Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

The Role of Variability in Human-Machine Interaction Experience

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Preserving variability in shared control raises perceived usability without hurting task performance.

desk verdict First empirical test of variability-preserving haptic control—worth reading for its clean within-subject design and large effects, but the headline causal claim is confounded by unevenly matched assistance strength. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11401 v1 pith:E3CCWKJA submitted 2026-08-11 cs.HC cs.SYeess.SY

Sean Kille , Jan Lars Hagemann , Anne Voormann , Balint Varga , Andrea Kiesel , Sören Hohmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.SYeess.SY
keywords sharedcontrolhuman-machineinteractionmovementvariabilityuserexperiencesenseofagencyhapticassistanceusabilityoptimal
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 a shared controller that deliberately keeps the natural variability of human movement can feel better to use while still performing as well as a conventional one. In a haptic point-to-point task with 41 participants, the authors compared an unsupported condition, a variability-constraining assist mode, and a variability-preserving assist mode. They report that the variability-preserving mode produced significantly higher perceived usability than the constraining mode, with the difference driven mainly by perceived ease of use, while measures of settling time, endpoint error, and endpoint variance did not differ between the two assisted modes. The authors take this as evidence that variability structure itself shapes interaction experience independently of objective performance.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Human-Variability-Respecting Optimal Control (HVROC), a controller that builds a stochastic model of human movement variability into the optimal feedback law. Here it is implemented with an error-dependent gain schedule: the variability-preserving mode keeps gains low over most of the movement and increases damping only near the target, while the variability-constraining mode applies constant high gains throughout. The operational measure of task-irrelevant variability is the maximum across-repetition positional variance perpendicular to the main movement direction. This design lets the authors manipulate variability structure while holding task-relevant performance approximately constant, which is what allows the usability difference to be attributed to variability rather than to performance.

What would settle it

Run a follow-up with two controllers that have identical gain schedules and force magnitudes, with artificial lateral variability injected in only one; the central claim predicts the variable condition is rated easier to use, whereas a force-magnitude account predicts no difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that preserving task-irrelevant movement variability in a shared controller improves perceived usability without sacrificing objective task performance. In the reported experiment, usability ratings were significantly higher in the highVar condition than in the lowVar condition (p = .004, d_z = 0.76), and the effect appeared primarily in perceived ease of use, with emotional response showing a trend in the same direction. Meanwhile, the two assisted modes did not differ significantly in settling time, endpoint error, or endpoint variance, and the highVar mode did produce significantly more task-irrelevant variability, measured as maximum lateral positional variance. The authors interpret these results as establishing a causal link between variability structure and interaction experience in tightly coupled physical human-machine interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The study treats the two assisted modes as differing only in how they handle task-irrelevant variability, but the variability-preserving mode also uses much lower feedback gains over most of the movement, so the usability gain could stem from a lighter assistive force rather than from preserved variability itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Control policies that are equivalent in objective task performance can feel measurably different to users, so interaction experience should be treated as an explicit design objective, not a byproduct.
  • Variability-preserving assistance may support long-term engagement and acceptance in rehabilitation and assistive robotics, where sustained use matters as much as task success.
  • Preserving task-irrelevant variability does not inherently cost efficiency or accuracy, opening a design space where multiple controllers are functionally equivalent but experientially distinct.
  • Because the usability gain was driven by perceived ease of use, future controller tuning can target the felt naturalness of assistance rather than only error-based metrics.
  • The dissociation between perceived usefulness and ease of use suggests users judge usefulness by task success but judge ease of use by how assistance feels, so both dimensions should be measured separately in HMI evaluation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The highVar mode applies considerably less assistive force over most of the movement (gains of 75/20 versus 150/150 until the final third), so the usability gain may owe to lighter, less intrusive assistance rather than to preserved variability itself; a clean test would match force magnitude while varying only lateral variability.
  • The same design logic could extend beyond lateral deviation to other redundant dimensions, such as grip-force variation or timing jitter, where users also form sensorimotor predictions about how the interaction should feel.
  • Personalizing the variability target to each user's own variability profile might strengthen the effect further, since the study used identical gain schedules for all participants.
  • If the effect truly stems from variability structure, comparable usability gains should appear in tasks that allow task-irrelevant variability without any assistive force, such as unassisted movement with visual or auditory feedback that reshapes variability; an absence of such gains would point to force-magnitude as the active ingredient.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a within-subject haptic interaction experiment comparing three conditions: unsupported movement (noSup), a variability-constraining shared controller (lowVar), and a variability-respecting shared controller (highVar). The authors report that highVar preserves significantly more task-irrelevant positional variance than lowVar, that the two assisted modes do not differ significantly on settling time, endpoint error, or endpoint variance, and that highVar yields significantly higher usability ratings, driven mainly by perceived ease of use. The conclusions assert a causal link between variability structure and interaction experience in physical human-machine interaction.

Significance. If the central causal claim were established, the work would be a meaningful contribution to shared-control and haptic-assistance design, since it would show that preserving task-irrelevant movement variability can improve perceived usability without a measurable performance cost. The study is carefully reported in many respects: the within-subject design is appropriate, the variance measures are operationally defined, several validated questionnaires are used, and effect sizes are reported alongside p-values. The main difficulty is that the highVar and lowVar manipulations differ along two dimensions at once, so the paper's headline attribution of the usability benefit to variability structure is not currently identified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.3, Fig. 2] The highVar and lowVar modes do not differ only in how they treat task-irrelevant variability; they also differ substantially in feedback-gain magnitude and scheduling. lowVar uses constant gains Lp=Ld=150, whereas highVar begins at Lp=75 and Ld=20 and increases to Lp=100 and Ld=150 only once the position error falls below one third of the start distance. Over most of each movement, highVar therefore supplies considerably less assistive and damping force. Section 6.1 additionally concedes that the highVar parametrization deliberately included a damping component to ensure comparable performance. The observed usability advantage (p=.004, dz=.76; perceived ease of use p<.001, dz=1.00) could plausibly reflect the lighter, less forceful assistance profile rather than preserved variability per se. An assistance-matched or gain-matched control condition, or an analysis that equates the applied actuator force across modes, is required to support the causal attribution made in the title and conclusions.
  2. [Section 5.1, Hypothesis H2b] The paper states that Hypothesis H2b is a non-inferiority hypothesis, but no non-inferiority analysis is performed. The conclusion that task-relevant performance 'does not differ' between highVar and lowVar is based only on non-significant pairwise tests (settling time p=.409, endpoint error p=.949, endpoint variance p=.866). There is no prespecified equivalence margin, no confidence interval for the differences, and no TOST or similar equivalence test. Absence of a significant difference is not evidence of equivalence, so later statements that performance was 'matched' or 'the same level' (Sections 6.1 and 6.2) overstate what the data establish.
  3. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'Critically, the same level of task performance between highVar and lowVar allows us to attribute differences in user experience specifically to the variability manipulation' conflates two issues. First, as noted in the previous comment, performance equivalence is not established. Second, even if performance were equivalent, the highVar and lowVar modes still differ in feedback-gain magnitude and scheduling, so the variability manipulation is not isolated. The causal attribution to variability structure alone is therefore not identified by the current experimental design.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 vs Section 5.1] The maximum-variance effect size for the lowVar-highVar comparison is reported as dz=-0.90 in Table 1 but as dz=0.98 in the text of Section 5.1; these values should be reconciled and the sign convention clarified.
  2. [Section 3.3 vs Section 4.2] The manuscript says each participant completed 82 movements per mode while also stating there were 12 repetitions of each of four key movement directions, which would total 48 movements. The relationship between these numbers should be clarified.
  3. [References] The reference list includes citations that appear unrelated to the physical-HMI context, such as [12] (GPTs are GPTs) and [30] (U.S. workers' AI exposure), where they are cited in support of claims about healthcare, rehabilitation, and skilled manual work. These citations should be checked and replaced or repositioned.
  4. [Section 6.4] The limitation discussion would benefit from explicitly acknowledging the gain-scheduling confound described in Section 3.2.3, since the current text frames the highVar design choice only as a deliberate trade-off for performance matching.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: outcome measures are external and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the gain-schedule difference is a confound, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, there is no step in which an output quantity is defined in terms of an input quantity or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The controller gains in Section 3.2.3 are design/hand-tuned parameters, and the outcome measures (maximum variance, settling time, endpoint error, endpoint variance, and QUEAD usability scores) are measured independently of those parameters. H1 is a manipulation check, not a derived prediction, and H2b is a non-inferiority claim tested against measured performance rather than forced by construction. The citation to the authors' prior HVROC work [29] supplies the controller formulation, but the present claim does not rest on that citation: the empirical pattern (usability higher in highVar than lowVar, p=.004, dz=0.76) is new data, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted value from [29] is invoked to forbid alternatives. The skeptic's concern is a confound, not circularity: highVar and lowVar differ in gain magnitude and scheduling (lowVar uses constant Lp=Ld=150, while highVar uses Lp=75, Ld=20 initially, ramping to Lp=100, Ld=150 only after error falls below one-third of start distance), so the causal attribution to variability structure is threatened by an alternative explanation. Such validity risks are outside the circularity definition, and no specific circular reduction can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

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

No invented physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are hand-tuned controller settings and analysis thresholds, not fitted to the outcome data. The theoretical assumptions are standard for this literature, though the task-irrelevant/relevant split and the prediction-alignment mechanism are operational simplifications rather than directly verified mechanisms.

free parameters (4)
  • lowVar feedback gains Lp, Ld = 150, 150 (constant)
    Controller gains chosen by the authors, not derived from data or an optimization in this paper; they define the conventional variability-constraining mode.
  • highVar feedback gains and trigger = Lp=75, Ld=20; increase to 100 and 150 when e < e_start/3
    Gain schedule hand-tuned to preserve variability while matching task performance; the trigger at one-third of start distance is a free choice.
  • Automation activation force threshold = 5 N
    Chosen to engage automation only after human force onset; affects which parts of the trajectory receive assistance.
  • Endpoint tolerance for settling time = 1.25 cm
    Defines the task-relevant interval; this choice affects endpoint error and endpoint variance measures.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Task-irrelevant variability is the across-repetition positional variance perpendicular to the movement direction in the mid-trajectory region.
    Section 2.1 and 4.3; the paper itself notes that the same orthogonal dimension becomes task-relevant near the target, so the operational split is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Preserving task-irrelevant variability maintains alignment between users' internal predictions and actual sensorimotor outcomes, thereby supporting agency and usability.
    Theoretical motivation from comparator models (Sections 1 and 2.3); not directly measured, only inferred from questionnaire results.
  • standard math Repeated-measures ANOVA assumptions (normality, sphericity with Greenhouse-Geisser correction) hold for the reported data.
    Statistical inference in Section 5 relies on these assumptions; no normality diagnostics are reported.
  • domain assumption Human behavior in the noSup condition represents natural variability patterns.
    Baseline interpretation in H1 and H2 comparisons; any effect of the robot setup itself on natural variability is not controlled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Role of Variability in Human-Machine Interaction Experience." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E3CCWKJA

@misc{pith2026260811401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Role of Variability in Human-Machine Interaction Experience},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E3CCWKJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11401}
}
read the original abstract

Human-machine interaction (HMI) requires control strategies that account for the nature of human motor behavior. Conventional shared-control and haptic-assistance methods typically ignore the stochastic nature of human behavior, potentially limiting both performance and human interaction experience. In this study, we designed an experimental setting and evaluated a novel human-variability-aware optimal controller. Participants performed a physically coupled haptic interaction task in three conditions: a controller mode that aims at conventionally reducing overall variability, a variability-aware controller mode designed to maintain human natural variability patterns, and a human-only control condition serving as a baseline. We analyzed behavioral variability, task performance, and human interaction experience. The results show that considering natural movement variability significantly increased perceived interaction quality in terms of usability while maintaining task performance. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating stochastic human movement characteristics into shared-control designs and demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of the proposed control strategy for human-centered control design of HMI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11401 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental setup. Two control modes were implemented. The highVar mode is designed to preserve human movement variability, whereas the lowVar mode minimizes variability. To minimize confounding effects due to human reaction time, the automation was activated only when the human-applied force exceeded a predefined threshold of 5 N. The automation design is based on the previously introduced concept of Human-Variabi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feedback matrices as a function of position error. 3.3. Experimental task The experimental task requires participants to perform point-to-point movements between four target points arranged in a rectangular layout. Participants received visual feedback via a GUI that displays the target points and the current end-effector position. Haptic feedback was provided via the KUKA haptic interface, allowing participants to … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Target points 𝑝1,…,4 with key movements a–d. −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 𝑝x in m 𝑝y in m Position and variance for one example subject in mode noSup task-relevant area task-irrelevant area −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ⋅10−4 𝑝x in m 𝑉𝑦 in m2 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 ⋅10−4 𝑉 max 𝑦 𝑡 s 𝑡 in s 𝑉𝑦 in m2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Derivation of position variance from one example subject: For each key movement a-d (top), the y-positional variance is calculated (middle) and averaged per timestep over the four key movements (bottom). The maximum peak of this variance represents the task-irrelevant …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean positional variance of all subjects. noSup lowVar highVar 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ⋅10−4 * * * 𝑉 max 𝑦 in m2 Maximum Variance noSup lowVar highVar 0 1 2 3 4 * * Settling time 𝑡 s in s Settling Time noSup lowVar highVar 0 1 2 3 4 ⋅10−2 * * 𝑒end in m Endpoint Error noSup lowVa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum positional variance and task measures. noSup lowVar highVar 2 4 6 * * Sense of Agency noSup lowVar highVar 2 4 6 * * Self-efficacy noSup lowVar highVar 2 4 6 * * Flow noSup lowVar highVar 2 4 6 * * * Usability noSup lowVar highVar 2 4 6 * * Perceived Usefulness…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Interaction experience measures, showing the overall experience measures (left) and the usability subscales (right). S. Kille et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Human arm trajectory formation

    Abend, W., Bizzi, E., Morasso, P., 1982. Human arm trajectory formation. Brain doi:10.1093/brain/105.2.331

    work page doi:10.1093/brain/105.2.331 1982

  2. [2]

    Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control

    Bandura, A., 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. volume 11. Freeman

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    A German translation and validation of the sense of agency scale

    Bart, V.K.E., Wenke, D., Rieger, M., 2023. A German translation and validation of the sense of agency scale. Frontiers in Psychology 14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1199648

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Bennett, D., Metatla, O., Roudaut, A., Mekler, E.D., 2023. How does HCI Understand Human Agency and Autonomy?, in: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580651

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Man-machine teaming: A problem of agency

    Berberian, B., 2019. Man-machine teaming: A problem of agency. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.01.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.01.049 2019

  6. [6]

    Using a Collaborative Robotic Arm as Human- MachineInterface:SystemSetupandApplicationtoPoseControlTasks,in:2023IEEEInternationalConferenceonRoboticsandAutomation (ICRA)

    Braun, C.A., Haide, L., Fischer, L., Kille, S., Varga, B., Rothfuss, S., Hohmann, S., 2023. Using a Collaborative Robotic Arm as Human- MachineInterface:SystemSetupandApplicationtoPoseControlTasks,in:2023IEEEInternationalConferenceonRoboticsandAutomation (ICRA). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10161348

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Demonstration-Guided Deep Reinforcement Learning of Control Policies for Dexterous Human- Robot Interaction, in: 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Christen, S., Stevšić, S., Hilliges, O., 2019. Demonstration-Guided Deep Reinforcement Learning of Control Policies for Dexterous Human- Robot Interaction, in: 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). doi:10.1109/ICRA.2019.8794065

    work page arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life

    Csikszentmihalhi, M., 1997. Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life. Basic Books, New York

    work page 1997

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    FLOW: The Psychology of Optimal Experience

    Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1990. FLOW: The Psychology of Optimal Experience

    1990

  2. [10]

    Optimal experience in work and leisure

    Csikszentmihalyi, M., LeFevre, J., 1989. Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815

    1989 doi

  3. [11]

    Physicalhuman–robotinteractionforcecontrolmethodbasedonadaptivevariableimpedance

    Dong,J.,Xu,J.,Zhou,Q.,Hu,S.,2020. Physicalhuman–robotinteractionforcecontrolmethodbasedonadaptivevariableimpedance. Journ. of the Franklin Institute 357. doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2020.06.007

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models

    Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., Rock, D., 2023. GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.10130,arXiv:2303.10130

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Minimum Principles in Motor Control

    Engelbrecht, S.E., 2001. Minimum Principles in Motor Control. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 45. doi:10.1006/jmps.2000.1295

    2001

  6. [14]

    Human-computer integration

    Farooq, U., Grudin, J., 2016. Human-computer integration. Interactions 23. doi:10.1145/3001896

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Firmino de Souza, D., Sousa, S., Kristjuhan-Ling, K., Dunajeva, O., Roosileht, M., Pentel, A., Mõttus, M., Can Özdemir, M., Gratšjova, Ž.,

  8. [16]

    Task-basedhybridsharedcontrolfortrainingthroughforcefulinteraction

    Fitzsimons,K.,Kalinowska,A.,Dewald,J.P.,Murphey,T.D.,2020. Task-basedhybridsharedcontrolfortrainingthroughforcefulinteraction. The International Journal of Robotics Research 39. doi:10.1177/0278364920933654

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Ergodic Shared Control: Closing the Loop on pHRI Based on Information Encoded in Motion

    Fitzsimons, K., Murphey, T.D., 2022. Ergodic Shared Control: Closing the Loop on pHRI Based on Information Encoded in Motion. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 11. doi:10.1145/3526106

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Cooperative shared control driver assistance systems based on motion primitives and differential games

    Flad, M., Frohlich, L., Hohmann, S., 2017. Cooperative shared control driver assistance systems based on motion primitives and differential games. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 47. doi:10.1109/thms.2017.2700435. S. Kille et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 1...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Motion learning and adaptive impedance for robot control during physical interaction with humans,in:2011IEEEInternationalConferenceonRoboticsandAutomation,IEEE,Shanghai,China

    Gribovskaya, E., Kheddar, A., Billard, A., 2011. Motion learning and adaptive impedance for robot control during physical interaction with humans,in:2011IEEEInternationalConferenceonRoboticsandAutomation,IEEE,Shanghai,China. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980070

    2011

  12. [20]

    Sense of agency

    Haggard, P., Chambon, V., 2012. Sense of agency. Current Biology 22. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.040

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning

    Harris, C.M., Wolpert, D.M., 1998. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394. doi:10.1038/29528

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    Interacting with Computers 20

    Hassenzahl,M.,Schöbel,M.,Trautmann,T.,2008.Howmotivationalorientationinfluencestheevaluationandchoiceofhedonicandpragmatic interactive products: The role of regulatory focus. Interacting with Computers 20. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2008.05.001

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    User control and its many facets: A study of perceived control in human-computer interaction

    Hinds, P.J., 1998. User control and its many facets: A study of perceived control in human-computer interaction

    1998

  16. [24]

    Human-machine symbiosis: A multivariate perspective for physically coupled human-machine systems

    Inga,J.,Ruess,M.,Robens,J.H.,Nelius,T.,Rothfuß,S.,Kille,S.,Dahlinger,P.,Lindenmann,A.,Thomaschke,R.,Neumann,G.,Matthiesen, S., Hohmann, S., Kiesel, A., 2023. Human-machine symbiosis: A multivariate perspective for physically coupled human-machine systems. Int. Jour. of Human-C...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Shared Autonomy via Hindsight Optimization

    Javdani, S., Srinivasa, S.S., Bagnell, J.A., 2015. Shared Autonomy via Hindsight Optimization. Robotics science and systems : online proceedings 2015. doi:10.15607/RSS.2015.XI.032

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    An investigation of "We" agency in co-operative joint actions

    Jenkins, M., Esemezie, O., Lee, V., Mensingh, M., Nagales, K., Obhi, S.S., 2021. An investigation of "We" agency in co-operative joint actions. Psychological Research 85. doi:10.1007/s00426-020-01462-6

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task

    Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., Olsson, A., 2005. Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task. Science 310. doi:10.1126/science.1111709

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task

    Kaber, D.B., Endsley, M.R., 2004. The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 5. doi:10.1080/1463922021000054335

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    Human-Variability-Respecting Optimal Control for Physical Human- MachineInteraction,in:202433rdIEEEInternationalConferenceonRobotandHumanInteractiveCommunication(ROMAN),LosAngeles

    Kille, S., Leibold, P., Karg, P., Varga, B., Hohmann, S., 2024. Human-Variability-Respecting Optimal Control for Physical Human- MachineInteraction,in:202433rdIEEEInternationalConferenceonRobotandHumanInteractiveCommunication(ROMAN),LosAngeles. doi:10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731297

    2024

  22. [30]

    Which U.S

    Kochhar, R., 2023. Which U.S. Workers Are More Exposed to AI on Their Jobs?

    2023

  23. [31]

    Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire, in: Holzinger, A

    Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M., 2008. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire, in: Holzinger, A. (Ed.), HCI and Usability for Education and Work. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. volume 5298. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    Ergonomic human-robot collaboration in industry: A review

    Lorenzini, M., Lagomarsino, M., Fortini, L., Gholami, S., Ajoudani, A., 2023. Ergonomic human-robot collaboration in industry: A review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9. doi:10.3389/frobt.2022.813907

    2023

  25. [33]

    RobotOperatingSystem2:Design,architecture,andusesinthewild

    Macenski,S.,Foote,T.,Gerkey,B.,Lalancette,C.,Woodall,W.,2022. RobotOperatingSystem2:Design,architecture,andusesinthewild. Science Robotics 7. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Probabilistic movement primitives for coordination of multiple human–robot collaborative tasks

    Maeda, G.J., Neumann, G., Ewerton, M., Lioutikov, R., Kroemer, O., Peters, J., 2017. Probabilistic movement primitives for coordination of multiple human–robot collaborative tasks. Autonomous Robots 41. doi:10.1007/s10514-016-9556-2

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Synthesizing anticipatory haptic assistance considering human behavior uncertainty

    Medina, J.R., Lorenz, T., Hirche, S., 2015. Synthesizing anticipatory haptic assistance considering human behavior uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 31. doi:10.1109/TRO.2014.2387571

    2015

  28. [36]

    Promoting Motor Variability During Robotic Assistance Enhances Motor Learning of Dynamic Tasks

    Özen, Ö., Buetler, K.A., Marchal-Crespo, L., 2021. Promoting Motor Variability During Robotic Assistance Enhances Motor Learning of Dynamic Tasks. Frontiers in Neuroscience 14. doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.600059

    2021

  29. [37]

    Towards safe and efficient learning in the wild: Guiding RL with constrained uncertainty-aware movement primitives

    Padalkar, A., Stulp, F., Neumann, G., Silvério, J., 2025. Towards safe and efficient learning in the wild: Guiding RL with constrained uncertainty-aware movement primitives. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    2025

  30. [38]

    Amodelfortypesandlevelsofhumaninteractionwithautomation

    Parasuraman,R.,Sheridan,T.,Wickens,C.,2000. Amodelfortypesandlevelsofhumaninteractionwithautomation. IEEETransactionson Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 30. doi:10.1109/3468.844354

    2000

  31. [39]

    Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens

    Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., Engeser, S., 2003. Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens

    2003

  32. [40]

    Switched kinematic and indirect force control of a motorized ankle orthosis to perturb the ankle joint during walking

    Rubino, N., Manchola, M., Duenas, V.H., 2024. Switched kinematic and indirect force control of a motorized ankle orthosis to perturb the ankle joint during walking. IFAC-PapersOnLine 58. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.01.159

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Understanding Human-Centred AI: A review of its defining elements and a research agenda

    Schmager, S., Pappas, I.O., Vassilakopoulou, P., 2025. Understanding Human-Centred AI: A review of its defining elements and a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 44. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2024.2448719

    2025

  34. [42]

    2017IEEEInternationalConferenceonSystems,Man,andCybernetics (SMC) doi:10.1109/SMC.2017.8122720

    Schmidtler,J.,Bengler,K.,Dimeas,F.,Campeau-Lecours,A.,2017.Aquestionnairefortheevaluationofphysicalassistivedevices(QUEAD): Testingusabilityandacceptanceinphysicalhuman-robotinteraction. 2017IEEEInternationalConferenceonSystems,Man,andCybernetics (SMC) doi:10.1109/SMC.2017.8122720

    2017

  35. [43]

    The uncontrolled manifold concept: Identifying control variables for a functional task

    Scholz, J.P., Schöner, G., 1999. The uncontrolled manifold concept: Identifying control variables for a functional task. Experimental Brain Research 126. doi:10.1007/s002210050738

    1999 doi

  36. [44]

    The experience of agency: An interplay between prediction and postdiction

    Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., Voss, M., 2013. The experience of agency: An interplay between prediction and postdiction. Frontiers in Psychology 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127

    2013

  37. [45]

    The sense of agency scale: A measure of consciously perceived control over one’s mind, body, and the immediate environment

    Tapal, A., Oren, E., Dar, R., Eitam, B., 2017. The sense of agency scale: A measure of consciously perceived control over one’s mind, body, and the immediate environment. Frontiers in Psychology 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01552

    2017

  38. [46]

    Optimality principles in sensorimotor control

    Todorov, E., 2004. Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat. Neurosci. 7. doi:10.1038/nn1309

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination

    Todorov, E., Jordan, M.I., 2002. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat. Neurosci. 5. doi:10.1038/nn963

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    Toward adaptive cooperation: Model-based shared control using lq-differential games

    Varga, B., 2024. Toward adaptive cooperation: Model-based shared control using lq-differential games. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human–machine interactions

    Wen, W., Imamizu, H., 2022. The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human–machine interactions. Nature Reviews Psychology 1. doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.12700/APH.21.10.2024.10.27

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Human-machine sense of agency

    Zanatto, D., Chattington, M., Noyes, J., 2021. Human-machine sense of agency. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 156. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102716. S. Kille et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 19 of 19

    2021

  44. [52]

    Thesenseofagencyduringcontinuousaction:Performanceismoreimportantthanaction-feedback association

    Wen,W.,Yamashita,A.,Asama,H.,2015. Thesenseofagencyduringcontinuousaction:Performanceismoreimportantthanaction-feedback association. PLOS ONE 10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125226

    2015 doi

  45. [2025]

    Electronics 14

    Trust and Trustworthiness from Human-Centered Perspective in Human–Robot Interaction (HRI)—A Systematic Literature Review. Electronics 14. doi:10.3390/electronics14081557

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.