Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Assessing Pedestrian Behavior Around Autonomous Cleaning Robots in Public Spaces: Findings from a Field Observation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a real-world field observation with 498 pedestrians and two autonomous cleaning robots, the larger sweeping robot and the offset rectangular movement pattern each significantly increased pedestrians' lateral trajectory adaptations, while

desk verdict Useful field data undermined by weak inter-rater reliability; the headline effects are plausible but not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13699 v1 pith:5AJCYL3W submitted 2025-08-19 cs.RO

Maren Raab , Linda Miller , Zhe Zeng , Pascal Jansen , Martin Baumann , Johannes Kraus This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords human-robotinteractionpedestrianbehaviorautonomouscleaningrobotsfieldobservationsmartphonedistractionlateraltrajectoryadaptationmovementpatternsrobotsize
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 tries to establish how unsuspecting pedestrians move around working autonomous cleaning robots in a public space, and which factors change that movement. Observing 498 people in an underground passage, it finds that only 8% were visibly distracted by smartphones, and distracted pedestrians did not adapt their paths significantly differently from undistracted ones. Instead, both the larger sweeping robot and the offset rectangular movement pattern significantly increased the frequency of lateral trajectory adaptations, and the offset rectangular pattern also produced more close-range adaptations. The practical point would be that robot size and motion predictability, not pedestrian distraction, are the main levers for reducing collisions and disruptions.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a video-based behavioral coding scheme applied to recordings from four static cameras and three robot-mounted cameras. Each pedestrian's trajectory change was coded as none, slight, medium, or strong lateral adaptation, and the distance at which the adaptation began was classified as close (<1.2 m) or far (>1.2 m) using Hall's proxemic system. Two binomial logistic regressions test whether robot type (larger sweeping SR1300 vs smaller cleaning CR700) and movement pattern (circular vs offset rectangular) predict adaptation frequency and distance, with distraction status and interactions as predictors. This coding converts an unannounced field encounter into testable

What would settle it

Recode the same recordings with several trained coders and add automated trajectory tracking, such as pose estimation or LiDAR, to obtain continuous paths and gaze direction. If the robot-type and movement-pattern effects disappear under more reliable measurement, or if reliable distraction classification shows a difference, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that encounter behavior is shaped by robot-related design factors rather than by the pedestrian's phone use. In binomial logistic regressions, the larger sweeping robot raised the odds of any lateral adaptation by a factor of 1.20 relative to the smaller cleaning robot, and the offset rectangular movement pattern raised the odds by 1.18 relative to the circular pattern; the offset rectangular pattern also raised the odds of a close adaptation by 1.09, with a significant interaction between movement pattern and robot type for adaptation distance. Hypothesis H1, that distracted pedestrians adapt more often and closer to the robot, was rejected. The authors interpret the ef

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the video coding of lateral adaptations and distraction is accurate enough to support the statistical comparisons; the reported inter-rater agreement is only fair for trajectory adaptations (Cohen's $\kappa = .291$) and slight for distraction ($\kappa = .133$), so unreliable coding could distort the significant effects or mask a real distraction effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, deploying smaller cleaning robots with circular movement patterns would minimize the number of pedestrians who change path and the number who pass close to the robot.
  • The offset rectangular pattern's link to more close adaptations implies that motion predictability is a safety-relevant design variable, not just an efficiency choice.
  • Because distraction showed no main effect, communication and safety features should be designed for the whole pedestrian population rather than only for phone users.
  • The significant movement-pattern-by-robot-type interaction for adaptation distance means pattern recommendations must be matched to the specific robot.
  • The field method provides an ecological baseline for later controlled studies of robot motion intent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The null distraction result is fragile: with only 38 distracted pedestrians and slight inter-rater agreement on the distraction code, a larger or more precisely measured sample could still reveal a real effect.
  • The robot-type comparison conflates size with sound, visible brushes, speed range, and occupied space; the 'size' explanation is the authors' interpretation, not a demonstrated cause.
  • A testable extension would hold robot size constant and manipulate only path predictability, predicting that adaptation rates track how hard the robot's next move is to anticipate.
  • Timestamping when phone users look up could show whether distracted pedestrians disengage before the critical zone, which would explain the null result and suggest when to time warning cues.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a video-based field observation of N=498 pedestrians passing two autonomous cleaning robots (CR700 and SR1300) in an underground passage in Ulm. Pedestrians were coded for distraction, awareness, lateral trajectory adaptations, and adaptation distance. Binomial logistic regressions test the effects of distraction, robot type, and movement pattern. The authors report no significant effect of distraction, but conclude that the larger sweeping robot and the offset-rectangular movement pattern significantly increase lateral adaptations, and that the offset-rectangular pattern also increases close adaptations, with a movement-pattern-by-robot-type interaction for adaptation distance.

Significance. The study addresses a genuinely under-researched topic—spontaneous encounters between unaware pedestrians and autonomous cleaning robots in a real public space—and its ecological validity is a real strength. A corpus of 498 pedestrians is a useful contribution to field HRI, and the practical questions about robot size and movement pattern are relevant to deployment decisions. However, the paper's central quantitative claims are not yet established. The main outcome variables have low-to-fair inter-rater reliability, the coders could not be blind to the visible experimental conditions, and the reported logistic-regression estimates appear inconsistent with the paper's own descriptive frequency tables. If corrected, the dataset could provide an initial empirical benchmark; in its present form, the specific odds ratios and significance levels should not be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV.C-D, Tables 2-4] The reported regression estimates are internally inconsistent with the descriptive frequencies. From Table 4, the unadjusted odds ratio for offset-rectangular vs. circular movement on any lateral adaptation is (154/97)/(119/128) ≈ 1.71, and for sweeping vs. cleaning robot it is (141/81)/(132/144) ≈ 1.90; Table 2 reports ORs of 1.18 and 1.20. For close vs. far adaptations, Table 4 gives an offset-vs-circular OR of (9/145)/(4/115) ≈ 1.78, while Table 3 reports 1.09. In addition, the Table 2 intercept (OR=1.50, b=0.40) implies a reference-group adaptation probability of about 0.60, yet the sample-wide adaptation rate is 273/498 ≈ 0.55, and with all main-effect coefficients positive the model-predicted average should exceed 0.60. These discrepancies mean the estimates as reported are not derivable from the data in Tables 1 and 4, or the table labels/coding are misleading. The headline findin
  2. [III.C, Tables 2-3] The inter-rater reliability of the main dependent variables is a load-bearing problem. Cohen's Kappa is .291 for trajectory adaptations, .28 for adaptation distance, and .133 for distraction (Section III.C). These are the variables used in all central analyses. Because the robot type and movement pattern are visibly present in every video segment, the coders cannot be blind to the experimental conditions; low agreement opens the door to differential measurement error that can inflate or create the reported effects for robot type and movement pattern, and can also explain the null distraction result. The paper acknowledges the low reliability in Section V.E, but it does not quantify the impact, provide a sensitivity analysis, or validate the coding with a blinded or automated recoding. This limitation is acknowledged but not resolved.
  3. [IV.C-D, Table 3] The close-distance analysis is statistically fragile. It rests on only 13 close events (4 for circular vs. 9 for offset; 9 for cleaning vs. 4 for sweeping), and the distraction analyses on only 38 distracted pedestrians. The logistic regressions nonetheless include a three-way interaction and seven parameters. Under these sparse-outcome conditions, asymptotic Wald tests are unreliable, and the p<.05 for movement pattern in Table 3 (OR=1.09) is not robust. The authors should report exact or penalized (e.g., Firth) logistic regression, confidence intervals, and a simplified model without three-way interactions, or explicitly justify the model complexity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and V.A] Typographical errors: 'growing field HRI research' should be 'growing field of HRI research'; 'real-word interactions' should be 'real-world interactions'.
  2. [III.C] Hall's proxemics is cited as [26], but the reference list identifies Hall's work as [28]. Please correct the citation.
  3. [Tables 2-3] The predictor labels (e.g., 'Circular vs. Off-set rectangular') do not indicate which level is the reference category. Specify the coding (0/1) and reference levels for all predictors to make the ORs interpretable.
  4. [Table 4] Table 4 is visually confusing: the panels for robot type and movement pattern are stacked with ambiguous column headers. Separate the two analyses into distinct tables and label each row/column clearly.
  5. [IV] The paper reports only ORs and p-values; confidence intervals are not provided. For a field study with small cell counts and modest effects, CIs would substantially aid interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: observational study with standard statistical analyses; no fitted inputs, self-citation chains, or definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (larger sweeping robot and offset-rectangular movement pattern increase lateral adaptations) are empirical findings from a field observation, analyzed with binomial logistic regressions. The independent variables—robot type and movement pattern—are physical characteristics of the deployed robots and their programmed paths, not derived from the outcome measures. The dependent variables (adaptation intensity, distance) are coded from video using predefined thresholds (e.g., <45°, 45°–89°, ≥90°; <1.2 m vs. >1.2 m) that are external to the analysis and do not embed the hypotheses. No parameter is fitted to a subset of outcomes and then 'predicted' on a related quantity; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same authors to force a choice. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 18, 30) are used only for contextual comparison with prior findings, not as load-bearing justification of the present results. The acknowledged low inter-rater reliability (κ = .291 for trajectory adaptations, .28 for distance, .133 for distraction) is a measurement-validity limitation, not a circularity: the coding rules do not presuppose the tested effects, and noisy measurement does not make the derivation self-referential. The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that the conclusions rest on the observed data and standard statistical inference, not on the paper's own assumptions defining the outcomes into existence.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the video coding scheme, the specific robots and movement patterns, and the generalizability of the setting. No invented entities are introduced. One hand-chosen threshold (close/far at 1.2 m) affects the distance outcome. The low inter-rater reliability of the coding makes the measurement validity assumption particularly fragile.

free parameters (1)
  • Close/far adaptation distance threshold = 1.2 m
    The binary outcome 'close adaptation' vs 'far adaptation' depends on this hand-chosen threshold based on Hall's proxemics. Different thresholds could change the pattern of results, particularly the finding that the offset rectangular pattern led to more close adaptations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Video-based coding of pedestrian trajectory adaptations and distraction is a valid and reliable measurement of movement behavior.
    The entire analysis depends on the coding scheme. The reported inter-rater reliability is low, making this assumption questionable.
  • domain assumption The two robots differ primarily in size, and their movement patterns are as implemented and consistent.
    The robots differ in multiple aspects (size, appearance, sound, turning radius), so attributing differences to size or movement pattern alone is not supported.
  • domain assumption The observed underground passage in Ulm is representative of public spaces where cleaning robots operate.
    The authors note that results may not generalize to other contexts.
  • standard math Logistic regression assumptions, including independence of observations, are met.
    Pedestrians are independent, but the same environment and robot may induce correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing Pedestrian Behavior Around Autonomous Cleaning Robots in Public Spaces: Findings from a Field Observation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5AJCYL3W

@misc{pith2026250813699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing Pedestrian Behavior Around Autonomous Cleaning Robots in Public Spaces: Findings from a Field Observation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5AJCYL3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13699}
}
read the original abstract

As autonomous robots become more common in public spaces, spontaneous encounters with laypersons are more frequent. For this, robots need to be equipped with communication strategies that enhance momentary transparency and reduce the probability of critical situations. Adapting these robotic strategies requires consideration of robot movements, environmental conditions, and user characteristics and states. While numerous studies have investigated the impact of distraction on pedestrians' movement behavior, limited research has examined this behavior in the presence of autonomous robots. This research addresses the impact of robot type and robot movement pattern on distracted and undistracted pedestrians' movement behavior. In a field setting, unaware pedestrians were videotaped while moving past two working, autonomous cleaning robots. Out of N=498 observed pedestrians, approximately 8% were distracted by smartphones. Distracted and undistracted pedestrians did not exhibit significant differences in their movement behaviors around the robots. Instead, both the larger sweeping robot and the offset rectangular movement pattern significantly increased the number of lateral adaptations compared to the smaller cleaning robot and the circular movement pattern. The offset rectangular movement pattern also led to significantly more close lateral adaptations. Depending on the robot type, the movement patterns led to differences in the distances of lateral adaptations. The study provides initial insights into pedestrian movement behavior around an autonomous cleaning robot in public spaces, contributing to the growing field of HRI research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cleaning robots from ADLATU: CR700 (left) and SR1300 (right). B. Study Set-Up A two-day observational video study was conducted in August 2023 in an underground passage in Ulm, Germany. Only pedestrians who walked through the entire robot￾occupied area were included. Pedestrians who left the area at some point to take one of the side exits were not considered. The two robots were used alternately in sets of about 60… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observation of space and robot movement patterns. The white lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cameras 1-4 are located at the four corners of the venue, and cameras 5-7 are fixed on the robot to record a 360° field of view. C. Variables and Analysis Procedure The study assessed the following variables: distraction, awareness, trajectory adaptations and their distances. Distraction was defined as visual engagement with a smartphone, such that pedestrians observed looking at a phone at any point during the enco… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alsaleh, R., Sayed, T., & Zaki, M. H. (2018). Assessing the Effect of Pedestrians’ Use of Cell Phones on Their Walking Behavior: A Study Based on Automated Video Analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(35), 46–

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Lin, M. I. B., & Huang, Y. P. (2017). The impact of walking while using a smartphone on pedestrians’ awareness of roadside events. Accident Analysis & Prevention , 101, 87 -96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.005 2017

  3. [3]

    P., & Earnest, C

    Licence, S., Smith, R., McGuigan, M. P., & Earnest, C. P. (2015). Gait Pattern Alterations during Walking, Texting and Walking and Texting during Cognitively Distractive Tasks while Negotiating Common Pedestrian Obstacles. PLOS ONE , 10(7), e 0133281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133281

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133281 2015

  4. [4]

    E., Boss, S

    Hyman, I. E., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1638

    work page doi:10.1002/acp.1638 2010

  5. [5]

    Mintrom, M., Sumartojo, S., Kulić, D., Tian, L., Carreno-Medrano, P., & Allen, A. (2022). Robots in public spaces: Implications for policy design. Policy Design and Practice , 5(2), 123 –139. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1905342

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Prédhumeau, M., Spalanzani, A., & Dugdale, J. (2023). Pedestrian Behavior in Shared Spaces With Autonomous Vehicles: An Integrated Framework and Review. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 8(1), 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIV.2021.3116436

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Initiative D -21. (2023). Anteil der mobilen Internetnutzer in Deutschland in den Jahren 2015 bis 2022 [Graph]. Statista. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/633698/um- frage/anteil- der-mobilen-internetnutzer-in-deutschland/

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). (2023). Unfallbeteiligte: Deutschland, Monate, Art der Verkehrsbeteiligung, Fehlverhalten der Fahrzeugführer und Fußgänger [Dataset]

    work page 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    From the moment I wake up I will use it...every day, every hour

    Toh, S. H., Howie, E. K., Coenen, P., & Straker, L. M. (2019). “From the moment I wake up I will use it...every day, every hour”: A qualitative study on the patterns of adolescents’ mobile touch screen device use from adolescent and parent perspectives. BMC Pediat- rics, 19(1)...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    S., & Noh, Y

    Kim, D., Han, K., Sim, J. S., & Noh, Y. (2018). Smombie Guardian: We watch for potential obstacles while you are walking and conducting smartphone activ ities. PLOS ONE , 13(6), e0197050. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197050

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Rossi, S., Rossi, A., & Dautenhahn, K. (2020). The Secret Life of Robots: Perspectives and Challenges for Robot’s Behaviours During Non-interactive Tasks. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(6), 1265–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00650-z

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Service Robots

    International Federation of Robotics (IFR) (2019a). Service Robots. Retrieved from https://www.ifr.org/service-robots/

  5. [13]

    Zhang, B., Amirian, J., Eberle, H., Pettré, J., Holloway, C., & Carlson, T. (2022). From HRI to CRI: Crowd Robot Interaction — Understanding the Effect of Robots on Crowd Motion: Empirical Study of Pedestrian Dynamics with a Wheelchair and a Pepper Robot. International Journal...

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Anvari, B., & Wurdemann, H. A. (2020). Modelling social interaction between humans and service robots in large public spaces. 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS),11189–11196. doi.org/10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9341133

    2020

  7. [15]

    Chan, Y., & Hauser, E. (2023). Understanding Reactions in HUMAN‐ ROBOT Encounters with Autonomous Quadruped Robots. Proceedings of the Association for Info rmation Science and Technology, 60(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.771

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Rosenthal-von Der P ütten, A., Sirkin, D., Abrams, A., & Platte, L. (2020). The Forgotten in HRI: Incidental Encounters with Robots in Public Spaces. Companion of the 2020 ACM/ IEEE International Conference on Human -Robot Interaction , 656 –657. https://doi.org/10.1145/33713...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Pelikan, H. R. M., Reeves, S., & Cantarutti, M. N. (2024). Encountering Autonomous Robots on Public Streets. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE Intern ational Conference on Hu - man-Robot Interaction, 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634936

    2024

  10. [18]

    Babel, F., Kraus, J., & Baumann, M. (2022). Findings From A Qualitative Field Study with An Autonomous Robot in Public: Exploration of User Reactions and Conflicts. Interna- tional Journal of Social Robotics, 14(7), 1625–1655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369- 022-00894-x

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Hayashi, K., Sakamoto, D., Kanda, T., Shi omi, M., Koizumi, S., Ishiguro, H., Ogasawara, T., & Hagita, N. (2007). Humanoid robots as a passive -social medium: A field experiment at a train station. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human - Robot Interacti...

    2007

  12. [20]

    Zug, S., Seyffer, N., Plank, M., Pfleging, B., Schrödel, F., & Siebert, F. W. (2023). Identification of Potential Conflict Zones Between Pedestrians and Mobile Robots in Urban Situations. 2023 IEEE 28th International Conferen ce on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation,...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hardeman, K. (2021). Encounters with a seemingly autonomous sidewalk delivery vehicle: Interviews with incidentally copresent pedestrians [Master’s Thesis]. Utrecht University

    2021

  14. [22]

    R., Phair, C

    Gehrke, S. R., Phair, C. D., Russo, B. J., & Smaglik, E. J. (2023). Observed sidewalk autonomous delivery robot interactions with pedestrians and bicyclists. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 18, 100789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100789

    2023

  15. [23]

    Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. MIT Press

    1998

  16. [24]

    Mwakalonge, J., Siuhi, S., & White, J. (2015). Distracted walking: Examining the extent to pedestrian safety problems. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) , 2(5), 327 –337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2015.08.004

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Spanish Smombies

    Fernández, C., Vicente, M. A., Carrillo, I., Guilabert, M., & Mira, J. J. (2020). Factors Influencing the Smartphone Usage Behavior of Pedestrians: Observational Study on “Spanish Smombies”. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 22(8), e19350. https://doi.org/10.2196/19350

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Van Den Hoorn, W., Moorcroft, A., Greenland, C., & Hodges, P

    Schabrun, S. M., Van Den Hoorn, W., Moorcroft, A., Greenland, C., & Hodges, P. W. (2014). Texting and Walking: Strategies for Postural Control and Implications for Safety. PLoS ONE , 9(1), e84312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084312

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    M., & Muratori, L

    Lamberg, E. M., & Muratori, L. M. (2012). Cell phones change the way we walk. Gait & Posture , 35(4), 688 –690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.005

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Hall, E. T. (1963). A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior. American Anthropologist , 65(5), 1003 –1026. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020

    1963 doi

  21. [29]

    Hiroi, Y., & Ito, A. (2009). EFFECT OF THE SIZE FACTOR ON PSYCHOLOGICAL THREAT OF A MOBILE ROBOT MOVING TOWARD HUMAN. KANSEI Engineering International, 8(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.5057/ER080206-1

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    Miller, L., Kraus, J., Babel, F., Messner, M., & Baumann, M. (2020). Come Closer: Experimental Investigation of Robots’ Appearance on Proximity, Affect and Trust in a Domestic Environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64(1), 395–399. ...

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Reinhardt, J., Prasch, L., & Bengler, K. (2021). Back-off: Evaluation of Robot Motion Strategies to Facilitate Human -Robot Spatial Interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 10(3), 1–

    2021

  24. [32]

    Pascher, M., Gruenefeld, U., Schneegass, S., & Gerken, J. (2023). How to Communicate Robot Motion Intent: A Scoping Review. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580857

    2023

  25. [33]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3418303

    doi

  26. [34]

    ADLATUS Robotics GmbH. (n.d.). https://www.adlatus.eu/

  27. [35]

    M., Macdonald, J., Alves -Oliveira, P., & Knepper, R

    Mavrogiannis, C., Hutchinson, A. M., Macdonald, J., Alves -Oliveira, P., & Knepper, R. A. (2019). Effects of Distinct Robot Navigation Strategies on Human Behavior in a Crowded Environment. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human -Robot Interact ion (HRI), 421–430...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Kidokoro, H., Kanda, T., Brscic, D., & Shiomi, M. (2013). Will I bother here? - A robot anticipating its influence on pedestrian walking comfort. 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human - Robot Interaction (HRI) , 259 –266. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483597

    2013

  29. [37]

    M., McCool, R., Strawdermann, L., Carruth, D

    Usher, J. M., McCool, R., Strawdermann, L., Carruth, D. W., Bethel, C. L., & May, D. C. (2017). Simulation modeling of pedestrian behavior i n the presence of unmanned mobile robots. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory , 75, 96 –112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2017.03.012

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Lanzer, M., Koniakowsky, I., Colley, M., & Baumann, M. (2023) . Interaction Effects of Pedestrian Behavior, Smartphone Distraction and External Communication of Automated Vehicles on Crossing and Gaze Behavior. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Gillette, G., Fitzpatrick, K., Chrysler, S., & Avelar, R. (2016). Effect of Distractions on a Pedestrian’s Waiting Behavior at Traffic Signals: Observational Study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , 2586(1), 111 –119. https://doi.or...

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Alami, R., Simeon, T., Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., & Woods, S

    Sisbot, E. A., Alami, R., Simeon, T., Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., & Woods, S. (2005). Navigation in the presence of humans. 5th IEEE- RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2005., 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2005.15

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    Dingler, T., Lindsay, J., & Walker, B. N. (2008). Learnability of sound cues for environmental features: Auditory icons, earcons, spearcons, and speech. International Conference on Auditory Display

    2008

  34. [57]

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118780708

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.