Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 64 references

ARTHUR: Authoring Human-Robot Collaboration Processes with Augmented Reality using Hybrid User Interfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ARTHUR is an open-source authoring tool that lets users create complete augmented-reality interfaces for human-robot collaboration by combining feedback, actions, and conditions across a desktop/tablet and head-mounted display.

desk verdict A real, open-source AR-HRC authoring system whose 'general applicability' claim outruns the evidence, but the artifact and honest limitations make it worth a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02304 v1 pith:GP2WOH6A submitted 2025-01-04 cs.HC

Rasmus Lunding , Sebastian Hubenschmid , Tiare Feuchtner , Kaj Gr{o}nb{ae}k This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords augmentedrealityhuman-robotcollaborationauthoringtoolhybriduserinterfacein-siturefinementhead-mounteddisplayassemblyguidanceindustrialmanufacturing
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

The paper presents ARTHUR, an open-source authoring tool that lets people build complete augmented-reality interfaces for human-robot collaboration without writing code. The central idea is that any such interface can be assembled from three kinds of building blocks: feedback that tells the worker what the robot and system are doing, actions that let the worker command the robot, and conditions that decide when feedback appears or actions fire. To make authoring practical, ARTHUR splits the workflow into configuration on a PC, refinement with a tablet and AR headset in the workspace, and operation on the headset, with changes syncing instantly across devices. The authors replicate three representative systems from prior work and report that all five expert participants completed the replication task and found the hybrid interface easy and beneficial. If this holds, a single tool could cover the design, tuning, and daily use of AR guidance for multiple robot tasks.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the component model of feedback, actions, and conditions plus a hybrid interface spanning web clients and the headset. Feedback items such as robot paths, task instructions, zones, icons, and audio convey state; actions such as play/pause robot, confirm task, and sending messages let the operator command the system; conditions in spatial, operator, robot, environment, task, and logic categories gate when feedback is shown or actions are triggered. Trackers and anchors place virtual content in the real world, and the authoring service stores configuration so edits made in the web interface are instantly reflected in AR. The division into configuration, refinement, and operation phases lets the same authored setup be reused and modified in place.

What would settle it

Author a realistic HRC scenario outside the three demonstrated (for example, a mobile robot navigating a shared warehouse) using only ARTHUR's shipped components; if the scenario requires a feedback, action, or condition that is not in the inventory and can only be added by writing a new component in code, the general-applicability claim fails. A lighter check is to map the component sets in published AR-HRI taxonomies onto ARTHUR's 20/10/18 inventory and count missing entries that correspond to common scenarios.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that authoring AR support for human-robot collaboration reduces to composing three kinds of design components: 20 feedback types for robot, task, and system state; 10 actions for user control; and 18 conditions that customize feedback and trigger actions. Around this inventory, ARTHUR provides a hybrid user interface: a web interface on PC or tablet for configuration and precise edits, and an AR head-mounted display for in-situ placement, testing, and refinement, all synchronized through a publish-subscribe service. The authors argue this breaks the sequential design-deploy-refine loop, because changes made on any device appear immediately in AR and the same setup can transition fluidly into live operation. As evidence, they replicate prior systems including a button-and-safety-zone setup and a sensor-value display, and in an evaluation with five participants every participant reproduced the replicated scenario and reported that distributing authoring across devices was beneficial.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-selected set of 20 feedback types, 10 actions, and 18 conditions is rich enough to author a broad range of real human-robot collaboration scenarios, even though coverage was only demonstrated on three prior setups and not measured systematically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An author can build a working AR guidance interface for a robot cell in one sitting, then switch to live operation without recompiling or redeploying the application.
  • Because changes sync immediately across devices, a worker can fine-tune content position, color, and thresholds in the workspace rather than alternating between a simulated environment and the real one.
  • The action components give the operator a way to command the robot from the authored interface, making information flow bidirectional rather than one-way robot-to-user.
  • The same generalized visualizations can serve many similar tasks loaded from a bill of process, avoiding per-instruction authoring for step-by-step guidance.
  • Other researchers can use ARTHUR to recreate and directly compare different motion-intent and safety visualizations from prior work in one physical setup.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 20/10/18 inventory is as representative as claimed, ARTHUR could become a common testbed that turns scattered single-visualization studies into comparable head-to-head evaluations; the paper itself does not run such a comparison.
  • The component abstraction looks portable beyond robot arms: adding a robot adapter service could reuse most feedback, actions, and conditions for mobile robots, though the paper notes that tracking on moving platforms remains a hardware limitation.
  • The hand-selected inventory could be stress-tested by systematically mapping published AR-HRI taxonomies onto ARTHUR's components and counting gaps; that coverage analysis is not in the paper.
  • A recommendation engine that suggests compatible groups of feedback and actions, or auto-detection of connected sensors and buttons, could reduce authoring errors; the authors list these as future work, and the architecture supports them via publish-subscribe topics.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. ARTHUR is an open-source authoring tool for augmented reality-supported human-robot collaboration. The paper describes a system that provides 20 feedback types, 10 actions, and 18 conditions as design components, and a hybrid user interface combining a web front end on PC/tablet with an AR head-mounted display for in-situ testing and refinement. The authoring workflow is organized into configuration, refinement, and operation phases. The authors demonstrate the system by reconstructing three scenarios from prior work (a replicated HoloLens interaction setup, a motion-intent visualization comparison, and a sensor-value visualization) and report a qualitative usage evaluation in which five AR/robotics experts replicated the first scenario and gave favorable subjective feedback. The paper claims that ARTHUR enables complete AR-based HRC interfaces and has general applicability, while acknowledging limitations and the need for further studies in Sections 5 and 5.1.

Significance. If the claims are supported, ARTHUR would be a valuable systems contribution: it is one of few open-source authoring tools that span feedback, actions, and conditions for AR-based HRC, and its hybrid-interface design directly addresses known usability problems of in-situ AR authoring. The paper's strengths include a public repository, supplementary videos, demonstrations anchored to externally published scenarios, and transparent acknowledgment of its own limitations in Section 5.1. The main weakness is that the strongest claims—general applicability and the effectiveness of the hybrid approach—rest on an unvalidated component inventory and a small, self-selected, single-condition qualitative study. The contribution is a promising feasibility demonstration rather than a fully validated general-purpose authoring solution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.2, 4.1, and 6] The general-applicability claim is load-bearing and not adequately supported. The abstract and Section 6 describe ARTHUR as enabling 'complete AR-based HRC interfaces' with 'general applicability,' and Section 3.2 presents the 20/10/18 inventory as the mechanism for that coverage. However, the paper never maps the cited taxonomies (Suzuki et al. and Walker et al., Section 2.2) onto the implemented inventory, nor does it state which taxonomy items were intentionally omitted. The three demonstration scenarios in Section 4.1 were authored by the system's developers using only the UR5e adapter, so they cannot falsify inventory incompleteness. Section 3.3 makes the coverage cost concrete: adding a component requires code changes in both the authoring service and the AR interface, so an end-user cannot repair a coverage gap. I recommend either adding a systematic coverage analysis (e.g., a table mapping taxonomy categories to the 48 components, with explicit exclusions) or replacing 'complete' and 'general applicability' with scoped claims about the demonstrated scenario classes.
  2. [Sections 4.2, 5, and 5.1] The hybrid-UI effectiveness claim rests on a small, self-selected, single-condition qualitative study. Five participants (all male, with AR/robotics expertise) completed the authoring task, but there is no baseline or comparison condition (e.g., desktop-only or HMD-only authoring), and the outcome measures are self-reported. The paper itself in Section 5 notes that 'further studies are obviously necessary to confirm this claim' and in Section 5.1 calls for evaluations with robotics engineers, UX designers, and workers. Given these acknowledgments, the evidence supports a formative feasibility statement rather than the abstract's characterization of the hybrid approach as 'effective.' I ask the authors to either clearly frame the evaluation as a feasibility/reflection study and soften the effectiveness wording, or add a comparative condition and a more diverse participant sample.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The replication demonstrations are not verified to the fidelity claimed. Scenario 1 is described as replicating Hietanen et al., yet it uses seven visual elements instead of six 'to achieve the same result,' and the safety zone is not natively supported; it requires an external service publishing points over MQTT. The paper does not report whether the resulting behavior was compared with the original system or whether the fidelity was assessed in any structured way. Since these demonstrations are the main evidence for the capability to 'replicate representative examples from prior work' and for general applicability, the paper should specify the intended fidelity level and explicitly list deviations from each original system.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1] In Section 3.1, the sentence 'ARTHUR can be extended with dynamic localization of tools and parts ... though this is not currently not included in the system' contains a double negative; it should read 'not currently included.'
  2. [Section 3.2.3] In Section 3.2.3, '18conditions' is missing a space, and the sentence says '5 different categories' but then lists six categories (spatial, operator, robot, environment, task, and logic); the count should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4.2.2] In Section 4.2.2, 'all participants where able to complete' should be 'all participants were able to complete.'
  4. [Section 5] In Section 5, 'simmultaneous use' should be 'simultaneous use.'
  5. [Section 5.1] In Section 5.1, 'whom is expected to be responsible' should be 'who is expected to be responsible.'
  6. [Section 3.2.1] In Section 3.2.1, 'allows to customization' should be 'allows customization.'
  7. [Section 4.2] The qualitative analysis description in Section 4.2 is underspecified; it mentions thematic analysis of the experimenter's written protocol refined by video and audio inspection, but it does not describe the coding procedure, intercoder agreement, or how themes were derived. Adding this detail would make the evaluation easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the system's evaluation is a self-contained qualitative study, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative predictions and derives no results from fitted parameters. The component inventory (20 feedback types, 10 actions, 18 conditions) is asserted as a design choice informed by external taxonomies: 'These review papers informed the feedback types implemented by ARTHUR' (Section 2.2, citing Suzuki et al. [5] and Walker et al. [38]). No formal completeness claim is made; indeed Section 5.1 states 'further studies are needed to investigate the large number of possible design parameters.' The demonstrations replicate three independently published systems (Hietanen et al. [7], De Franco et al. [64], and prior visualization-comparison work), providing external anchor points that do not reduce to ARTHUR's own definitions. The paper also states 'Scenarios were chosen based on replicability ... and as they represent major current directions in HRC research' (Section 4.1), which is a selection criterion, not a circular definition of general applicability. Self-citations (e.g., [1], [15]) are used only as background and motivation, not to justify the central claim. The limitations of the expert evaluation are explicitly acknowledged (Sections 5.1 and 5.2). Thus, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be identified.

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

The central claims rely on the hand-selected component inventory and several domain assumptions inherited from prior literature; no new physical entities are introduced. The system is implemented software, not a postulated entity requiring independent evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • design component inventory (20 feedback, 10 actions, 18 conditions)
    The size and selection of the component inventory is a hand-chosen design decision informed by prior taxonomies but not derived from data or a completeness analysis. The general applicability claim depends on this inventory being representative.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Augmented reality provides measurable benefits for human-robot collaboration, such as conveying robot intent and improving workspace awareness.
    The paper adopts this from cited prior work (e.g., [1,5,15]) and does not re-evaluate it; it is a precondition for ARTHUR's purpose. Section 1 and 2.2.
  • domain assumption Hybrid user interfaces reduce the interaction disadvantages of AR-only authoring while preserving in-situ placement benefits.
    Informed by prior work on complementary interfaces [17,19,20], but the transfer to HRC authoring is assumed. Section 2.3 and 3.1.
  • domain assumption The robot adapter interface and MQTT-based communication can supply all state and control data the design components require.
    ARTHUR depends on an external robot program and a custom adapter; the paper states the robot program is not part of ARTHUR and assumes the adapter covers the needed data. Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The five-participant qualitative evaluation is sufficient to draw initial conclusions about usability and the hybrid approach.
    This is a methodological assumption common in HCI tool research; the paper acknowledges the need for larger, more diverse studies in Section 5.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ARTHUR: Authoring Human-Robot Collaboration Processes with Augmented Reality using Hybrid User Interfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GP2WOH6A

@misc{pith2026250102304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ARTHUR: Authoring Human-Robot Collaboration Processes with Augmented Reality using Hybrid User Interfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GP2WOH6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02304}
}
read the original abstract

While augmented reality shows promise for supporting human-robot collaboration, creating such interactive systems still poses great challenges. Addressing this, we introduce ARTHUR, an open-source authoring tool for augmented reality-supported human-robot collaboration. ARTHUR supports 20 types of multi-modal feedback to convey robot, task, and system state, 10 actions that enable the user to control the robot and system, and 18 conditions for feedback customization and triggering of actions. By combining these elements, users can create interaction spaces, controls, and information visualizations in augmented reality for collaboration with robot arms. With ARTHUR, we propose to combine desktop interfaces and touchscreen devices for effective authoring, with head-mounted displays for testing and in-situ refinements. To demonstrate the general applicability of ARTHUR for human-robot collaboration scenarios, we replicate representative examples from prior work. Further, in an evaluation with five participants, we reflect on the usefulness of our hybrid user interface approach and the provided functionality, highlighting directions for future work.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    In: International Design Engineering Technical Confer- ences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol

    Malik, A.A., Pandey, V.: Drive the Cobots Aright: Guidelines for Industrial Application of Cobots. In: International Design Engineering Technical Confer- ences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 86250. 21 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ??? (2022). https://doi.org/10.1115/ detc2022-90777 . https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2...

    work page doi:10.1115/detc2022-90777 2022

  2. [3]

    Cheon, E., Schneiders, E., Diekjobst, K., Skov, M.B.: Robots as a place for socializing: Influences of collaborative robots on social dynamics in- and out- side the production cells. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6(CSCW2) (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3555558

    work page doi:10.1145/3555558 2022

  3. [4]

    In: CHI ’23, p

    Pascher, M., Gruenefeld, U., Schneegass, S., Gerken, J.: How to communicate robot motion intent: A scoping review. In: CHI ’23, p. 17. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580857 . https://doi.org/10. 1145/3544548.3580857

    arXiv 2023

  4. [5]

    In: CHI’22

    Suzuki, R., Karim, A., Xia, T., Hedayati, H., Marquardt, N.: Augmented reality and robotics: A survey and taxonomy for ar-enhanced human-robot interaction and robotic interfaces. In: CHI’22. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2022). https: //doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517719 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517719

    arXiv 2022

  5. [6]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine PP, 1–1 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2018.2815655

    Ganesan, R., Rathore, Y., Ross, H., Ben Amor, H.: Better teaming through visual cues: How projecting imagery in a workspace can improve human–robot collaboration. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine PP, 1–1 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2018.2815655

    arXiv 2018

  6. [7]

    Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 63, 101891 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rcim.2019.101891

    Hietanen, A., Pieters, R., Lanz, M., Latokartano, J., K¨ am¨ ar¨ ainen, J.-K.: Ar- based interaction for human-robot collaborative manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 63, 101891 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rcim.2019.101891

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [8]

    Procedia CIRP 97, 464–469 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.07.006

    Dimitropoulos, N., Togias, T., Michalos, G., Makris, S.: Operator support in human–robot collaborative environments using ai enhanced wearable devices. Procedia CIRP 97, 464–469 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.07.006 . 8th CIRP Conference of Assembly Technology and Systems

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.07.006 2021

  8. [9]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 38(12-13), 1513–1526 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364919842925 https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364919842925

    Rosen, E., Whitney, D., Phillips, E., Chien, G., Tompkin, J., Konidaris, G., Tellex, S.: Communicating robot arm motion intent through mixed real- ity head-mounted displays. The International Journal of Robotics Research 38(12-13), 1513–1526 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364919842925 https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364919842925

    doi:10.1177/0278364919842925 2019

Show all 64 references
  1. [10]

    In: CHI’21

    Arevalo Arboleda, S., R¨ ucker, F., Dierks, T., Gerken, J.: Assisting manipula- tion and grasping in robot teleoperation with augmented reality visual cues. In: CHI’21. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764. 3445398 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445398

    2021

  2. [11]

    In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Cogurcu, Y.E., Maddock, S.: Augmented reality safety zone configurations in human-robot collaboration: A user study. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI ’23, pp. 360–363. 22 ACM, New York, NY, USA (2023). https://doi.org/...

    2023

  3. [12]

    In: Mensch und Computer 2020 (2020)

    Gruenefeld, U., Pr¨ adel, L., Illing, J., Stratmann, T., Drolshagen, S., Pfingsthorn, M.: Mind the arm: Realtime visualization of robot motion intent in head-mounted augmented reality. In: Mensch und Computer 2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3404983.3405509

    2020

  4. [13]

    Procedia Manufacturing 54, 197–202 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.07.030

    Andronas, D., Apostolopoulos, G., Fourtakas, N., Makris, S.: Multi-modal inter- faces for natural human-robot interaction. Procedia Manufacturing 54, 197–202 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.07.030 . DET’20

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    Jour- nal of Vision 7(2), 17–17 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.17 https://arvojournals.org/arvo/content public/journal/jov/932848/jov-7-2- 17.pdf

    Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Nakano, L.: Measuring visual clutter. Jour- nal of Vision 7(2), 17–17 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.17 https://arvojournals.org/arvo/content public/journal/jov/932848/jov-7-2- 17.pdf

    2007 doi

  6. [15]

    In: HRI’24 (2024)

    Lunding, R., Lunding, M., Feuchtner, T., Petersen, M., Grønbæk, K., Suzuki, R.: Robovisar: Immersive authoring of condition-based ar robot visualisations. In: HRI’24 (2024)

    2024

  7. [16]

    In: Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Cleaver, A., Tang, D.V., Chen, V., Short, E.S., Sinapov, J.: Dynamic path visu- alization for human-robot collaboration. In: Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI ’21 Companion, pp. 339–343. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https...

    2021

  8. [17]

    IEEE Transactions on Visu- alization and Computer Graphics, 1–16 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG

    Grubert, J., Witzani, L., Otte, A., Gesslein, T., Kranz, M., Kristensson, P.O.: Text Entry Performance and Situation Awareness of a Joint Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display and Smartphone System. IEEE Transactions on Visu- alization and Computer Graphics, 1–16 (2023) htt...

    2023

  9. [18]

    CHI’10, 2625–2634 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753725

    Chan, L.-W., Kao, H.-S., Chen, M.Y., Lee, M.-S., Hsu, J., Hung, Y.-P.: Touching the Void: Direct-Touch Interaction for Intangible Displays. CHI’10, 2625–2634 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753725

    2010

  10. [19]

    Elmqvist, N.: Data analytics anywhere and everywhere. Commun. ACM 66(12), 52–63 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3584858

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    it - Information Technology 64(4-5), 145–154 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1515/ itit-2022-0031

    Zagermann, J., Hubenschmid, S., Balestrucci, P., Feuchtner, T., Mayer, S., Ernst, M.O., Schmidt, A., Reiterer, H.: Complementary interfaces for visual computing. it - Information Technology 64(4-5), 145–154 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1515/ itit-2022-0031 . Accessed 2023-08-31

    2022

  12. [21]

    23 International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131, 81–98 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.011

    Ens, B., Lanir, J., Tang, A., Bateman, S., Lee, G., Piumsomboon, T., Billinghurst, M.: Revisiting collaboration through mixed reality: The evolution of groupware. 23 International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131, 81–98 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.011

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 1–1 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3032761

    Sereno, M., Wang, X., Besancon, L., Mcguffin, M.J., Isenberg, T.: Collaborative Work in Augmented Reality: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 1–1 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3032761

    2020

  14. [23]

    IEEE TVCG 29(5), 2291–2303 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3247081

    Fidalgo, C.G., Yan, Y., Cho, H., Sousa, M., Lindlbauer, D., Jorge, J.: A Survey on Remote Assistance and Training in Mixed Reality Environments. IEEE TVCG 29(5), 2291–2303 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3247081

    2023

  15. [24]

    In: CHI’21, pp

    Ratcliffe, J., Soave, F., Bryan-Kinns, N., Tokarchuk, L., Farkhatdinov, I.: Extended Reality (XR) Remote Research: A Survey of Drawbacks and Opportu- nities. In: CHI’21, pp. 1–13. ACM, Yokohama Japan (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3411764.3445170

    2021

  16. [25]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28(12), 5113–5133 (2022) https://doi

    Marques, B., Silva, S., Alves, J., Araujo, T., Dias, P., Santos, B.S.: A Conceptual Model and Taxonomy for Collaborative Augmented Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28(12), 5113–5133 (2022) https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3101545

    2022

  17. [26]

    In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Marques, B., Silva, S., Pedrosa, E., Barros, F., Teixeira, A., Santos, B.S.: Towards unlimited task coverage and direct (far-off) manipulation in extended reality remote collaboration. In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on Human-Robot Interaction. HR...

    2024

  18. [27]

    In: UIST’19, pp

    Cao, Y., Wang, T., Qian, X., Rao, P.S., Wadhawan, M., Huo, K., Ramani, K.: Ghostar: A time-space editor for embodied authoring of human-robot collabo- rative task with augmented reality. In: UIST’19, pp. 521–534. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3...

    2019

  19. [28]

    In: DIS ’19, pp

    Cao, Y., Xu, Z., Li, F., Zhong, W., Huo, K., Ramani, K.: V.ra: An in-situ visual authoring system for robot-iot task planning with augmented reality. In: DIS ’19, pp. 1059–1070. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3322276.3322278 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    2019

  20. [29]

    In: CHI EA ’20, pp

    Fuste, A., Reynolds, B., Hobin, J., Heun, V.: Kinetic ar: A framework for robotic motion systems in spatial computing. In: CHI EA ’20, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382814 . https://doi.org/10. 1145/3334480.3382814

    2020

  21. [30]

    Ikeda, B., Szafir, D.: Programar: Augmented reality end-user robot programming. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1145/3640008 . Just Accepted 24

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    com/en-us/dynamics-365/products/guides

    Microsoft: Introducing Copilot in Microsoft Dynamics 365 Guides, bringing generative AI in mixed reality to frontline workers, https://www.microsoft. com/en-us/dynamics-365/products/guides. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ dynamics-365/products/guides

  23. [32]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 29(1), 58–67 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2021

    Hoang, K.C., Chan, W.P., Lay, S., Cosgun, A., Croft, E.A.: Arviz: An augmented reality-enabled visualization platform for ros applications. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 29(1), 58–67 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2021. 3135760

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    In: HRI’22, pp

    Ikeda, B., Szafir, D.: Advancing the design of visual debugging tools for roboti- cists. In: HRI’22, pp. 195–204. IEEE, ??? (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ hri53351.2022.9889392

    2022

  25. [34]

    IEEE TVCG, 1–12 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2023.3327398

    Lee, B., Sedlmair, M., Schmalstieg, D.: Design Patterns for Situated Visualiza- tion in Augmented Reality. IEEE TVCG, 1–12 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2023.3327398

    2023

  26. [35]

    Multimedia Tools and Applications 81(11), 14749–14772 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11042-021-10971-4

    Martins, N.C., Marques, B., Alves, J., Ara´ ujo, T., Dias, P., Santos, B.S.: Augmented reality situated visualization in decision-making. Multimedia Tools and Applications 81(11), 14749–14772 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11042-021-10971-4

    2022

  27. [36]

    Leiva, G., Grønbæk, J.E., Klokmose, C.N., Nguyen, C., Kazi, R.H., Asente, P.: Rapido: Prototyping Interactive AR Experiences through Programming by Demonstration, pp. 626–637. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3472749.3474774

    2021

  28. [37]

    In: ISMAR, pp

    Ghamandi, R.K., Hmaiti, Y., Nguyen, T.T., Ghasemaghaei, A., Kattoju, R.K., Taranta, E.M., LaViola, J.J.: What And How Together: A Taxonomy On 30 Years Of Collaborative Human-Centered XR Tasks. In: ISMAR, pp. 322–335. IEEE, Sydney, Australia (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMA...

    2023

  29. [38]

    Walker, M., Phung, T., Chakraborti, T., Williams, T., Szafir, D.: Virtual, aug- mented, and mixed reality for human-robot interaction: A survey and virtual design element taxonomy. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 12(4) (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3597623

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp

    Chan, W.P., Hanks, G., Sakr, M., Zuo, T., Loos, H.F., Croft, E.: An augmented reality human-robot physical collaboration interface design for shared, large-scale, labour-intensive manufacturing tasks. In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Syste...

    2020

  31. [40]

    In: 2016 25th IEEE International Sympo- sium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

    Andersen, R.S., Madsen, O., Moeslund, T.B., Amor, H.B.: Projecting robot 25 intentions into human environments. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Sympo- sium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 294–301. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers In...

    2016

  32. [41]

    Virtual Reality and Intelligent Hard- ware 1(6), 622–634 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vrih.2019.09.006

    Li, W., Wang, J., Jiao, S., Wang, M., Li, S.: Research on the visual elements of augmented reality assembly processes. Virtual Reality and Intelligent Hard- ware 1(6), 622–634 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vrih.2019.09.006 . VR/AR in industry

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    In: CHI’19, pp

    Brudy, F., Holz, C., R¨ adle, R., Wu, C.-J., Houben, S., Klokmose, C.N., Mar- quardt, N.: Cross-Device Taxonomy: Survey, Opportunities and Challenges of Interactions Spanning Across Multiple Devices. In: CHI’19, pp. 1–28. ACM Press, Glasgow, Scotland Uk (2019). https://doi.org...

    2019

  34. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Feiner, S., Shamash, A.: Hybrid user interfaces: breeding virtually bigger inter- faces for physically smaller computers. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. UIST ’91, pp. 9–

  35. [44]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/ 120782.120783

    ACM, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA (1991). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 120782.120783 . https://doi.org/10.1145/120782.120783 Accessed 2020-04-29

    1991

  36. [45]

    In: CHI ’23, pp

    Hubenschmid, S., Zagermann, J., Leicht, D., Reiterer, H., Feuchtner, T.: ARound the Smartphone: Investigating the Effects of Virtually-Extended Display Size on Spatial Memory. In: CHI ’23, pp. 1–15. ACM, Hamburg Germany (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581438 . https:...

    2023

  37. [46]

    In: CHI’21

    Langner, R., Satkowski, M., B¨ uschel, W., Dachselt, R.: MAR VIS: Combining Mobile Devices and Augmented Reality for Visual Data Analysis. In: CHI’21. CHI ’21, pp. 1–17. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3411764.3445593 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3...

    2021

  38. [47]

    IEEE TVCG (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030460

    Reipschl¨ ager, P., Flemisch, T., Dachselt, R.: Personal Augmented Reality for Information Visualization on Large Interactive Displays. IEEE TVCG (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030460 . Accessed 2020-09-09

    2021

  39. [48]

    In: MobileHCI ’19, pp

    B¨ uschel, W., Mitschick, A., Meyer, T., Dachselt, R.: Investigating Smartphone- based Pan and Zoom in 3D Data Spaces in Augmented Reality. In: MobileHCI ’19, pp. 1–13. ACM Press, Taipei, Taiwan (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3338286. 3340113 . http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?...

    2019

  40. [50]

    In: CHI ’21, pp

    Hubenschmid, S., Zagermann, J., Butscher, S., Reiterer, H.: STREAM: Exploring the Combination of Spatially-Aware Tablets with Augmented Reality Head- Mounted Displays for Immersive Analytics. In: CHI ’21, pp. 1–14. ACM, Yokohama Japan (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.34...

    2021

  41. [51]

    i-com20(1), 49–61 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1515/icom-2021-0003

    Knierim, P., Hein, D., Schmidt, A., Kosch, T.: The SmARtphone Controller: Leveraging Smartphones as Input and Output Modality for Improved Interaction within Mobile Augmented Reality Environments. i-com20(1), 49–61 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1515/icom-2021-0003 . Accessed 2021-06-15

    2021 doi

  42. [52]

    In: ISS’21 Workshop Proceedings: ”Transitional Interfaces in Mixed and Cross-Reality: A new frontier?” (2021)

    Hubenschmid, S., Zagermann, J., Fink, D., Wieland, J., Feuchtner, T., Reit- erer, H.: Towards asynchronous hybrid user interfaces for cross-reality inter- action. In: ISS’21 Workshop Proceedings: ”Transitional Interfaces in Mixed and Cross-Reality: A new frontier?” (2021). htt...

    2021 doi

  43. [53]

    In: CHI’22, pp

    Hubenschmid, S., Wieland, J., Fink, D.I., Batch, A., Zagermann, J., Elmqvist, N., Reiterer, H.: ReLive: Bridging In-Situ and Ex-Situ Visual Analytics for Ana- lyzing Mixed Reality User Studies. In: CHI’22, pp. 1–20. ACM, New Orleans LA USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/34911...

    2022

  44. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp

    Kim, S., Dey, A.K.: Simulated augmented reality windshield display as a cognitive mapping aid for elder driver navigation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 133–142. ACM, Boston MA USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701....

    2009

  45. [55]

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124(2), 207–231 (1995) https: //doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207

    Rogers, R.D., Monsell, S.: Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124(2), 207–231 (1995) https: //doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207 . Accessed 2024-03-04

    1995 doi

  46. [56]

    In: A VI’12, pp

    Rashid, U., Nacenta, M.A., Quigley, A.: The cost of display switching: a com- parison of mobile, large display and hybrid UI configurations. In: A VI’12, pp. 99–106. ACM, Capri Island, Italy (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2254556. 2254577 Accessed 2020-03-19

    2012 doi

  47. [57]

    In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Symposium on Pervasive Displays - PerDis ’12, pp

    Rashid, U., Nacenta, M.A., Quigley, A.: Factors influencing visual attention switch in multi-display user interfaces: a survey. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Symposium on Pervasive Displays - PerDis ’12, pp. 1–6. ACM Press, Porto, Portugal (2012). https://doi.org/1...

    2012

  48. [58]

    universal-robots.com/media/1826690/01 2023 collective data sheet-1.pdf, (May 09, 2024)

    Universal Robots: Robot arm Technical specification https://www. universal-robots.com/media/1826690/01 2023 collective data sheet-1.pdf, (May 09, 2024). https://www.universal-robots.com/media/1826690/ 01 2023 collective data sheet-1.pdf

    2023

  49. [59]

    In: 2023 28th International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC), pp

    Park, J., Casser, F., Schlette, C.: Digitalizing manual processes using digital twins and product lifecycle management for safe human-robot interaction scenarios. In: 2023 28th International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC), pp. 1–6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109...

    2023

  50. [60]

    https://mqtt.org

    OASIS MQTT Technical Committee: MQTT, https://mqtt.org, (May 09, 2024). https://mqtt.org

    2024

  51. [61]

    In: Micro- Assembly Technologies and Applications, pp

    S¨ a¨ aski, J., Salonen, T., Hakkarainen, M., Siltanen, S., Woodward, C., Lempi¨ ainen, J.: Integration of design and assembly using augmented reality. In: Micro- Assembly Technologies and Applications, pp. 395–404. Springer, Boston, MA (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-38...

    2008 doi

  52. [62]

    https://github

    Universal Robots: RTDE client library - Python https://github.com/ UniversalRobots/RTDE Python Client Library, (Feb 22, 2024). https://github. com/UniversalRobots/RTDE Python Client Library

    2024

  53. [63]

    https:// mosquitto.org

    Eclipse foundation: Mosquitto, https://mosquitto.org, (May 09, 2024). https:// mosquitto.org

    2024

  54. [64]

    In: CHI’18, pp

    Ledo, D., Houben, S., Vermeulen, J., Marquardt, N., Oehlberg, L., Greenberg, S.: Evaluation strategies for hci toolkit research. In: CHI’18, pp. 1–17. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173610 . https: //doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173610

    2018

  55. [65]

    In: 2019 IEEE Interna- tional Work Conference on Bioinspired Intelligence (IWOBI), pp

    De Franco, A., Lamon, E., Balatti, P., De Momi, E., Ajoudani, A.: An intu- itive augmented reality interface for task scheduling, monitoring, and work performance improvement in human-robot collaboration. In: 2019 IEEE Interna- tional Work Conference on Bioinspired Intelligenc...

    2019

  56. [66]

    In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Renner, P., Lier, F., Friese, F., Pfeiffer, T., Wachsmuth, S.: Wysiwicd: What you see is what i can do. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI ’18, p. 382. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.31775...

    2018

Pith tools

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