Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy

By Holly A. Yanco, Jill L. Drury. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2004

407 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Control and Systems Engineering, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/03d7422b54ecabb4eb00d087a1cc51893365f627

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Control and Systems Engineering

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Survey on human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: Safety, intuitive interfaces and applications (2018, background): “In particular, a detailed taxonomy was proposed in [29], where HRC was classified in eleven categories, including task type, robot morphology, interaction roles, time, and space.”
Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction (2007, background): “The classification and evaluation of HRIs with respect to the application area is an active area of research (e.g. Yanco & Drury 2002, 2004; Scholtz 2003; Steinfeld et al. 2006).”
Symbiotic human-robot collaborative assembly (2019, background): “HRC has been a subject of systematic analysis and classification efforts both in the general sense [261] and also with a special concern on production and assembly [256].”
A survey of Tactile Human-Robot Interactions (2010, unknown): “[9] potential metrics, and Yanco and Drury [10] a proposed taxonomy for the analysis of HRI applications.”
Exploring the use of tangible user interfaces for human-robot interaction: a comparative study (2008, methodology): “These two measures, autonomy and intervention, sum up to 100% [34].”
Human–robot interaction review and challenges on task planning and programming (2016, methodology): “The layout of an HRI is described in Yanco and Drury (2004), where the role of a human interacting with a robot is multiple; as supervisor, operator, team-mate, mechanic/programmer and bystander (Scholtz 2003).”
Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction (2014, methodology): “…in HRI (Feil-Seifer, Skinner, & Mataric, 2007; Goodrich & Olsen, 2003; Goodrich & Schultz, 2007; Huang, Pavek, Albus, & Messina, 2005; Thrun, 2004; Yanco & Drury, 2004) and automation (Endsley & Kaber, 1999; Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000; Sheridan & Verplank, 1978), they have not…”
From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey (2014, methodology): “Considering human-robot physical proximity, the taxonomy presented by [107] deﬁne six modes: none, avoiding, passing, following, approaching and touching.”