An atlas of physical human-robot interaction

By Agostino De Santis, Bruno Siciliano, Alessandro De Luca, Antonio Bicchi. 2008

858 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Control and Systems Engineering, Social Psychology, Surgery

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

In Surgery

Citations in the corpus

Learning from Physical Human Corrections, One Feature at a Time (2018, background): “Traditionally, the human’s interactions are treated in one of three ways [9]: as disturbances to be rejected [5, 12, 23], as collisions to be detected and avoided [4], or as operator signals to be followed by switching into a compliant mode [8, 10, 14].”
Survey on human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: Safety, intuitive interfaces and applications (2018, background): “As reported in [36], both safety and dependability are the unified optimality criteria for future technical challenges in the design of robots for human environments.”
Imitation Learning of Positional and Force Skills Demonstrated via Kinesthetic Teaching and Haptic Input (2011, methodology): “When direct physical contact is possible, kinesthetic teaching oﬀers a user-friendly and intuitive method to demonstrate new skills to a robot by manually guiding the robot’s arms through the motion [1].”
A survey of Tactile Human-Robot Interactions (2010, neutral): “An overview of HRI theory may be found in [6], with a focus on physical interactions being provided in [7].”
Robot Collisions: A Survey on Detection, Isolation, and Identification (2017, background): “Achieving this robot behavior is the global objective of physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) research [1], [2].”
A Review of Intent Detection, Arbitration, and Communication Aspects of Shared Control for Physical Human-Robot Interaction (2018, background): “Moreover, we would point out that in some sense, the (human) master and (robot) slave arbitration should always be present within shared control, because, for safety purposes, the human must always retain final authority during situations where the human and robot are in conflict [9].”
Kinova Modular Robot Arms for Service Robotics Applications (2017, background): “In order for this new collaboration to be possible, robots must be safe, intuitive and have a better understanding of their environment (De Santis et al, 2008; Haddadin and Croft, 2016).”
Human–robot interaction review and challenges on task planning and programming (2016, methodology): “The PHRIENDS project focused on the safe physical HRI for light weight robots, including the service robots (De Santis et al. 2008; Haddadin et al. 2009).”
Collaborative manufacturing with physical human–robot interaction (2016, background): “In this context, it becomes indispensable to define safety and dependability metrics [16, 17, 18, 19].”
Imitation Learning (2017, background): “Naturally safety is a chief concern in such applications [De Santis et al. 2008; Ikemoto et al. 2012], and measures need to be taken to prevent injury of the human partners and ensure their safety.”
Learning Robot Objectives from Physical Human Interaction (2017, methodology): “When the robot is not updating its estimate θ̂, then ξ R = ξ t−1 R , and our solution reduces to using impedance control to track an unchanging trajectory [2, 19].”
Working Together: A Review on Safe Human-Robot Collaboration in Industrial Environments (2017, background): “Previous review articles in the area of safety in humanrobot collaboration have been published [9]–[11].”
Human–robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: a literature review of the decade 2008–2017 (2019, background): “Additionally, both aspects, fault handling and fault-tolerant control, have to be considered as fundamental functionalities [257–259].”