Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction

By Leila Takayama, Caroline Pantofaru. 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2009

440 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Social Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c38ba14d6e538d32e96d498915398645fa0fb6ba

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 Human-Computer Interaction

Citations in the corpus

Core Challenges of Social Robot Navigation: A Survey (2021, background): “Takayama and Pantofaru [238] studied the spatial signals around humans in both human-approach-robot and robot-approach-human scenarios.”
A Survey of Methods for Safe Human-Robot Interaction (2017, methodology): “An alternate approach by Unhelkar et al. (2015) utilizes biomechanical turn indicators for motion prediction.”
Toward seamless human-robot handovers (2013, background): “Takayama and Pantofaru (2009) explored how personal space varies when approaching and being approached by a robot based on the human’s experience with robots and where the robot looks during the approach.”
The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents (2011, background): “Humans also have different preferences for personal space with a robot based on the robot’s head orientation and the human’s personal characteristics, such as agreeability and neuroticism [22, 25].”
Human-aware robot navigation: A survey (2013, background): “Several authors investigate improved approach directions to initiate explicit interaction [1, 10, 17, 43, 46, 63, 93], suggesting that the discomfort is caused by the violation of a social rule, rather than a violation of a comfort distance.”
Robot navigation in dense human crowds: Statistical models and experimental studies of human–robot cooperation (2015, background): “Mead et al. (2011) and Takayama and Pantofaru (2009) developed various robots in accordance with proxemic rules, while in Mead and Matarić (2012) a probabilistic framework for identifying specific proxemic indicators is developed.”
Service robot implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda (2019, background): “Other technical design aspects, such as material and size, might be relevant too, especially to avoid any sense of physical risk among consumers (Takayama & Pantofaru, 2009).”