Assisting MoCap-Based Teleoperation of Robot Arm using Augmented Reality Visualisations

Antony Chacon; Jiahe Pan; Qiushi Zhou; Wafa Johal

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Assisting MoCap-Based Teleoperation of Robot Arm using Augmented Reality Visualisations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A human-like AR arm overlaid on a robot helps operators learn MoCap teleoperation.

desk verdict A competent, well-scoped pair of AR teleoperation studies, but the headline learning claim outruns the evidence: only self-report and preference data support it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05153 v1 pith:UBAAPLND submitted 2025-01-09 cs.RO cs.HC

Qiushi Zhou , Antony Chacon , Jiahe Pan , Wafa Johal This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.HC

keywords teleoperationrobotarmaugmentedrealitymotioncapturehuman-robotinteractionNASA-TLXvirtualoverlaylearningaid

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether an augmented-reality visualisation can bridge the mismatch between a human operator's arm and a seven-degree-of-freedom robot arm during motion-capture teleoperation. It reports that a virtual human-like arm rendered in AR, aligned with the physical robot's orientation, is the configuration users prefer and can be overlaid directly on the robot. In a posture-matching evaluation, this overlay significantly reduced perceived physical demand, effort, and frustration, and most participants described it as a learning aid for the first trials rather than an always-on guide. If these results hold, AR arm overlays offer a low-cost way to onboard novice teleoperators without changing the control hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the AR arm overlay: a human-like virtual arm rendered in HoloLens 2 alongside or on the physical Franka Research 3 arm, driven by the same joint angles as the robot. Those joint angles come from a mapping of OptiTrack-tracked shoulder, elbow, and wrist positions to the robot's seven joints, for example $\theta_2 = \operatorname{atan2}(z_{\text{upper}}, x_{\text{upper}})$ and $\theta_4 = \arccos\left(-\frac{v_{\text{upper}} \cdot v_{\text{forearm}}}{|v_{\text{upper}}| |v_{\text{forearm}}|}\right)$. The virtual arm thus shows the operator the robot's current configuration in a body-shaped, human-oriented form, which mediates the orientation and appearance inconsistencies that make MoCap teleoperation hard to anticipate.

What would settle it

Run a transfer test in which two groups practice with and without the AR arm, then perform posture-matching with the overlay removed; if movement time and error are no better for the AR-trained group, the claim that the overlay teaches the control mapping is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that visualising a human-like virtual arm in AR, in the same orientation and position as the physical robot, helps users learn the mapping between their own arm movements and the robot's joint rotations. Study 1 established the preferred configuration: a human-like appearance and a vertical orientation aligned with the robot. Study 2 found statistically significant reductions in perceived physical demand, effort, and frustration when the AR arm was present, while movement time did not differ significantly; interview data indicate the benefit was strongest while learning the control and faded as the task became familiar.

Load-bearing premise

The learning benefit rests on self-reported NASA-TLX subscales and interview comments rather than on an objective measure of skill acquisition, so if perceived ease does not track actual learning, the conclusion weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Teleoperation systems for anthropomorphic robot arms can use a human-like AR arm overlay as an onboarding aid, reducing the perceived physical demand, effort, and frustration of novice operators.
The overlay appears most valuable in the first trials; designers should treat it as a learning tool that can be dismissed once the user understands the mapping rather than as an always-on display.
Human-like appearance and alignment with the robot's orientation are the configuration users prefer, and this configuration permits overlaying the virtual arm directly on the physical robot.
No significant movement-time improvement was found, so the benefit is likely in ease and confidence of control rather than in raw speed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural product extension is an adaptive overlay that fades out after the operator has had enough practice, since several participants said the visual reference became redundant or distracting once they learned the mapping.
Because the learning evidence is subjective, a direct test would compare retention or transfer performance after training with and without the AR arm; this is a testable next step the paper does not report.
The same overlay approach could generalise to other anthropomorphic manipulators whose joint structure mirrors a human arm, as long as the orientation mapping is recomputed for the new robot.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper's contribution is a concrete AR visualization design for MoCap teleoperation—a human-like virtual arm overlaid on the physical robot in the same orientation—and two within-subject studies about it. The visual design is genuinely new in the cited AR-HRI work, and the studies are carefully organized: two tasks (target reaching, posture matching), 24 participants each, counterbalanced ordering, NASA-TLX, and structured interviews. The system description is clear, and the authors are appropriately careful in Study 1, where they do not claim performance benefits and instead justify choosing HV via ranking and qualitative preference. The related-work placement is reasonable; it covers AR motion intent and remote teleoperation without inflating novelty.

What it does well: Study 1 isolates appearance (human vs robot) and orientation (horizontal vs vertical), and Study 2 tests the chosen configuration. The strongest empirical result is significant reductions on three NASA-TLX subscales—physical demand, effort, frustration—with the AR overlay. That is a real, if modest, perceived-workload effect that designers can use.

The soft spots are real but mostly addressable. The main one is exactly what the stress-test note says: the abstract and conclusion generalize to "helped users learn the control," but no retention or transfer measure was taken. Study 2 shows no significant movement-time benefit; the only objective outcome in the paper does not support the learning claim. The order-effect observation in Figure 6 (right) is descriptive, not the result of an interaction test. Six participants saying the arm helped only at the beginning is compatible with a transient reference aid. So the learning conclusion rests on subjective feedback, which is a load-bearing gap for the paper's framing—though not for the narrower workload claim.

Two smaller issues: the three significant TLX subscales are not corrected for multiple comparisons, and effect sizes and confidence intervals are missing. Neither sinks the workload result, but both should be addressed. The kinematics section leaves some details implicit, but nothing there looks wrong.

Who this is for: HRI and teleoperation researchers, especially people building AR assistance for robot control. It is a useful data point: a humanoid AR overlay can improve perceived workload even when it does not measurably speed users up. I would not cite it as evidence of learning, but I would cite it as evidence of a workload benefit and as a concrete design to test.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The studies are properly run, the design space is sensible, and the gaps are fixable—by re-analyzing existing data (interaction tests, corrected TLX) and by either softening the learning claim or adding a transfer task. A serious referee would make this a better paper rather than send it back unresolved.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a MoCap-based teleoperation system for a 7-DOF robot arm with an augmented reality (AR) visualization of a virtual arm, and presents two user studies. Study 1 compares four visualisation conditions (human-like/robot-like appearance crossed with horizontal/vertical orientation plus a baseline) in a target-reaching task and finds no significant differences in movement time or NASA-TLX, but selects the human-like vertical (HV) overlay based on user preference rankings and qualitative feedback. Study 2 evaluates HV against a no-AR baseline in a posture-matching task, reporting no significant effect of visualisation on movement time but significant reductions in three NASA-TLX subscales (physical demand, effort, frustration), and interprets interview comments and a visually observed order effect as evidence that the AR arm helped users learn the control. The paper concludes that the HV overlay reduced perceived workload and served mainly as a learning aid for novice users.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the work would be a useful systems contribution to AR-assisted teleoperation, with a working integration of OptiTrack, HoloLens 2, and a Franka Research 3 arm, and a systematic comparison of visualisation designs. The two-study design is sensible, and the qualitative data are rich. However, the central claim that the AR overlay 'helped users learn the control' is not supported by the objective measures reported: Study 2 found no significant movement-time benefit, and the interpretation of the order effect in Figure 6 (right) is based on visual inspection without a statistical test. The workload-reduction conclusions rest on unadjusted multiple comparisons among NASA-TLX subscales. These issues are load-bearing because the abstract and conclusion generalize beyond subjective preference to learning, which the data do not directly measure. The paper also omits a full specification of the joint-angle mapping, which limits reproducibility.

major comments (4)

[V.A and V.B] The claim that the AR arm 'helped users learn the control' is not supported by the reported objective data. Section V.A reports no statistically significant effect of Visualisation on Movement Time, and Section V.B's suggestion that 'experiencing the AR Arm first may have helped participants learn the control better' is based on an untested visual comparison in Figure 6 (right), not on a formal interaction or transfer analysis. The interview responses are self-report and are compatible with a transient reference aid rather than durable learning. Please either (a) report a formal test of the order/transfer effect, for example comparing No Arm performance in the second block between the two order groups, or (b) revise the abstract and conclusions to claim a perceived learning benefit or perceived usefulness as a learning aid, rather than that learning occurred.
[V.A] The three significant NASA-TLX subscales (Physical Demand, Effort, Frustration) are reported at p < .05 without any correction for multiple comparisons. Since six subscales are tested, a Bonferroni correction would require p < .0083; none of the reported values meet that threshold. The workload-reduction conclusion is load-bearing for Section V.B, so please report adjusted p-values, or justify the decision not to correct, and interpret the results accordingly.
[IV.B] The choice of HV as the 'optimal configuration' in Study 1 is based on user preference rankings and qualitative feedback, not on measured performance; Section IV.A reports no significant effects on movement time or NASA-TLX. Because only HV was carried forward to Study 2, the confirmatory evaluation does not compare alternative AR designs. The paper should state this limitation explicitly: the generalizability of the 'optimal configuration' claim is limited by the subjective selection criterion, and Study 2 only tests whether HV beats no-AR, not whether it beats other visualisation designs.
[III] The kinematics mapping is incompletely specified. Equations (1)-(5) define theta1, theta2, and theta4, but the determination of theta3, theta5, theta6, and theta7 is described only as 'we used the local rotation of these objects along the axes' and 'the relative orientations obtained directly from Unity.' This is not reproducible and is central to the MoCap-based teleoperation system. Please provide a complete, explicit mapping from the tracked marker data to all seven joint angles, or at least a clear algorithmic description.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and VI] The phrase 'helped users learn the control' in the abstract and the restatement in the conclusion overstate what the data support; please align these statements with the revised claims after addressing the major comments.
[IV] The sentence 'We calibrated HoloLens' built-in eye-tracker for each participant' is confusing because eye tracking is not reported in either study; this appears to be a spatial or display calibration and should be reworded.
[IV.B and V.B] The discussion sections rely on visual inspection of plots (e.g., Figure 6 right) and on counts of interview comments without a systematic qualitative analysis framework; consider presenting a simple thematic coding or at least a table of representative quotes with participant IDs.
[References] Reference [19] cites only 'California: San Jose State University, 2006' for the NASA-TLX; please cite the canonical source, Hart and Staveland (1988), and provide full bibliographic details.
[IV] The definition of the target ring parameters and the offsets for the AR visualisations would benefit from a clear statement of the coordinate frame (robot base, participant, or world) in which they are expressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the workload claim is an independent empirical result; the learning claim rests on self-report, which is an evidence-strength issue rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—that the AR arm reduced perceived physical demand, effort, and frustration—comes from a new within-subject experiment (Study 2) with NASA-TLX scores significantly affected by Visualisation. No fitted parameter is reused to generate this result, and no equation defines the outcome in terms of the input. Study 1's selection of the HV condition by user preference is a data-driven design choice, not a fitted parameter; Study 2's comparison of HV against no-AR is a separate confirmatory test. The broader 'helped users learn the control' claim is inferred from interview self-reports and an untested order-effect observation, which is a measurement-validity limitation (no objective retention/transfer measure), not a circular derivation. References [17]–[18] are prior task-design sources by the authors but are not load-bearing for the main claim; citing them for a target-reaching task does not make the argument circular. Hence no circular step can be quoted with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contains no mathematical derivation requiring fitted constants; the listed free parameters are experimental design choices. The axioms are the assumptions that make the user study interpretable, especially the validity of self-report measures and the correctness of the motion mapping. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

Target ring radius = R = 22.5 cm
Chosen through pilot testing to keep the reaching task comfortable; it is a task parameter, not a fitted theoretical constant, and does not affect the central claim.
AR visualization offsets = (-0.8,0.33,0.4), (-0.5,0.33,0.4), (-1,0.33,0.4) m for HH, HV, RH
Chosen by the experimenters to position the virtual arms; these could affect visibility and might confound condition comparisons, but they are not fitted to the outcome.
Posture matching tolerance = 5 cm
Chosen by the authors as the success threshold; it influences task difficulty but is not fitted to results.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The kinematic mapping from tracked human arm positions to FR3 joint angles (Eqs. 2-5) correctly reproduces the intended robot motion.
This mapping underpins the teleoperation; if wrong, the AR arm would not correspond to robot motion. Section III.
domain assumption NASA-TLX subscales and post-hoc interviews are valid proxies for the mental effort and learning gains of the control mapping.
Central conclusions rely on these self-report instruments. Section IV.A and V.A.
domain assumption The chosen AR offsets and target ring geometry keep the task within a comparable difficulty across conditions.
Conditions are compared through a single fixed target ring and fixed AR offsets; if these introduce confounds, conclusions about visualization preference are weakened. Section IV.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assisting MoCap-Based Teleoperation of Robot Arm using Augmented Reality Visualisations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UBAAPLND

@misc{pith2026250105153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assisting MoCap-Based Teleoperation of Robot Arm using Augmented Reality Visualisations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UBAAPLND}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05153}
}

read the original abstract

Teleoperating a robot arm involves the human operator positioning the robot's end-effector or programming each joint. Whereas humans can control their own arms easily by integrating visual and proprioceptive feedback, it is challenging to control an external robot arm in the same way, due to its inconsistent orientation and appearance. We explore teleoperating a robot arm through motion-capture (MoCap) of the human operator's arm with the assistance of augmented reality (AR) visualisations. We investigate how AR helps teleoperation by visualising a virtual reference of the human arm alongside the robot arm to help users understand the movement mapping. We found that the AR overlay of a humanoid arm on the robot in the same orientation helped users learn the control. We discuss findings and future work on MoCap-based robot teleoperation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05153 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** AR VISUALISATION conditions and apparatus: (a) Participant situated away from the robot; (b) HUMANHORIZONTAL arm in AR next to the physical robot; (c) HUMANVERTICAL; (d) ROBOTHORIZONTAL. replica of robot arm in the same orientation as the human arm. BASELINE: No AR visualisation rendered ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** S2 postures: a) Elbow up, wrist up; b) Elbow up, wrist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Research issues in teleoperator systems,

R. Pepper and J. Hightower, “Research issues in teleoperator systems,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting , vol. 28, pp. 803–807, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1984

work page 1984
[2]

Improving collocated robot teleoperation with augmented reality,

H. Hedayati, M. Walker, and D. Szafir, “Improving collocated robot teleoperation with augmented reality,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , HRI ’18, (New York, NY , USA), p. 78–86, Association for Computing Machinery, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

A human-like upper-limb motion planner: Generating naturalistic movements for humanoid robots,

G. Gulletta, E. C. e. Silva, W. Erlhagen, R. Meulenbroek, M. F. P. Costa, and E. Bicho, “A human-like upper-limb motion planner: Generating naturalistic movements for humanoid robots,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 1729881421998585, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Understand- ing social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism,

F. Hegel, S. Krach, T. Kircher, B. Wrede, and G. Sagerer, “Understand- ing social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism,” in RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 574–579, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

Anthro- pomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction,

J. Złotowski, D. Proudfoot, K. Yogeeswaran, and C. Bartneck, “Anthro- pomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 7, pp. 347–360, June 2015

work page 2015
[6]

A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction,

E. Roesler, D. Manzey, and L. Onnasch, “A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 58, p. eabj5425, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality for human-robot interaction: A survey and virtual design element taxonomy,

M. Walker, T. Phung, T. Chakraborti, T. Williams, and D. Szafir, “Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality for human-robot interaction: A survey and virtual design element taxonomy,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1–39, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

Augmented reality for robotics: A review,

Z. Makhataeva and H. A. Varol, “Augmented reality for robotics: A review,” Robotics, vol. 9, no. 2, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 19 references

[9]

Aug- mented reality and robotics: A survey and taxonomy for ar-enhanced human-robot interaction and robotic interfaces,

R. Suzuki, A. Karim, T. Xia, H. Hedayati, and N. Marquardt, “Aug- mented reality and robotics: A survey and taxonomy for ar-enhanced human-robot interaction and robotic interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’22, (New...

2022
[10]

Immersive augmented reality environment for the teleoperation of maintenance robots,

A. Yew, S. Ong, and A. Nee, “Immersive augmented reality environment for the teleoperation of maintenance robots,” Procedia Cirp , vol. 61, pp. 305–310, 2017

2017
[11]

Communicating and controlling robot arm motion intent through mixed-reality head-mounted displays,

E. Rosen, D. Whitney, E. Phillips, G. Chien, J. Tompkin, G. Konidaris, and S. Tellex, “Communicating and controlling robot arm motion intent through mixed-reality head-mounted displays,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 12-13, pp. 1513–1526, 2019

2019
[12]

Mind the arm: realtime visualization of robot motion intent in head-mounted augmented reality,

U. Gruenefeld, L. Pr ¨adel, J. Illing, T. Stratmann, S. Drolshagen, and M. Pfingsthorn, “Mind the arm: realtime visualization of robot motion intent in head-mounted augmented reality,” in Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2020 , MuC ’20, (New York, NY , USA), p. 259–266, Asso...

2020
[13]

Pinpointfly: An egocentric position-control drone interface using mobile ar,

L. Chen, K. Takashima, K. Fujita, and Y . Kitamura, “Pinpointfly: An egocentric position-control drone interface using mobile ar,” in Pro- ceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, (New York, NY , USA), Association for Computing Machin...

2021
[14]

Interactive robot programing using mixed reality,

M. Ostanin and A. Klimchik, “Interactive robot programing using mixed reality,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 51, no. 22, pp. 50–55, 2018. 12th IFAC Symposium on Robot Control SYROCO 2018

2018
[15]

Benchmarks for aerial manipulation,

A. Suarez, V . M. Vega, M. Fernandez, G. Heredia, and A. Ollero, “Benchmarks for aerial manipulation,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2650–2657, 2020

2020
[16]

Benchmark- ing structured policies and policy optimization for real-world dexterous object manipulation,

N. Funk, C. Schaff, R. Madan, T. Yoneda, J. U. De Jesus, J. Watson, E. K. Gordon, F. Widmaier, S. Bauer, S. S. Srinivasa,et al., “Benchmark- ing structured policies and policy optimization for real-world dexterous object manipulation,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 1,...

2021
[17]

Engaging participants during selection studies in virtual reality,

D. Yu, Q. Zhou, B. Tag, T. Dingler, E. Velloso, and J. Goncalves, “Engaging participants during selection studies in virtual reality,” in 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pp. 500–509, 2020

2020
[18]

Reflected reality: Augmented reality through the mirror,

Q. Zhou, B. V . Syiem, B. Li, J. Goncalves, and E. Velloso, “Reflected reality: Augmented reality through the mirror,” Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., vol. 7, Jan. 2024

2024
[19]

Development of NASA TLX: Result of empirical and theoretical research,

S. G. Hart, “Development of NASA TLX: Result of empirical and theoretical research,” California: San Jose State University , 2006

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Research issues in teleoperator systems,

R. Pepper and J. Hightower, “Research issues in teleoperator systems,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting , vol. 28, pp. 803–807, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1984

work page 1984

[2] [2]

Improving collocated robot teleoperation with augmented reality,

H. Hedayati, M. Walker, and D. Szafir, “Improving collocated robot teleoperation with augmented reality,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , HRI ’18, (New York, NY , USA), p. 78–86, Association for Computing Machinery, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

A human-like upper-limb motion planner: Generating naturalistic movements for humanoid robots,

G. Gulletta, E. C. e. Silva, W. Erlhagen, R. Meulenbroek, M. F. P. Costa, and E. Bicho, “A human-like upper-limb motion planner: Generating naturalistic movements for humanoid robots,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 1729881421998585, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Understand- ing social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism,

F. Hegel, S. Krach, T. Kircher, B. Wrede, and G. Sagerer, “Understand- ing social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism,” in RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 574–579, 2008

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Anthro- pomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction,

J. Złotowski, D. Proudfoot, K. Yogeeswaran, and C. Bartneck, “Anthro- pomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 7, pp. 347–360, June 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction,

E. Roesler, D. Manzey, and L. Onnasch, “A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 58, p. eabj5425, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality for human-robot interaction: A survey and virtual design element taxonomy,

M. Walker, T. Phung, T. Chakraborti, T. Williams, and D. Szafir, “Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality for human-robot interaction: A survey and virtual design element taxonomy,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1–39, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Augmented reality for robotics: A review,

Z. Makhataeva and H. A. Varol, “Augmented reality for robotics: A review,” Robotics, vol. 9, no. 2, 2020

work page 2020