Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions

By Jean C. Scholtz. 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the, 2003

419 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Social Psychology, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a0d6c6bf76a09db8773268645a6d76faf399c476

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Social Psychology

In Surgery

Citations in the corpus

Human–robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: a literature review of the decade 2008–2017 (2019, background): “These applications include an interactive conversation robot (verbal and/or non-verbal cues [24]), which collects multi-modal data and links with human partners [54] (Figure 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].”
Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction (2014, background): “Indeed, an important distinction between the two conceptualizations of autonomy is the role of the robot and the human in the interaction (Johnson, et al., 2010; Murphy & Schreckenghost, 2013; Scholtz, 2002a; Scholtz, 2002b).”
Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction (2007, neutral): “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).”
The Perception And Measurement Of Human-robot Trust (2013, background): “Scholtz (2003) has suggested that the type of interaction, the number of systems a user may interact with, the environment, and the physical nature of the robot (e.g., complex, dynamic control systems; exhibition of autonomy and cognition) help differentiate human-robot 3 interaction from more…”
Human–robot interaction review and challenges on task planning and programming (2016, methodology): “The HRI has been concerning the research community as a ﬁ eld of interaction and communication between humans and robots (Fong, Thorpe, and Bauer 2003; Scholtz 2003; Moniz 2013; Mayer et al. 2014).”
Whose job is it anyway? a study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task (2004, background): “This finding is based on the fact that over half (54%) of the statements made by the five operators were coded as content associated with situation awareness (Levels 1 and 2), an important aspect of human-robot interaction (Scholtz, 2003).”
Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy (2004, background): “Scholtz [8] describes five roles that a human may have when interacting with a robot: supervisor , operator , teammate , mechanic/programmer , and bystander .”
Common metrics for human-robot interaction (2006, background): “Clearly, the level of “awareness” depends on the level of autonomy that the robot is expected to achieve and the role(s) played by the human(s) [16].”
Human-Robot Collaboration: A Literature Review and Augmented Reality Approach in Design (2008, methodology): “Interaction with Robonaut occurs in the three roles outlined in the work on human‐robot interaction by Scholtz (Scholtz 2003): 1) remote human operator, 2) a monitor and 3) a coworker.”
Human–Agent Teaming for Multirobot Control: A Review of Human Factors Issues (2014, background): “The roles assigned to each refer to the general functions performed by each partner such as overall supervision by the human and algorithmic optimization by the agent with the understanding that functions may be reassigned during emergencies [26], [27].”
Comparative Study on the Educational Use of Home Robots for Children (2008, neutral): “Also, Scholtz (2003) argues that HRI requires a different evaluation model to those in HCI or HMI, and proposes five roles of interaction (i.e. supervisor, operator, mechanic, peer and bystander) in HRI by applying Norman's (1986) HCI model to take account of mixed, dynamic and self-motivating…”