009
[32]
Gaoping Huang, Pawan S Rao, Meng-Han Wu, Xun Qian, Shimon Y Nof, Karthik Ramani, and Alexander J Quinn. 2020. Vipo: Spatial-visual programming with functions for robot-IoT workflows. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376670
[33]
Justin Huang and Maya Cakmak. 2015. Supporting mental model accuracy in trigger-action programming. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Osaka, Japan) (UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2805830
[34]
Justin Huang and Maya Cakmak. 2017. Code3: A system for end-to-end programming of mobile manipulator robots for novices and experts. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020215
[35]
Ellen Jiang, Kristen Olson, Edwin Toh, Alejandra Molina, Aaron Donsbach, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2022. Promptmaker: Prompt-based prototyping with large language models. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503564
[36]
Rajeswari Hita Kambhamettu, Michael Jae-Yoon Chung, Vinitha Ranganeni, and Patrícia Alves-Oliveira. 2021. Collecting Insights about How Novice Programmers Naturally Express Programs for Robots. Plateau Workshop. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/19799197.v1
[37]
Neil W Kassel and Brian A Malloy. 2003. An approach to automate requirements elicitation and specification. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Applications. Citeseer, 3–5.
[38]
Amy J Ko, Robin Abraham, Laura Beckwith, Alan Blackwell, Margaret Burnett, Martin Erwig, Chris Scaffidi, Joseph Lawrance, Henry Lieberman, Brad Myers, 2011. The state of the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 43, 3 (2011), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/1922649.1922658
[39]
J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics (1977), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
[40]
Nicola Leonardi, Marco Manca, Fabio Paternò, and Carmen Santoro. 2019. Trigger-action programming for personalising humanoid robot behaviour. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300675
[41]
Toby Jia-Jun Li, Marissa Radensky, Justin Jia, Kirielle Singarajah, Tom M. Mitchell, and Brad A. Myers. 2019. PUMICE: A Multi-Modal Agent that Learns Concepts and Conditionals from Natural Language and Demonstrations. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (New Orleans, LA, USA) (UIST ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 577–589. https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3347899
[42]
Henry Lieberman, Fabio Paternò, Markus Klann, and Volker Wulf. 2006. End-user development: An emerging paradigm. In End user development. Springer, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5386-X_1
[43]
Greg Little, Robert C Miller, Victoria H Chou, Michael Bernstein, Tessa Lau, and Allen Cypher. 2010. Sloppy programming. In No Code Required. Elsevier, 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381541-5.00015-8
[44]
Kexi Liu, Daisuke Sakamoto, Masahiko Inami, and Takeo Igarashi. 2011. Roboshop: multi-layered sketching interface for robot housework assignment and management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979035
[45]
Fei Lu, Xinran Wang, and Guohui Tian. 2012. The structure and application of intelligent space system oriented to home service robot. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation. 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICInfA.2012.6246820
[46]
Gabriella Lucci and Fabio Paternò. 2014. Understanding end-user development of context-dependent applications in smartphones. In Human-Centered Software Engineering: 5th IFIP WG 13.2 International Conference, HCSE 2014, Paderborn, Germany, September 16-18, 2014. Proceedings 5. Springer, 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44811-3_11
[47]
Matt MacLaurin. 2009. Kodu: end-user programming and design for games. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on foundations of digital games. xviii–xix. https://doi.org/10.1145/1536513.1536516
[48]
OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 arxiv:2303.08774 [cs.CL]
[49]
Lidiia Ostyakova, Kseniia PetukhovaO, Veronika Smilga, and Dilyara ZharikovaO. 2023. Linguistic Annotation Generation with ChatGPT: a Synthetic Dataset of Speech Functions for Discourse Annotation of Casual Conversations. In Proceedings of the International Conference “Dialogue, Vol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.28995/2075-7182-2023-22-386-403
[50]
David Porfirio, Evan Fisher, Allison Sauppé, Aws Albarghouthi, and Bilge Mutlu. 2019. Bodystorming human-robot interactions. In proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM symposium on user Interface software and technology. 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3347957
[51]
David Porfirio, Mark Roberts, and Laura M. Hiatt. 2024. Goal-Oriented End-User Programming of Robots. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Boulder, CO, USA) (HRI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634974
[52]
David Porfirio, Laura Stegner, Maya Cakmak, Allison Sauppé, Aws Albarghouthi, and Bilge Mutlu. 2023. Sketching Robot Programs On the Fly. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1145/3568162.3576991
[53]
David J Porfirio, Laura Stegner, Maya Cakmak, Allison Sauppé, Aws Albarghouthi, and Bilge Mutlu. 2021. Figaro: A tabletop authoring environment for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3446864
[54]
Emmanuel Pot, Jérôme Monceaux, Rodolphe Gelin, and Bruno Maisonnier. 2009. Choregraphe: a graphical tool for humanoid robot programming. In RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326209
[55]
Xavier Puig, Kevin Ra, Marko Boben, Jiaman Li, Tingwu Wang, Sanja Fidler, and Antonio Torralba. 2018. Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8494–8502. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.07011
[56]
Vinitha Ranganeni, Vy Nguyen, Henry Evans, Jane Evans, Julian Mehu, Samuel Olatunji, Wendy Rogers, Aaron Edsinger, Charles Kemp, and Maya Cakmak. 2024. Robots for Humanity: In-Home Deployment of Stretch RE2. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 1299–1301. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610978.3641114
[57]
Daisuke Sakamoto, Koichiro Honda, Masahiko Inami, and Takeo Igarashi. 2009. Sketch and run: a stroke-based interface for home robots. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518733
[58]
Andrew Schoen, Nathan White, Curt Henrichs, Amanda Siebert-Evenstone, David Shaffer, and Bilge Mutlu. 2022. CoFrame: A System for Training Novice Cabot Programmers. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889345
[59]
Emmanuel Senft, Michael Hagenow, Kevin Welsh, Robert Radwin, Michael Zinn, Michael Gleicher, and Bilge Mutlu. 2021. Task-level authoring for remote robot teleoperation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2021), 707149. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.707149
[60]
Emmanuel Senft, Satoru Satake, and Takayuki Kanda. 2020. Would You Mind Me if I Pass by You? Socially-Appropriate Behaviour for an Omni-based Social Robot in Narrow Environment. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374812
[61]
David Smith. 2012. Planning as an iterative process. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 26. 2180–2185. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8449
[62]
Laura Stegner and Bilge Mutlu. 2022. Designing for Caregiving: Integrating Robotic Assistance in Senior Living Communities. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1934–1947. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533536
[63]
Laura Stegner, Emmanuel Senft, and Bilge Mutlu. 2023. Situated participatory design: A method for in situ design of robotic interaction with older adults. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580893
[64]
Maj Stenmark, Mathias Haage, and Elin Anna Topp. 2017. Simplified programming of re-usable skills on a safe industrial robot: Prototype and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020227
[65]
Leila Takayama. 2012. Perspectives on agency interacting with and through personal robots. In Human-computer interaction: the agency perspective. Springer, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25691-2_8
[66]
Seth Teller, Matthew R Walter, Matthew Antone, Andrew Correa, Randall Davis, Luke Fletcher, Emilio Frazzoli, Jim Glass, Jonathan P How, Albert S Huang, 2010. A voice-commandable robotic forklift working alongside humans in minimally-prepared outdoor environments. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509238
[67]
John Gregory Trafton and Brian J Reiser. 1991. Providing natural representations to facilitate novices’ understanding in a new domain: Forward and backward reasoning in programming. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 923–927.
[68]
Jim Van Buren and David Cook. 1998. Experiences in the adoption of requirements engineering technologies. Crosstalk-The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 11, 12 (1998), 3–10.
[69]
Nick Walker, Yu-Tang Peng, and Maya Cakmak. 2019. Neural semantic parsing with anonymization for command understanding in general-purpose service robots. In Robot World Cup. Springer, 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35699-6_26
[70]
Zihao Wang, Shaofei Cai, Guanzhou Chen, Anji Liu, Xiaojian (Shawn) Ma, and Yitao Liang. 2023. Describe, Explain, Plan and Select: Interactive Planning with LLMs Enables Open-World Multi-Task Agents. 36 (2023), 34153–34189. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/6b8dfb8c0c12e6fafc6c256cb08a5ca7-Paper-Conference.pdf
[71]
Jeffrey Wong and Jason I Hong. 2007. Making mashups with marmite: towards end-user programming for the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 1435–1444. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240842
[72]
Bahram Zarrin and Hubert Baumeister. 2015. Towards separation of concerns in flow-based programming. In Companion Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Modularity. 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/2735386.2736752
Index Terms
- Understanding On-the-Fly End-User Robot Programming
Recommendations
Goal-Oriented End-User Programming of Robots
HRI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionEnd-user programming (EUP) tools must balance user control with the robot's ability to plan and act autonomously. Many existing task-oriented EUP tools enforce a specific level of control, e.g., by requiring that users hand-craft detailed sequences of ...
A Survey on End-User Robot Programming
As robots interact with a broader range of end-users, end-user robot programming has helped democratize robot programming by empowering end-users who may not have experience in robot programming to customize robots to meet their individual contextual ...
End-User Programming of Robot-Assisted Physical Training Activities through Behaviour-Driven Development
HRI '24: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionIn this paper, we introduce an end-user programming approach for allowing physical trainers to program robot-assisted physical training activities without the assistance of a robotics engineer. The approach relies on a textual domain-specific language (...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2024
3616 pages
ISBN:9798400705830
DOI:10.1145/3643834
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 01 July 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
DIS '24
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,158 of 4,684 submissions, 25%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 180Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)180
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)46
Reflects downloads up to 09 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatGet Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in