Human-Centered Shared Autonomy for Motor Planning, Learning, and Control Applications

Ali Rabiee; Anna Cetera; MH Farhadi; Reza Abiri; Sima Ghafoori; Wei Xu

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 198 references

Human-Centered Shared Autonomy for Motor Planning, Learning, and Control Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A review chapter argues that adaptive blending of human and machine commands is the common technical core of BCI, rehabilitation, and assistive robotics.

desk verdict A competent, broad survey of shared autonomy that overclaims a unified biosignal-based framework its own case studies do not actually instantiate. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16044 v1 pith:JSNCVNB4 submitted 2025-06-19 cs.HC cs.RO

MH Farhadi , Ali Rabiee , Sima Ghafoori , Anna Cetera , Wei Xu , Reza Abiri This is my paper

classification cs.HCcs.RO

keywords SharedAutonomyHuman-centeredAIBiosignalProcessingBrain-ComputerInterfacesRehabilitationRoboticsAssistiveTechnologyReach-and-GraspHuman-machineTeaming

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 chapter argues that brain-computer interfaces, rehabilitation robots, and assistive manipulators are not three separate fields but instances of one design problem: how to map noisy user biosignals into control policies through adaptive arbitration. It proposes a common technical framework centered on the blending equation $u_{\mathrm{final}} = (1-\alpha)u_{\mathrm{human}} + \alpha u_{\mathrm{AI}}$, where the coefficient $\alpha$ is tuned in real time by confidence in inferred intent. If the framework is right, systems built for cursors, therapy platforms, and robot arms can share the same evaluation metrics, co-adaptation algorithms, and design principles, and 'adaptive shared autonomy AI' becomes a concrete target rather than a slogan. The chapter supports the claim with three in-house case studies, including a reinforcement-learning system that amplified low-bandwidth user input into 7-DoF arm control.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the weighted blending equation $u_{\mathrm{final}} = (1-\alpha)u_{\mathrm{human}} + \alpha u_{\mathrm{AI}}$ with adaptive $\alpha$. The terms being blended can be forces, velocities, or position commands; the arbitration mechanism chooses $\alpha$ from fixed, mode-switching, parallel, or continuous policy-blending schemes. In the proposed framework, $\alpha$ is set dynamically by confidence in intent inference, safety constraints, or game-theoretic solution of human and robot cost functions. Around this equation, the paper organizes a pipeline of biosignal acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, classification, goal inference, and personalization, and uses the same pipeline to describe BCI grasping, stroke therapy, and assistive manipulation.

What would settle it

A randomized experiment comparing a fixed-blend shared-autonomy arm to an adaptive-blend version, using the same intent decoder and the same 7-DoF manipulation task, would settle the claim: if users show lower task success or report lower agency or trust under adaptive $\alpha$ than under the best fixed $\alpha$, the paper's central prescription fails in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that historically separate fields—brain-computer interfaces, robotic rehabilitation, and assistive robotics—can be unified under one human-centered shared autonomy framework. The unifying object is the mapping from user biosignals (EEG, EMG, gaze, kinematics) to control policies through adaptive arbitration, formalized as continuous policy-blending with an adjustable coefficient $\alpha \in [0,1]$ in Eq. (1). The paper asserts that $\alpha$ should be modulated online by intent-inference confidence, safety indicators, and user state, and that doing so preserves human leadership and agency while improving task performance. It presents this as the shared technical core across the domains, and surveys probabilistic, data-driven, and model-based intent inference as the engines that make adaptation possible. In the authors' reading, the emerging use of large language models and vision-language models extends the same arbitration logic to reasoning and multimodal dialogue rather than replacing it.

Load-bearing premise

The whole framework depends on the assumption that a machine can read a person's intended action from noisy biosignals well enough that handing more or less control to the machine, moment by moment, helps rather than hurts the person's sense of being in charge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same adaptive-arbitration formalism can be used to design and compare BCI cursor control, robotic rehabilitation, and assistive manipulation, so a result in one domain transfers as a design template to the others.
Real-time intent inference quality becomes the main control variable: higher confidence should raise $\alpha$, and systems that skip this coupling are expected to either over-assist and erode agency or under-assist and overload the user.
Evaluation should move from task-success-only metrics to joint autonomy-agency measures that include workload, trust, and sense of agency alongside completion time and error rate.
Co-adaptive, user-in-the-loop algorithms such as online calibration, transfer learning, and reinforcement learning policies are necessary rather than optional, because static policies fail under biosignal variability.
LLM-based reasoning and multimodal interfaces enter the same framework as high-level intent sources and explanations, not as a separate category.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension would be to apply the same blending equation to powered wheelchairs and prosthetic hands, domains the paper mentions but does not develop.
If the framework is right, benchmark suites for shared autonomy could be built around a standardized adaptive-$\alpha$ interface, allowing cross-domain comparison; the paper identifies the lack of standardization but does not propose a concrete protocol.
The LLM discussion implies a future in which arbitration is not just a scalar blend but a structured negotiation, where human and AI exchange reasons before the control weight is set; the paper lists this as a frontier but does not formalize it.
One consequence of the framework's dependence on intent inference is that near-term gains may come more from better biosignal decoders than from better arbitration rules.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is a review chapter, not a research paper: no new data, derivation, or code. Second, the stated contribution—a common technical framework grounded in mapping user biosignals to control policies via adaptive arbitration—is asserted rather than demonstrated by the paper's own case studies. The ARAS study, which carries the quantitative weight, uses low-bandwidth user commands and an RGB camera, not biosignals, and no Eq. (1) alpha blending appears in its dataflow. The rehabilitation case study is explicitly passive. The BCI case study is a pipeline sketch with no reported evaluation. So the framework reads as a plausible organizing lens, not a proven paradigm.

What the paper does well: it is a genuinely broad synthesis. The coverage of biosignal processing, control taxonomies (the high-level/low-level split in Section IV-C is clean), arbitration schemes, and LLM trends is accurate and reasonably current. Citations to Dragan and Srinivasa, Jain and Argall, Losey et al., and the POMDP/RL literature are appropriate. The writing is clear, and the three-domain organization helps a newcomer see common design questions around intent inference, arbitration, and agency. The ethics/human-factors discussion is above average for this kind of survey.

Soft spots, in proportion. The self-citation pattern is heavy: all three illustrative case studies come from the authors' lab, and the strongest quantitative evidence (ARAS) is an unreviewed preprint with no confidence intervals. That would be fine if framed as ongoing work, but here the case studies are presented as instantiations of the proposed framework, and they do not quite fit. The rehab example is a passive device, which is not shared autonomy in the sense the paper defines it. The common-framework claim would be more honest as a research agenda than as an established result. There is also no concrete account of how an adaptive alpha would be estimated from biosignals in practice, beyond pointing to existing work.

Who is this for? A graduate student or researcher entering shared autonomy in healthcare would get solid orientation. A specialist will not find new mechanisms. It deserves a serious referee if the venue publishes surveys and position pieces; the framework could be sharpened after revision, but the raw material is usable.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, with the expectation that the authors either soften the 'common framework' claim or instantiate it properly with at least one biosignal-driven adaptive-arbitration example. My own verdict: credible synthesis, unproven paradigm.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review chapter that proposes a common technical framework for shared autonomy across three historically separate fields—brain-computer interfaces (BCI), rehabilitation, and assistive robotics—grounded in the mapping of user biosignals to control policies via adaptive arbitration. It surveys human factors and interaction paradigms, biosignal processing and intent inference, control-strategy taxonomies, and emerging LLM-based interfaces, and it presents three case studies drawn from the authors' own prior work. The chapter concludes by proposing 'adaptive shared autonomy AI' as a high-performance paradigm for human-AI teaming and identifies challenges such as biosignal variability, the performance-agency trade-off, and ethical concerns.

Significance. If the proposed common framework were actually instantiated by the presented material, the chapter would fill a useful gap: it organizes a large and fragmented literature, offers a clear arbitration-policy taxonomy (Table I), a hierarchical rehabilitation-control taxonomy (Fig. 4), and a well-structured discussion of intent inference and human-centered metrics in Sections II-C and III-E. The review portions are grounded in a wide range of external sources and are generally accurate. However, the paper's central synthetic claim—that it establishes a common biosignal-to-adaptive-arbitration framework—is not supported by its own case studies, and the only quantitative evidence for the proposed paradigm comes from an unreviewed preprint with no confidence intervals. The significance of the chapter as a review is moderate; its significance as a contribution to a unified framework is currently limited by these gaps.

major comments (4)

[Section I and Sections III-F, IV-F, V-E] The central claim is that the paper establishes a common technical framework 'grounded in the mapping of user biosignals to control policies via adaptive arbitration' (Section I). None of the three case studies instantiates this mapping. Section III-F describes a BCI grasping pipeline but reports no quantitative evaluation; Section IV-F explicitly states the platform 'supports passive therapy along a single linear axis' and only 'future development aims to ... incorporate assistive control strategies'; and Section V-E's ARAS framework receives low-bandwidth user commands plus overhead RGB camera information, with no biosignal input. The claimed common framework is therefore asserted rather than demonstrated by the manuscript's own examples.
[Section V-E and Eq. (1)] The ARAS dataflow in Fig. 7 maps the user command u_tau and scene information s_tau through a goal-inference module H and a transformation Ψ to a latent state z_t, which a deep Q-network maps to a high-level action a_t. No blending coefficient α from Eq. (1) appears in this pipeline, and the user's input is not continuously blended with a robot policy. The paper labels ARAS as shared autonomy and adaptive arbitration, but the mechanism is better described as a learned amplification policy. The relationship between ARAS and the proposed biosignal-adaptive-arbitration framework needs to be made explicit, or the framework must be generalized to encompass this kind of arbitration.
[Section V-E] The quantitative evidence for ARAS comes entirely from unreviewed preprint [15]. The text reports that ARAS 'cut average completion time, reduced required input keystrokes, and lifted overall success from 86% to 92.8' and that 23 participants completed 90 trials apiece, but it gives no confidence intervals, no effect sizes, and no inferential statistics for task time, keystrokes, or success rate. Since the paper's 'adaptive shared autonomy AI' high-performance claim rests on this evidence, the results must either be reported with proper statistical measures and participant-level variance or be clearly labeled as preliminary findings from an unreviewed preprint.
[Section IV-F] The rehabilitation case study is presented under a section titled 'Shared Autonomy in Rehabilitation Domain,' but the text's own limitation statement—'initial design supports passive therapy along a single linear axis' and 'future development aims to ... incorporate assistive control strategies'—shows that the system has no user-input term to blend and is not yet a shared-autonomy system. Using a passive, single-axis platform as a case study for the proposed framework is internally inconsistent with the paper's own definition of shared autonomy as the blending of u_human and u_AI in Eq. (1).

minor comments (8)

[Section III-D] The sentence 'Real-time classifiers combined with with transfer learning and adaptive filtering' contains a duplicated 'with'.
[Section III-F] The phrase 'user-in-the-loop systems collaborative systems that intelligently balance' contains a duplicated 'collaborative systems'.
[Section VI-B] The phrase 'which is against the the goals of rehabilitation systems' contains a duplicated 'the'.
[References] The reference list contains duplicates that should be consolidated: [1] and [27] are the same Ajoudani et al. paper with different page details; [10] and [187] are both the RT-2 preprint; and [44] and [159] are the same Reddy/Dragan/Levine paper.
[Reference [149]] The reference 'E. Ackerman, "Jaco is a low-power robot arm that hooks to your wheelchair," R, 2019' appears to have a truncated source name; the venue is incomplete.
[Section V-E] The phrase 'from 86% to 92.8' omits the percent sign after 92.8.
[Section VI-A1] The name 'SA VOR' should be written as 'SAVOR' to match the cited framework.
[Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'preserving user input (X degrees of freedom, DOF)' is unclear; the variable X is not defined in the caption or the surrounding text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-cited ARAS results carry the empirical load for the proposed paradigm, but the conceptual framework itself is not derivationally circular.

self citation load bearing [Section V-E (ARAS case study) and Section VII Summary]
"As a concrete illustration, Rabiee et al. [15] introduced the Adaptive Reinforcement learning for Amplification of limited inputs in Shared autonomy (ARAS) framework... Extensive evaluation confirms the benefits of this formulation. After 50,000 simulated pick-and-place episodes, the learned policy transferred zero-shot to hardware, where 23 participants completed 90 trials apiece. ..."

The only quantitative support for the abstract's proposal of 'adaptive shared autonomy AI as a high-performance paradigm' is this case study, and Ref. [15] is the present authors' own arXiv preprint (Rabiee, Ghafoori, Farhadi, and Abiri). The chapter reports no independent replication or external benchmark; Section VII then 'The case studies presented serve as examples of these concepts in practice.' Thus the empirical content of the proposed paradigm reduces to a self-citation chain rather than to an independent derivation or external data. This is load-bearing because the 'high-performance' claim is not otherwise supported in the chapter.

full rationale

The common-framework contribution is not definitionally circular: Eq. (1) is standard weighted-sum policy blending attributed to external works ([13], [30]), and the conceptual grounding cites external sources ([3], [7], [44]). The rehab case study (Section IV-F) is explicitly passive ('initial design supports passive therapy along a single linear axis ... future development aims to ... incorporate assistive control strategies'), and the ARAS case study uses low-bandwidth user commands plus RGB camera input rather than biosignals and does not use Eq. (1)'s alpha, so the paper's own examples do not fully instantiate the biosignal-adaptive-arbitration framework; this is an internal-support gap, not a circular derivation. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the self-cited ARAS results being the sole quantitative evidence for the 'high-performance paradigm' proposal, which warrants a moderate score rather than a claim that the whole derivation is forced.

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

No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The review's framework rests on domain assumptions about human primacy, biosignal limitations, and the benefits of adaptive arbitration, plus the reliability of the authors' prior case studies.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Fully independent machine decisions are not ideal in healthcare; human intent must remain central to human-AI teams.
Section II-A posits the human as team leader, which shapes the entire review; the paper offers no empirical test of this value premise.
domain assumption Biosignals such as EEG and EMG are noisy, low-bandwidth, and highly variable, so shared autonomy with intent inference is required for reliable control.
Sections II-C and III-A state this as the core technical challenge motivating the framework.
domain assumption Adaptive arbitration (varying alpha in Eq. 1 with confidence and safety) yields better human-machine performance than static blending or full autonomy.
This is the load-bearing premise of the proposed adaptive shared autonomy AI paradigm; the chapter's evidence is the authors' prior ARAS study (Sec V-E) and cited literature, not new experiments in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Centered Shared Autonomy for Motor Planning, Learning, and Control Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JSNCVNB4

@misc{pith2026250616044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Centered Shared Autonomy for Motor Planning, Learning, and Control Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JSNCVNB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16044}
}

read the original abstract

With recent advancements in AI and computational tools, intelligent paradigms have emerged to enhance fields like shared autonomy and human-machine teaming in healthcare. Advanced AI algorithms (e.g., reinforcement learning) can autonomously make decisions to achieve planning and motion goals. However, in healthcare, where human intent is crucial, fully independent machine decisions may not be ideal. This chapter presents a comprehensive review of human-centered shared autonomy AI frameworks, focusing on upper limb biosignal-based machine interfaces and associated motor control systems, including computer cursors, robotic arms, and planar platforms. We examine motor planning, learning (rehabilitation), and control, covering conceptual foundations of human-machine teaming in reach-and-grasp tasks and analyzing both theoretical and practical implementations. Each section explores how human and machine inputs can be blended for shared autonomy in healthcare applications. Topics include human factors, biosignal processing for intent detection, shared autonomy in brain-computer interfaces (BCI), rehabilitation, assistive robotics, and Large Language Models (LLMs) as the next frontier. We propose adaptive shared autonomy AI as a high-performance paradigm for collaborative human-AI systems, identify key implementation challenges, and outline future directions, particularly regarding AI reasoning agents. This analysis aims to bridge neuroscientific insights with robotics to create more intuitive, effective, and ethical human-machine teaming frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16044 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Traditional BCI pipeline for a reach-to-grasp task, illustrating intent decoding from neural and behavioral signals through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Graph-based AI translation pipeline for BCI grasping system with three components: S1 collects RGB-D and EEG data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Hierarchical taxonomy of control inputs and strategies for upper-limb rehabilitation robots. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Experimental setup demonstrating user interaction with the magnetic-based robotic rehabilitation platform. The designed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: A conceptual design of an assistive AI-powered robotic manipulation system amplified low-dimensional user inputs for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: ARAS formulation diagram. VI. EMERGING TRENDS A. Large language Models in Human-centered Shared Autonomy Large-language-model (LLM) techniques are rapidly reshaping shared autonomy by turning natural language into a control modality and by supplying robots with onboard…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

198 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[15]

Learning Multimodal AI Algorithms for Amplifying Limited User Input into High-dimensional Control Space

A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, M. Farhadi, R. Beyer, X. Bai, D. J. Lin, S. Ostadabbas, and R. Abiri, “Learning multimodal ai algorithms for amplifying limited user input into high-dimensional control space,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11366 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[1]

Progress and prospects of shared control in human-robot interaction,

A. Ajoudani, A. M. Zanchettin, S. Ivaldi, A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, K. Kosuge, and O. Khatib, “Progress and prospects of shared control in human-robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1430–1447, 2018

2018
[2]

Toward human-centered shared autonomy AI paradigms for human-robot teaming in healthcare

R. Abiri, A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, and A. Cetera, “Toward human-centered shared autonomy ai paradigms for human-robot teaming in healthcare,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17464, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[3]

A review of intent detection, arbitration, and communication aspects of shared control for physical human-robot interaction,

D. P. Losey, C. G. McDonald, E. Battaglia, and M. K. O’Malley, “A review of intent detection, arbitration, and communication aspects of shared control for physical human-robot interaction,” Applied Mechanics Reviews , vol. 70, no. 1, Jan. 2018, paper No: AMR-17-1021

2018
[4]

The sense of agency in assistive robotics using shared autonomy,

M. A. Collier, R. Narayan, and H. Admoni, “The sense of agency in assistive robotics using shared autonomy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07462 , 2025

arXiv 2025
[5]

Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control,

J. R. Wolpaw, N. Birbaumer, D. J. McFarland, G. Pfurtscheller, and T. M. Vaughan, “Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 767–791, 2002

2002
[6]

The extraction of neural information from the surface EMG for the control of upper-limb prostheses: emerging avenues and challenges,

D. Farina, N. Jiang, H. Rehbaum, A. Holobar, B. Graimann, H. Dietl, and O. C. Aszmann, “The extraction of neural information from the surface EMG for the control of upper-limb prostheses: emerging avenues and challenges,” Physiological Measurement, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. R25–R53, 2010

2010
[7]

Decoding human motor intent from electromyography for shared human-robot control,

J. He, C.-G. Siong, A. Nagarajan, L. E. Miller, H.-S. Liew, and C. Gao, “Decoding human motor intent from electromyography for shared human-robot control,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 3, pp. 349–373, 2020

2020

Show all 198 references

[8]

Combining brain–computer interfaces and assistive technologies: state-of-the-art and challenges,

J. d. R. Mill ´an, R. Rupp, G. Mueller-Putz, R. Murray-Smith, C. Giugliemma, M. Tangermann, C. Vidaurre, F. Cincotti, R. Leeb, and J. del Mill ´an, “Combining brain–computer interfaces and assistive technologies: state-of-the-art and challenges,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol...

2010
[9]

Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury,

L. Marchal-Crespo and D. J. Reinkensmeyer, “Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation , vol. 6, no. 1, p. 20, 2009

2009
[11]

On the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the need to protect people with disabilities from algorithmic discrimination: Mind the gap,

E. Fosch-Villaronga and H. Drukarch, “On the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the need to protect people with disabilities from algorithmic discrimination: Mind the gap,” Computer Law & Security Review , vol. 43, p. 105624, 2021

2021
[12]

Challenges in shared autonomy,

B. Hayes and B. Scassellati, “Challenges in shared autonomy,” AI Magazine, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 63–70, 2013

2013
[13]

Assistive robotic manipulation through shared autonomy and a body-machine interface,

S. Jain, A. Farshchiansadegh, A. Broad, F. Abdollahi, F. Mussa-Ivaldi, and B. Argall, “Assistive robotic manipulation through shared autonomy and a body-machine interface,” in 2015 IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 526–531

2015
[14]

Co-adaptive brain–computer interfaces: a review of algorithms and methods,

F. Lotte, W. Samek, and C. Vidaurre, “Co-adaptive brain–computer interfaces: a review of algorithms and methods,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , vol. 30, pp. 134–145, 2022

2022
[16]

Human-robot cross-training: A human factors approach to human-robot teaming,

S. Nikolaidis and J. A. Shah, “Human-robot cross-training: A human factors approach to human-robot teaming,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) . Tokyo, Japan: IEEE, Mar. 2013, pp. 355–362

2013
[17]

Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction,

J. M. Beer, A. D. Fisk, and W. A. Rogers, “Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction,” Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 74–99, 2014

2014
[18]

Biosignal-based co-adaptive user-machine interfaces for motor control,

M. M. Madduri, S. A. Burden, and A. L. Orsborn, “Biosignal-based co-adaptive user-machine interfaces for motor control,” Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 27, p. 100462, Jun. 2023

2023
[19]

Automation and accountability in complex systems,

M. L. Cummings, “Automation and accountability in complex systems,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , vol. 48, no. 3. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2004, pp. 432–436

2004
[20]

Human-automation interaction,

T. B. Sheridan and R. Parasuraman, “Human-automation interaction,” Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 89–129, 2005

2005
[21]

Continuous role adaptation for human-robot shared control,

Y . Li, K. P. Tee, W. L. Chan, R. Yan, Y . S. Chua, and D. K. Limbu, “Continuous role adaptation for human-robot shared control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 672–681, Jun. 2015

2015
[22]

Human-robot role arbitration via differential game theory,

P. Franceschi, N. Pedrocchi, and M. Beschi, “Human-robot role arbitration via differential game theory,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 5953–5968, Oct. 2024, accepted 23 September 2023, Date of Publication 10 October 2023. Print ve...

2024
[23]

Emulation of computer mouse control with a noninvasive brain-computer interface,

D. J. McFarland, D. J. Krusienski, W. A. Sarnacki, and J. R. Wolpaw, “Emulation of computer mouse control with a noninvasive brain-computer interface,” Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 101–110, Jun. 2008

2008
[24]

A hybrid brain-muscle-machine interface for stroke rehabilitation: Usability and functionality validation in a 2-week intensive intervention,

A. Sarasola-Sanz, A. M. Ray, A. Insausti-Delgado, N. Irastorza-Landa, W. J. Mahmoud, D. Br ¨otz, C. Bibi ´an-Nogueras, F. Helmhold, C. Zrenner, U. Ziemann, E. L ´opez-Larraz, and A. Ramos-Murguialday, “A hybrid brain-muscle-machine interface for stroke rehabilitation: Usabilit...

2024
[25]

Probabilistic human intent recognition for shared autonomy in assistive robotics,

S. Jain and B. Argall, “Probabilistic human intent recognition for shared autonomy in assistive robotics,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–23, Dec. 2019

2019
[26]

Adaptive impedance controller for human-robot arbitration based on cooperative differential game theory,

P. Franceschi, N. Pedrocchi, and M. Beschi, “Adaptive impedance controller for human-robot arbitration based on cooperative differential game theory,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , Philadelphia, PA, USA, May 2022, pp. 7888–7894

2022
[27]

Progress and prospects of shared control in human-robot interaction,

A. Ajoudani, A. M. Zanchettin, S. Ivaldi, A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, K. Kosuge, and O. Khatib, “Progress and prospects of shared control in human-robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1378–1399, Oct. 2018

2018
[28]

The role of roles: Physical cooperation between humans and robots,

A. M ¨ortl, M. Lawitzky, A. Kucukyilmaz, T. M. Sezgin, C. Basdogan, and S. Hirche, “The role of roles: Physical cooperation between humans and robots,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 31, no. 13, pp. 1656–1674, Nov. 2012

2012
[29]

A framework to describe, analyze and generate interactive motor behaviors,

N. Jarrass ´e, T. Charalambous, and E. Burdet, “A framework to describe, analyze and generate interactive motor behaviors,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 11, p. e49945, 2012

2012
[30]

A policy-blending formalism for shared control,

A. D. Dragan and S. S. Srinivasa, “A policy-blending formalism for shared control,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 790–805, 2013

2013
[31]

A survey on real-time biosignal processing systems for bci applications,

X. Zhang, G. Xu, L. Xie, M. Xu, and Y . Yang, “A survey on real-time biosignal processing systems for bci applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 123 678–123 692, 2020

2020
[32]

Supervisory control of multiple robots: human-performance issues and user-interface design,

J. Y . Chen, M. J. Barnes, and M. Harper-Sciarini, “Supervisory control of multiple robots: human-performance issues and user-interface design,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 181–195, 2014

2014
[33]

Probabilistic human intent recognition for shared autonomy in assistive robotics,

A. Jain and B. D. Argall, “Probabilistic human intent recognition for shared autonomy in assistive robotics,” Journal of Human-Robot Interaction , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–29, 2019, also appears as: Probabilistic Human Intent Recognition for Shared Autonomy in Assistive Robotics. ...

2019 doi
[34]

Machine learning for human activity recognition: A comprehensive review,

M. M. Islam, M. I. Hossain, S. Roy, M. B. Hossain, and J. Shin, “Machine learning for human activity recognition: A comprehensive review,” Algorithms, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 91, 2024, article states V ol 11, Issue 3, but published date Feb 2024. Using the provided info. If actual ...

2024
[35]

Inferring human intent and predicting human action in human–robot collaboration,

B. D. Argall and A. D. Dragan, “Inferring human intent and predicting human action in human–robot collaboration,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 7, pp. 35–57, 2024

2024
[36]

A survey on eeg signal processing: Preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification,

Z.-M. Wang, T.-X. Zhao, H.-Y . Wang, Y .-L. Li, L. Zhu, W. Wu, and L.-W. Zhang, “A survey on eeg signal processing: Preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 17, p. 1203059, 2023

2023
[37]

Multimodal fusion of emg and vision for human grasp intent inference in prosthetic hand control,

H. Wang, T. Yuan, Y . Zhao, and D. Bai, “Multimodal fusion of emg and vision for human grasp intent inference in prosthetic hand control,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 95, p. 106437, 2025, pre-proof available on ResearchGate March 2024. Publication date list...

2025
[38]

Assistive control of robot arms via adaptive shared autonomy,

U. Atan, V . R. Bharadwaj, and C. Jiang, “Assistive control of robot arms via adaptive shared autonomy,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1096–1102

2024
[39]

Active intent disambiguation for shared control robots,

D. E. Gopinath and B. D. Argall, “Active intent disambiguation for shared control robots,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 907–916, 2020, corresponds to arXiv:2005.03652

2020 arXiv
[40]

Joint cognitive systems: The foundations of cognitive systems engineering,

E. Hollnagel and D. D. Woods, “Joint cognitive systems: The foundations of cognitive systems engineering,” CRC press, 2005

2005
[41]

The future of work with robots and ai,

P. A. Hancock, I. Nourbakhsh, and B. Scassellati, “The future of work with robots and ai,” Human Factors, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 921–928, 2021

2021
[42]

The proactive agent: A new metaphor for human–ai interaction,

G. Hoffman and O. Zuckerman, “The proactive agent: A new metaphor for human–ai interaction,” ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems , vol. 9, no. 2-3, pp. 1–25, 2019

2019
[43]

Anticipatory robot control for efficient human-robot collaboration,

C.-M. Huang and B. Mutlu, “Anticipatory robot control for efficient human-robot collaboration,” in 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) , 2016, pp. 83–90

2016
[45]

A survey of affective brain-computer interfaces: principles, state-of-the-art, and challenges,

C. M ¨uhl, B. Allison, P. Gerjets, and H. Hinrichs, “A survey of affective brain-computer interfaces: principles, state-of-the-art, and challenges,” Brain-Computer Interfaces, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 66–84, 2014

2014
[46]

Explainable agents and robots: A survey,

S. Anjomshoae, A. Najjar, D. Calvaresi, and K. Fr ¨amling, “Explainable agents and robots: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.07243 , 2019

1909 arXiv
[47]

A comprehensive review of eeg-based brain–computer interface paradigms,

R. Abiri, S. Borhani, E. W. Sellers, Y . Jiang, and X. Zhao, “A comprehensive review of eeg-based brain–computer interface paradigms,” Journal of neural engineering, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 011001, 2019

2019
[48]

A usability study of low-cost wireless brain-computer interface for cursor control using online linear model,

R. Abiri, S. Borhani, J. Kilmarx, C. Esterwood, Y . Jiang, and X. Zhao, “A usability study of low-cost wireless brain-computer interface for cursor control using online linear model,” IEEE transactions on human-machine systems , vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 287–297, 2020

2020
[49]

Sequence-based manipulation of robotic arm control in brain machine interface,

J. Kilmarx, R. Abiri, S. Borhani, Y . Jiang, and X. Zhao, “Sequence-based manipulation of robotic arm control in brain machine interface,” International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 149–160, 2018

2018
[50]

Shared autonomy for assistive robotic manipulation with a brain-computer interface: Theory and experiments,

A. Ghasemi, M. J. Johnson, S. Karnam, D. Gopinath, H. Zhang, and N. Sarkar, “Shared autonomy for assistive robotic manipulation with a brain-computer interface: Theory and experiments,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabf8026, 2022

2022
[51]

A review of classification algorithms for eeg-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,

F. Lotte, M. Congedo, A. L ´ecuyer, F. Lamarche, and B. Arnaldi, “A review of classification algorithms for eeg-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,” Journal of neural engineering , vol. 15, no. 3, p. 031005, 2018

2018
[52]

Eeg-based brain–computer interfaces,

D. J. McFarland and J. R. Wolpaw, “Eeg-based brain–computer interfaces,” Current opinion in biomedical engineering , vol. 4, pp. 194–200, 2017

2017
[53]

Human-centered shared autonomy in brain–computer interfaces: A survey,

Y . Zhao, Y . Liu, Y . Lin, X. Li, H. He, and Y . Zhang, “Human-centered shared autonomy in brain–computer interfaces: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 2023

2023
[54]

Plug-and-play control of a brain–computer interface through neural map stabilization,

D. B. Silversmith, R. Abiri, N. F. Hardy, N. Natraj, A. Tu-Chan, E. F. Chang, and K. Ganguly, “Plug-and-play control of a brain–computer interface through neural map stabilization,” Nature biotechnology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 326–335, 2021

2021
[55]

Sampling representational plasticity of simple imagined movements across days enables long-term neuroprosthetic control,

N. Natraj, S. Seko, R. Abiri, R. Miao, H. Yan, Y . Graham, A. Tu-Chan, E. F. Chang, and K. Ganguly, “Sampling representational plasticity of simple imagined movements across days enables long-term neuroprosthetic control,” Cell, 2024

2024
[56]

Event-related eeg/meg synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles,

G. Pfurtscheller and F. H. Lopes da Silva, “Event-related eeg/meg synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles,” Clinical neurophysiology, vol. 110, no. 11, pp. 1842–1857, 1999

1999
[57]

Processing of myoelectric signals for controlling powered limb prostheses,

E. A. Clancy, E. L. Morin, and R. Merletti, “Processing of myoelectric signals for controlling powered limb prostheses,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 743–754, 2002

2002
[58]

Bci2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (bci) system,

G. Schalk, D. J. McFarland, T. Hinterberger, N. Birbaumer, and J. R. Wolpaw, “Bci2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (bci) system,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1034–1043, 2004

2004
[59]

Combining eeg and emg for improved intention recognition in upper-limb prosthesis control,

G. R. M ¨uller-Putz, R. Scherer, C. Brunner, R. Leeb, and G. Pfurtscheller, “Combining eeg and emg for improved intention recognition in upper-limb prosthesis control,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2173–2184, 2015

2015
[60]

Brain-computer interface controlled robotic gait orthosis,

A. H. Do, P. T. Wang, C. E. King, S. N. Chun, and Z. Nenadic, “Brain-computer interface controlled robotic gait orthosis,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2013

2013
[61]

Hybrid human-machine interface for gait decoding through bayesian fusion of eeg and emg classifiers,

S. Tortora, S. Ghidoni, C. Chisari, F. Artoni, and S. Micera, “Hybrid human-machine interface for gait decoding through bayesian fusion of eeg and emg classifiers,” Frontiers in neurorobotics, vol. 14, p. 89, 2020

2020
[62]

Towards passive brain–computer interfaces: applying brain–computer interface technology to human–machine systems in general,

T. O. Zander and C. Kothe, “Towards passive brain–computer interfaces: applying brain–computer interface technology to human–machine systems in general,” Journal of neural engineering , vol. 8, no. 2, p. 025005, 2011

2011
[63]

Bci demographics: how many (and what kinds of) people can use an ssvep bci?

B. Z. Allison, E. W. Wolpaw, and J. R. Wolpaw, “Bci demographics: how many (and what kinds of) people can use an ssvep bci?” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 107–116, 2010

2010
[64]

Eeglab: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial eeg dynamics including independent component analysis,

A. Delorme and S. Makeig, “Eeglab: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial eeg dynamics including independent component analysis,” Journal of neuroscience methods , vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 2004

2004
[65]

Methods for artifact detection and removal from scalp eeg: a review,

M. K. Islam, A. Rastegarnia, and Z. Yang, “Methods for artifact detection and removal from scalp eeg: a review,” Neurophysiologie Clinique, vol. 46, no. 4-5, pp. 287–305, 2016

2016
[66]

Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals,

J.-P. Lachaux, E. Rodriguez, J. Martinerie, and F. J. Varela, “Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals,” Human brain mapping , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 194–208, 1999

1999
[67]

Optimizing spatial filters for robust eeg single-trial analysis,

B. Blankertz, R. Tomioka, S. Lemm, M. Kawanabe, and K.-R. Muller, “Optimizing spatial filters for robust eeg single-trial analysis,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 41–56, 2008

2008
[68]

Filter bank common spatial pattern (fbcsp) in brain–computer interface,

K. K. Ang, Z. H. Chin, H. Zhang, and C. Guan, “Filter bank common spatial pattern (fbcsp) in brain–computer interface,” in IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2012, pp. 2390–2397

2012
[69]

A new strategy for multifunction myoelectric control,

B. Hudgins, P. Parker, and R. N. Scott, “A new strategy for multifunction myoelectric control,” IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 82–94, 1993

1993
[70]

Classification of the myoelectric signal using time-frequency based representations,

K. Englehart, B. Hudgins, and P. A. Parker, “Classification of the myoelectric signal using time-frequency based representations,” Medical engineering & physics, vol. 21, no. 6-7, pp. 431–438, 1999

1999
[71]

Feature extraction and selection for myoelectric control based on wearable emg sensors,

A. Phinyomark, P. Phukpattaranont, and C. Limsakul, “Feature extraction and selection for myoelectric control based on wearable emg sensors,” Sensors, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 12 402–12 440, 2012

2012
[72]

Eegnet: a compact convolutional neural network for eeg-based brain–computer interfaces,

V . J. Lawhern, A. J. Solon, N. R. Waytowich, S. M. Gordon, C. P. Hung, and B. J. Lance, “Eegnet: a compact convolutional neural network for eeg-based brain–computer interfaces,” Journal of neural engineering , vol. 15, no. 5, p. 056013, 2018

2018
[73]

Chrononet: A deep recurrent neural network for abnormal eeg identification,

S. Roy, I. Kiral-Kornek, and S. Harrer, “Chrononet: A deep recurrent neural network for abnormal eeg identification,” Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 113, p. 103395, 2019

2019
[74]

Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for eeg decoding and visualization,

R. T. Schirrmeister, J. T. Springenberg, L. D. J. Fiederer, M. Glasstetter, K. Eggensperger, M. Tangermann, F. Hutter, W. Burgard, and T. Ball, “Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for eeg decoding and visualization,” Human brain mapping , vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 539...

2017
[75]

Towards adaptive classification for bci,

P. Shenoy, M. Krauledat, B. Blankertz, R. P. Rao, and K.-R. M ¨uller, “Towards adaptive classification for bci,” Journal of neural engineering , vol. 3, no. 1, p. R13, 2006

2006
[76]

Towards a cure for bci illiteracy,

C. Vidaurre and B. Blankertz, “Towards a cure for bci illiteracy,” Brain topography, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 194–198, 2010

2010
[77]

Brain-machine interfaces: a tale of two learners,

S. Perdikis and J. d. R. Mill ´an, “Brain-machine interfaces: a tale of two learners,” IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 12–19, 2020

2020
[78]

A real-time interface based on the p300 speller,

S. G. Mason, A. Bashashati, M. Fatourechi, K. F. Navarro, and G. E. Birch, “A real-time interface based on the p300 speller,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 540–548, 2007

2007
[79]

Toward self-paced brain–computer communication: navigation through virtual worlds,

R. Scherer, G. R. M ¨uller, C. Neuper, B. Graimann, and G. Pfurtscheller, “Toward self-paced brain–computer communication: navigation through virtual worlds,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 675–682, 2008

2008
[80]

P. L. Nunez and R. Srinivasan, Electric fields of the brain: the neurophysics of EEG . Oxford University Press, 2006

2006
[81]

M. X. Cohen, Analyzing neural time series data: theory and practice . MIT Press, 2014

2014
[82]

Brain–computer interface spellers: A review,

A. Rezeika, M. Benda, P. Stawicki, F. Gembler, A. Saboor, and I. V olosyak, “Brain–computer interface spellers: A review,” Brain Sciences, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 57, 2018

2018
[83]

Toward enhanced p300 speller performance,

D. J. Krusienski, E. W. Sellers, F. Cabestaing, S. Bayoudh, D. J. McFarland, T. M. Vaughan, and J. R. Wolpaw, “Toward enhanced p300 speller performance,” Journal of neuroscience methods , vol. 167, no. 1, pp. 15–21, 2008

2008
[84]

The berlin brain–computer interface: non-medical uses of bci technology,

B. Blankertz, L. Acqualagna, S. D ¨ahne, S. Haufe, M. Schultze-Kraft, I. Sturm, M. U s ¸¨um¨us ¸, M. A. Wenzel, G. Curio, and K.-R. M ¨uller, “The berlin brain–computer interface: non-medical uses of bci technology,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 5, p. 9, 2011

2011
[85]

Learning representations from eeg with deep recurrent-convolutional neural networks,

P. Bashivan, I. Rish, M. Yeasin, and N. Codella, “Learning representations from eeg with deep recurrent-convolutional neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06448, 2015

2015 arXiv
[86]

Convolutional neural network for multi-category rapid serial visual presentation bci,

R. Manor and A. B. Geva, “Convolutional neural network for multi-category rapid serial visual presentation bci,” Frontiers in computational neuroscience, vol. 9, p. 146, 2015

2015
[87]

Eeg emotion recognition using dynamical graph convolutional neural networks,

T. Song, W. Zheng, P. Song, and Z. Cui, “Eeg emotion recognition using dynamical graph convolutional neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 532–541, 2020

2020
[88]

Investigating critical frequency bands and channels for eeg-based emotion recognition with deep neural networks,

W.-L. Zheng and B.-L. Lu, “Investigating critical frequency bands and channels for eeg-based emotion recognition with deep neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 162–175, 2015

2015
[89]

Transfer learning in brain-computer interfaces,

V . Jayaram, M. Alamgir, Y . Altun, B. Scholkopf, and M. Grosse-Wentrup, “Transfer learning in brain-computer interfaces,” IEEE Computational intelligence magazine, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 20–31, 2016

2016
[90]

Composite common spatial pattern for subject-to-subject transfer,

H. Kang, Y . Nam, and S. Choi, “Composite common spatial pattern for subject-to-subject transfer,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 683–686, 2009

2009
[91]

Closed-loop decoder adaptation shapes neural plasticity for skillful neuroprosthetic control,

A. L. Orsborn, S. Dangi, H. G. Moorman, and J. M. Carmena, “Closed-loop decoder adaptation shapes neural plasticity for skillful neuroprosthetic control,” Neuron, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 1380–1393, 2014

2014
[92]

Learning algorithms for human–machine interfaces,

Z. C. Danziger, E. Raffin, A. Tabbal, J. Signoret, M. A. Maier, and A. Schmied, “Learning algorithms for human–machine interfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1502–1511, 2009

2009
[93]

Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” in Advances in psychology , vol. 52. Elsevier, 1988, pp. 139–183

1988
[94]

Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale,

J. Brooke, “Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale,” in Usability evaluation in industry . Taylor & Francis, 1996, pp. 189–194

1996
[95]

Rehabilitation of upper limb motor impairment in stroke: a narrative review on the prevalence, risk factors, and economic statistics of stroke and state of the art therapies,

S. Anwer, A. Waris, S. O. Gilani, J. Iqbal, N. Shaikh, A. N. Pujari, and I. K. Niazi, “Rehabilitation of upper limb motor impairment in stroke: a narrative review on the prevalence, risk factors, and economic statistics of stroke and state of the art therapies,” in Healthcare,...

2022
[96]

Robotic assistive and rehabilitation devices leading to motor recovery in upper limb: a systematic review,

S. Khalid, F. Alnajjar, M. Gochoo, A. Renawi, and S. Shimoda, “Robotic assistive and rehabilitation devices leading to motor recovery in upper limb: a systematic review,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 658–672, 2023

2023
[97]

A review on upper limb rehabilitation robots,

H. M. Qassim and W. Wan Hasan, “A review on upper limb rehabilitation robots,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 19, p. 6976, 2020

2020
[98]

A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation,

P. Maciejasz, J. Eschweiler, K. Gerlach-Hahn, A. Jansen-Troy, and S. Leonhardt, “A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2014

2014
[99]

Affordable robotics for upper limb stroke rehabilitation in developing countries: a systematic review,

A. Demofonti, G. Carpino, L. Zollo, and M. J. Johnson, “Affordable robotics for upper limb stroke rehabilitation in developing countries: a systematic review,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2021

2021
[100]

Development of robot-based upper limb devices for rehabilitation purposes: a systematic review,

J. Narayan, B. Kalita, and S. K. Dwivedy, “Development of robot-based upper limb devices for rehabilitation purposes: a systematic review,” Augmented Human Research, vol. 6, pp. 1–33, 2021

2021
[101]

Affordable stroke therapy in high-, low-and middle-income countries: From theradrive to rehab cares, a compact robot gym,

M. J. Johnson, R. Rai, S. Barathi, R. Mendonca, and K. Bustamante-Valles, “Affordable stroke therapy in high-, low-and middle-income countries: From theradrive to rehab cares, a compact robot gym,” Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering , vol. 4, p. 2...

2017
[102]

Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: current status and challenges to clinical acceptance,

P. Lum, D. Reinkensmeyer, R. Mahoney, W. Z. Rymer, and C. Burgar, “Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: current status and challenges to clinical acceptance,” Topics in stroke rehabilitation, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 40–53, 2002

2002
[103]

Mansour, K

S. Mansour, K. K. Ang, K. P. Nair, K. S. Phua, and M. Arvaneh, “Efficacy of brain–computer interface and the impact of its design characteristics on poststroke upper-limb rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Clinical EEG and N...

2022
[104]

Bilateral robots for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: State of the art and future prospects,

B. Sheng, Y . Zhang, W. Meng, C. Deng, and S. Xie, “Bilateral robots for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: State of the art and future prospects,” Medical engineering & physics , vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 587–606, 2016

2016
[105]

S. H. Lee, G. Park, D. Y . Cho, H. Y . Kim, J.-Y . Lee, S. Kim, S.-B. Park, and J.-H. Shin, “Comparisons between end-effector and exoskeleton rehabilitation robots regarding upper extremity function among chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment,” ...

2020
[106]

Design and characterization of the rehapticknob, a robot for assessment and therapy of hand function,

J.-C. Metzger, O. Lambercy, D. Chapuis, and R. Gassert, “Design and characterization of the rehapticknob, a robot for assessment and therapy of hand function,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems . IEEE, 2011, pp. 3074–3080

2011
[107]

Automatic and personalized adaptation of therapy parameters for unsupervised robot-assisted rehabilitation: A pilot evaluation,

G. Devittori, R. Ranzani, D. Dinacci, D. Romiti, A. Califfi, C. Petrillo, P. Rossi, R. Gassert, and O. Lambercy, “Automatic and personalized adaptation of therapy parameters for unsupervised robot-assisted rehabilitation: A pilot evaluation,” in 2022 International Conference o...

2022
[108]

Wrist-robohab: A robot for treatment and evaluation of brain injury patients,

M. A. Baniasad, F. Farahmand, and N. N. Ansari, “Wrist-robohab: A robot for treatment and evaluation of brain injury patients,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics . IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–5

2011
[109]

Arm studio to intensify the upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: concept, acceptance, utilization and preliminary clinical results

R. Buschfort, J. Brocke, A. Hess, C. Werner, A. Waldner, and S. Hesse, “Arm studio to intensify the upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: concept, acceptance, utilization and preliminary clinical results.” Journal of rehabilitation medicine , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 310–314, 2010

2010
[110]

A simple robotic system for neurorehabilitation,

S. Micera, M. C. Carrozza, E. Guglielmelli, G. Cappiello, F. Zaccone, C. Freschi, R. Colombo, A. Mazzone, C. Delconte, F. Pisano et al., “A simple robotic system for neurorehabilitation,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 19, pp. 271–284, 2005

2005
[111]

Rehabilitation robotics: pilot trial of a spatial extension for mit-manus,

H. I. Krebs, M. Ferraro, S. P. Buerger, M. J. Newbery, A. Makiyama, M. Sandmann, D. Lynch, B. T. V olpe, and N. Hogan, “Rehabilitation robotics: pilot trial of a spatial extension for mit-manus,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation , vol. 1, pp. 1–15, 2004

2004
[112]

Development of a robotic device for upper limb stroke rehabilitation: A user-centered design approach,

E. C. Lu, R. Wang, R. Huq, D. Gardner, P. Karam, K. Zabjek, D. H ´ebert, J. Boger, and A. Mihailidis, “Development of a robotic device for upper limb stroke rehabilitation: A user-centered design approach,” Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 176–184, 2011

2011
[113]

Home-based computer assisted arm rehabilitation (hcaar) robotic device for upper limb exercise after stroke: results of a feasibility study in home setting,

M. Sivan, J. Gallagher, S. Makower, D. Keeling, B. Bhakta, R. J. O’Connor, and M. Levesley, “Home-based computer assisted arm rehabilitation (hcaar) robotic device for upper limb exercise after stroke: results of a feasibility study in home setting,” Journal of neuroengineerin...

2014
[114]

Upper limb robot-assisted therapy in chronic and subacute stroke patients: a kinematic analysis,

S. Mazzoleni, P. Sale, M. Tiboni, M. Franceschini, M. C. Carrozza, and F. Posteraro, “Upper limb robot-assisted therapy in chronic and subacute stroke patients: a kinematic analysis,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation , vol. 92, no. 10, pp. e26–e37, 2013

2013
[115]

Feasibility of two different emg-based pattern recognition control paradigms to control a robot after stroke–case study,

J. V . Kopke, M. D. Ellis, and L. J. Hargrove, “Feasibility of two different emg-based pattern recognition control paradigms to control a robot after stroke–case study,” in 2020 8th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) . I...

2020
[116]

Design of a mobile, inexpensive device for upper extremity rehabilitation at home,

J. S. Sulzer, M. A. Peshkin, and J. L. Patton, “Design of a mobile, inexpensive device for upper extremity rehabilitation at home,” in 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics . IEEE, 2007, pp. 933–937

2007
[117]

A semi-passive planar manipulandum for upper-extremity rehabilitation,

C.-K. Chang, E. P. Washabaugh, A. Gwozdziowski, C. D. Remy, and C. Krishnan, “A semi-passive planar manipulandum for upper-extremity rehabilitation,” Annals of biomedical engineering , vol. 46, pp. 1047–1065, 2018

2018
[118]

Design strategies to improve patient motivation during robot-aided rehabilitation,

R. Colombo, F. Pisano, A. Mazzone, C. Delconte, S. Micera, M. C. Carrozza, P. Dario, and G. Minuco, “Design strategies to improve patient motivation during robot-aided rehabilitation,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation , vol. 4, pp. 1–12, 2007

2007
[119]

Operation safety of a 2-dof planar mechanism for arm rehabilitation,

M. Ceccarelli, M. Russo, D. Cafolla, and B. D. Chaparro-Rico, “Operation safety of a 2-dof planar mechanism for arm rehabilitation,” Inventions, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 85, 2021

2021
[120]

Adaptive admittance control of an upper extremity rehabilitation robot with neural-network-based disturbance observer,

Q. Wu, B. Chen, and H. Wu, “Adaptive admittance control of an upper extremity rehabilitation robot with neural-network-based disturbance observer,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 123 807–123 819, 2019

2019
[121]

H-man: A planar, h-shape cabled differential robotic manipulandum for experiments on human motor control,

D. Campolo, P. Tommasino, K. Gamage, J. Klein, C. M. Hughes, and L. Masia, “H-man: A planar, h-shape cabled differential robotic manipulandum for experiments on human motor control,” Journal of neuroscience methods , vol. 235, pp. 285–297, 2014

2014
[122]

A robotic workstation for stroke rehabilitation of the upper extremity using fes,

C. Freeman, A.-M. Hughes, J. Burridge, P. Chappell, P. Lewin, and E. Rogers, “A robotic workstation for stroke rehabilitation of the upper extremity using fes,” Medical engineering & physics , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 364–373, 2009

2009
[123]

Configuration-dependent optimal impedance control of an upper extremity stroke rehabilitation manipulandum,

B. Ghannadi, R. Sharif Razavian, and J. McPhee, “Configuration-dependent optimal impedance control of an upper extremity stroke rehabilitation manipulandum,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 5, p. 124, 2018

2018
[124]

A usability study in patients with stroke using merlin, a robotic system based on serious games for upper limb rehabilitation in the home setting,

S. Guill ´en-Climent, A. Garzo, M. N. Mu ˜noz-Alcaraz, P. Casado-Adam, J. Arcas-Ruiz-Ruano, M. Mej ´ıas-Ruiz, and F. J. Mayordomo-Riera, “A usability study in patients with stroke using merlin, a robotic system based on serious games for upper limb rehabilitation in the home s...

2021
[125]

Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke,

J. Whitall, S. M. Waller, K. H. Silver, and R. F. Macko, “Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke,” stroke, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 2390–2395, 2000

2000
[126]

Self-adaptive robot training of stroke survivors for continuous tracking movements,

E. Vergaro, M. Casadio, V . Squeri, P. Giannoni, P. Morasso, and V . Sanguineti, “Self-adaptive robot training of stroke survivors for continuous tracking movements,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2010

2010
[127]

A new mechanical arm trainer to intensify the upper limb rehabilitation of severely affected patients after stroke: design, concept and first case series

S. Hesse, H. Schmidt, C. Werner, C. Rybski, U. Puzich, and A. Bardeleben, “A new mechanical arm trainer to intensify the upper limb rehabilitation of severely affected patients after stroke: design, concept and first case series.” Europa medicophysica, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 463–...

2007
[128]

Robotic stroke therapy assistant,

R. M. Mahoney, H. M. Van der Loos, P. S. Lum, and C. Burgar, “Robotic stroke therapy assistant,” Robotica, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 33–44, 2003

2003
[129]

Design and development of a hand robotic rehabilitation device for post stroke patients,

E. Rashedi, A. Mirbagheri, B. Taheri, F. Farahmand, G. V ossoughi, and M. Parnianpour, “Design and development of a hand robotic rehabilitation device for post stroke patients,” in 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society . I...

2009
[130]

Quantitative assessment of motor function by an end-effector upper limb rehabilitation robot based on admittance control,

C. Qian, W. Li, T. Jia, C. Li, P.-J. Lin, Y . Yang, and L. Ji, “Quantitative assessment of motor function by an end-effector upper limb rehabilitation robot based on admittance control,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 15, p. 6854, 2021

2021
[131]

Motore: A mobile haptic interface for neuro-rehabilitation,

C. A. Avizzano, M. Satler, G. Cappiello, A. Scoglio, E. Ruffaldi, and M. Bergamasco, “Motore: A mobile haptic interface for neuro-rehabilitation,” in 2011 RO-MAN. IEEE, 2011, pp. 383–388

2011
[132]

Robotic rehabilitation for end-effector device and botulinum toxin in upper limb rehabilitation in chronic post-stroke patients: an integrated rehabilitative approach,

T. Paolucci, F. Agostini, M. Mangone, A. Bernetti, L. Pezzi, V . Liotti, E. Recubini, C. Cantarella, R. G. Bellomo, C. D’Aurizio et al. , “Robotic rehabilitation for end-effector device and botulinum toxin in upper limb rehabilitation in chronic post-stroke patients: an integr...

2021
[133]

A novel seamless magnetic-based actuating mechanism for end-effector-based robotic rehabilitation platforms,

S. Ghafoori, A. Rabiee, M. Norouzi, M. K. Jouaneh, and R. Abiri, “A novel seamless magnetic-based actuating mechanism for end-effector-based robotic rehabilitation platforms,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 4516–4523, 2025

2025
[134]

Reach & grasp therapy: Effects of the gentle/g system assessing sub-acute stroke whole-arm rehabilitation,

R. C. Loureiro, B. Lamperd, C. Collin, and W. S. Harwin, “Reach & grasp therapy: Effects of the gentle/g system assessing sub-acute stroke whole-arm rehabilitation,” in 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics , 2009, pp. 755–760

2009
[135]

irest: Interactive rehabilitation and assessment tool,

H. A. Rahman, A. L. T. Narayanan, K. K. Xiang, E. S. L. Ming, Y . C. Fai, and Q. I. Khan, “irest: Interactive rehabilitation and assessment tool,” in 2015 10th Asian Control Conference (ASCC) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–6

2015
[136]

Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review,

A. Basteris, S. M. Nijenhuis, A. H. Stienen, J. H. Buurke, G. B. Prange, and F. Amirabdollahian, “Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilita...

2014
[137]

A systematic review of bilateral upper limb training devices for poststroke rehabilitation,

A. Van Delden, C. L. E. Peper, G. Kwakkel, P. J. Beek et al., “A systematic review of bilateral upper limb training devices for poststroke rehabilitation,” Stroke research and treatment, vol. 2012, 2012

2012
[138]

Review on patient-cooperative control strategies for upper-limb rehabilitation exoskeletons,

S. Dalla Gasperina, L. Roveda, A. Pedrocchi, F. Braghin, and M. Gandolla, “Review on patient-cooperative control strategies for upper-limb rehabilitation exoskeletons,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 8, p. 745018, 2021

2021
[139]

Upper-limb robotic exoskeletons for neurorehabilitation: a review on control strategies,

T. Proietti, V . Crocher, A. Roby-Brami, and N. Jarrasse, “Upper-limb robotic exoskeletons for neurorehabilitation: a review on control strategies,” IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering , vol. 9, pp. 4–14, 2016

2016
[140]

Rehabilitative and assistive wearable mechatronic upper-limb devices: A review,

T. Desplenter, Y . Zhou, B. P. Edmonds, M. Lidka, A. Goldman, and A. L. Trejos, “Rehabilitative and assistive wearable mechatronic upper-limb devices: A review,” Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering , vol. 7, p. 2055668320917870, 2020

2020
[141]

I. O. for Standardization, Robots and Robotic Devices: Safety Requirements for Personal Care Robots , 2014

2014
[142]

Enhanced control of a wheelchair-mounted robotic manipulator using 3-d vision and multimodal interaction,

H. Jiang, T. Zhang, J. P. Wachs, and B. S. Duerstock, “Enhanced control of a wheelchair-mounted robotic manipulator using 3-d vision and multimodal interaction,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding , vol. 149, pp. 21–31, 2016

2016
[143]

R. M. Chapman, K. B. Taylor, E. Kaczynski, S. Khodabakhsh, S. Richards, J. B. Hutchinson, and R. C. Marchand, “Accuracy amidst errors: Evaluating a commercially available wearable sensor system and its associated calibration procedures for monitoring sagittal knee motion in pa...

2025
[144]

Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load,

M. P. De Looze, T. Bosch, F. Krause, K. S. Stadler, and L. W. O’sullivan, “Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load,” Ergonomics, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 671–681, 2016

2016
[145]

Intelligent control of power wheelchairs,

R. A. Cooper, “Intelligent control of power wheelchairs,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 423–431, 1995

1995
[146]

Shared autonomy in assistive mobile robots: a review,

S. Udupa, V . R. Kamat, and C. C. Menassa, “Shared autonomy in assistive mobile robots: a review,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology , vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 827–848, 2023

2023
[147]

Streams: An assistive multimodal ai framework for empowering biosignal based robotic controls,

A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, X. Bai, S. Ostadabbas, and R. Abiri, “Streams: An assistive multimodal ai framework for empowering biosignal based robotic controls,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03486 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[148]

Active robot-assisted feeding with a general-purpose mobile manipulator: Design, evaluation, and lessons learned,

D. Park, Y . Hoshi, H. P. Mahajan, H. K. Kim, Z. Erickson, W. A. Rogers, and C. C. Kemp, “Active robot-assisted feeding with a general-purpose mobile manipulator: Design, evaluation, and lessons learned,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 124, p. 103344, 2020

2020
[149]

Jaco is a low-power robot arm that hooks to your wheelchair,

E. Ackerman, “Jaco is a low-power robot arm that hooks to your wheelchair,” R, 2019

2019
[150]

Assistive robotic manipulators,

A. Blom and H. Stuyt, “Assistive robotic manipulators,” in Robotic Assistive Technologies. CRC Press, 2017, pp. 71–98

2017
[151]

Dean kamen’s ‘luke arm’prosthesis receives fda approval,

E. Guizzo, “Dean kamen’s ‘luke arm’prosthesis receives fda approval,” IEEE spectrum, 2014

2014
[152]

Assistive teleoperation of robot arms via automatic time-optimal mode switching,

L. V . Herlant, R. M. Holladay, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Assistive teleoperation of robot arms via automatic time-optimal mode switching,” in 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 35–42

2016
[153]

Towards a user-friendly ahrs-based human-machine interface for a semi-autonomous robot,

N. Rudigkeit, M. Gebhard, and A. Gr ¨aser, “Towards a user-friendly ahrs-based human-machine interface for a semi-autonomous robot,” in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS2014), Chicago, IL, USA , 2014, pp. 14–18

2014
[154]

Experimental analysis of mode switching techniques in touch-based user interfaces,

H. B. Surale, F. Matulic, and D. V ogel, “Experimental analysis of mode switching techniques in touch-based user interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2017, pp. 3267–3280

2017
[155]

Contextual task-aware shared autonomy for assistive mobile robot teleoperation,

M. Gao, J. Oberl ¨ander, T. Schamm, and J. M. Z ¨ollner, “Contextual task-aware shared autonomy for assistive mobile robot teleoperation,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2014, pp. 3311–3318

2014
[156]

Human-in-the-loop optimization of shared autonomy in assistive robotics,

D. Gopinath, S. Jain, and B. D. Argall, “Human-in-the-loop optimization of shared autonomy in assistive robotics,” IEEE robotics and automation letters, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 247–254, 2016

2016
[157]

Learning arbitration for shared autonomy by hindsight data aggregation,

Y . Oh, M. Toussaint, and J. Mainprice, “Learning arbitration for shared autonomy by hindsight data aggregation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.12280, 2019

1906 arXiv
[158]

Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy,

B. Shneiderman, “Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 495–504, 2020

2020
[159]

Shared autonomy via deep reinforcement learning,

S. Reddy, A. D. Dragan, and S. Levine, “Shared autonomy via deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01744 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[160]

Shared autonomy of a robotic manipulator for grasping under human intent uncertainty using pomdps,

J.-A. Yow, N. P. Garg, and W. T. Ang, “Shared autonomy of a robotic manipulator for grasping under human intent uncertainty using pomdps,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

2023
[161]

Shared autonomy via hindsight optimization for teleoperation and teaming,

S. Javdani, H. Admoni, S. Pellegrinelli, S. S. Srinivasa, and J. A. Bagnell, “Shared autonomy via hindsight optimization for teleoperation and teaming,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 717–742, 2018

2018
[162]

Gaze-based, context-aware robotic system for assisted reaching and grasping,

A. Shafti, P. Orlov, and A. A. Faisal, “Gaze-based, context-aware robotic system for assisted reaching and grasping,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 863–869

2019
[163]

Blending of brain-machine interface and vision-guided autonomous robotics improves neuroprosthetic arm performance during grasping,

J. E. Downey, J. M. Weiss, K. Muelling, A. Venkatraman, J.-S. Valois, M. Hebert, J. A. Bagnell, A. B. Schwartz, and J. L. Collinger, “Blending of brain-machine interface and vision-guided autonomous robotics improves neuroprosthetic arm performance during grasping,” Journal of...

2016
[164]

Transitioning to human interaction with ai systems: New challenges and opportunities for hci professionals to enable human-centered ai,

W. Xu, M. J. Dainoff, L. Ge, and Z. Gao, “Transitioning to human interaction with ai systems: New challenges and opportunities for hci professionals to enable human-centered ai,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 494–518, 2023

2023
[165]

Shared intelligence for robot teleoperation via bmi,

G. Beraldo, L. Tonin, J. d. R. Mill ´an, and E. Menegatti, “Shared intelligence for robot teleoperation via bmi,” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 400–409, 2022

2022
[166]

A comparative study of conventional and tripolar eeg for high-performance reach-to-grasp bci systems,

A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, A. Cetera, W. Besio, and R. Abiri, “A comparative study of conventional and tripolar eeg for high-performance reach-to-grasp bci systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09448 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[167]

Wavelet analysis of noninvasive eeg signals discriminates complex and natural grasp types,

A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, A. Cetera, Y . Shahriari, and R. Abiri, “Wavelet analysis of noninvasive eeg signals discriminates complex and natural grasp types,” in 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) , 2024, pp. 1–5

2024
[168]

Bispectrum analysis of noninvasive eeg signals discriminates complex and natural grasp types,

S. Ghafoori, A. Rabiee, A. Cetera, Y . Shahriari, and R. Abiri, “Bispectrum analysis of noninvasive eeg signals discriminates complex and natural grasp types,” in 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) . IEEE, 2...

2024
[169]

Classification of emerging neural activity from planning to grasp execution using a novel eeg-based bci platform,

A. Cetera, A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, Y . Shahriari, and R. Abiri, “Classification of emerging neural activity from planning to grasp execution using a novel eeg-based bci platform,” in 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Soci...

2024
[170]

A review of emerging access technologies for individuals with severe motor impairments,

K. Tai, S. Blain, and T. Chau, “A review of emerging access technologies for individuals with severe motor impairments,” Assistive technology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 204–221, 2008

2008
[171]

Design and implementation of a p300-based brain-computer interface for controlling an internet browser,

E. M. Mugler, C. A. Ruf, S. Halder, M. Bensch, and A. Kubler, “Design and implementation of a p300-based brain-computer interface for controlling an internet browser,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 599–609, 2010

2010
[172]

Language-conditioned imitation learning for robot manipulation tasks,

S. Stepputtis, J. Campbell, M. Phielipp, S. Lee, C. Baral, and H. Ben Amor, “Language-conditioned imitation learning for robot manipulation tasks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 13 139–13 150, 2020

2020
[173]

Planning-based prediction for pedestrians,

B. D. Ziebart, N. Ratliff, G. Gallagher, C. Mertz, K. Peterson, J. A. Bagnell, M. Hebert, A. K. Dey, and S. Srinivasa, “Planning-based prediction for pedestrians,” in 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2009, pp. 3931–3936

2009
[174]

Bayesian intention inference for trajectory prediction with an unknown goal destination,

G. Best and R. Fitch, “Bayesian intention inference for trajectory prediction with an unknown goal destination,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 5817–5823

2015
[175]

The nasa-tlx approach to understand workers workload in humanrobot collaboration,

A. Javernik, B. Buchmeister, and R. Ojster ˇsek, “The nasa-tlx approach to understand workers workload in humanrobot collaboration,” International journal of simulation modelling , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 574–585, 2023

2023
[176]

Assistive gym: A physics simulation framework for assistive robotics,

Z. Erickson, V . Gangaram, A. Kapusta, C. K. Liu, and C. C. Kemp, “Assistive gym: A physics simulation framework for assistive robotics,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 10 169–10 176

2020
[177]

Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,

M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, C. Fu, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman et al., “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[178]

Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,

D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdhery, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, Q. Vuong, T. Yu, W. Huang et al., “Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,” 2023

2023
[179]

Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,

W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao, H. Chan, J. Liang, P. Florence, A. Zeng, J. Tompson, I. Mordatch, Y . Chebotar et al., “Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[180]

Robotgpt: Robot manipulation learning from chatgpt,

Y . Jin, D. Li, J. Shi, P. Hao, F. Sun, J. Zhang, B. Fang et al., “Robotgpt: Robot manipulation learning from chatgpt,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2543–2550, 2024

2024
[181]

Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners,

A. Z. Ren, A. Dixit, A. Bodrova, S. Singh, S. Tu, N. Brown, P. Xu, L. Takayama, F. Xia, J. Varley et al., “Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01928 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[182]

LLM-P: A framework for combining large language models and classical planners,

S. Liu, L. Tor-D ´ıez, M. Celorrio, and S. Kambhampati, “LLM-P: A framework for combining large language models and classical planners,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , vol. 34, 2024, pp. 568–576

2024
[183]

Adaptbot: A knowledge-driven framework for adaptive task decomposition and action refinement,

M. Kabra, A. Soni, G. Singh, and T. Chakraborti, “Adaptbot: A knowledge-driven framework for adaptive task decomposition and action refinement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02067 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[184]

From language to action with object-level planning,

R. Paul, S. Chitta, C. Paxton, D. Fox, and F. Zaidi, “From language to action with object-level planning,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) Workshop on Long-Horizon Task and Motion Planning , 2025

2025
[185]

An embodied llm agent and text-based topological map for robotic guidance of people with visual impairments,

S. Chen, Z. Zhang, Y . Zhao, B. Li, J. Yin, Y . Liu, and H. Zhang, “An embodied llm agent and text-based topological map for robotic guidance of people with visual impairments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20666 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[186]

Savor: Skill affordance learning from visuo-haptic perception for robot-assisted bite acquisition,

Y . Wu, J. Zhang, Z. Yuan, J. Zhang, Y . Shi, and Q. Zhu, “Savor: Skill affordance learning from visuo-haptic perception for robot-assisted bite acquisition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02353 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[187]

Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,

A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gong, R. Hadsell, K. Herzog, J. Ho et al., “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[188]

Vlmpc: Vision-language model predictive control for robotic manipulation,

Y . Cui, Z. Li, X. Yang, and Y . Li, “Vlmpc: Vision-language model predictive control for robotic manipulation,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2024

2024
[189]

Rh20t-p: A primitive-level robotic manipulation dataset towards composable generalization agents in real-world scenarios,

Y . Fu, J. Liu, X. Chen, and H. Mei, “Rh20t-p: A primitive-level robotic manipulation dataset towards composable generalization agents in real-world scenarios,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

2024
[190]

Safe and socially-aware robot navigation via scene-graph-based explanations,

M. Hafner, M. Kirtay, G. Chalvatzaki, and B. B ¨auml, “Safe and socially-aware robot navigation via scene-graph-based explanations,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2024

2024
[191]

Lami: A language-based multi-modal interaction framework for human-robot collaboration,

Y .-W. Lai, C.-C. Shen, S.-C. Wang, Y .-H. Liu, H.-C. Chang, and C.-C. Lin, “Lami: A language-based multi-modal interaction framework for human-robot collaboration,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 149–10 156

2023
[192]

Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation,

Z. Tan, Y . Zhu, and S.-C. Zhu, “Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15724 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[193]

Contrastive explanations for reinforcement learning in terms of expected consequences,

K. Ehsani, C. D’Amato, and J. P. How, “Contrastive explanations for reinforcement learning in terms of expected consequences,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

2025
[194]

Explainable social navigation for autonomous mobile robots via vision-language models,

A. Singh, S. Shah, Y . Patel, A. Gupta, and P. Shah, “Explainable social navigation for autonomous mobile robots via vision-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05477, 2025

2025 arXiv
[195]

Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse,

R. Parasuraman and V . Riley, “Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse,” Human Factors, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 230–253, 1997

1997
[196]

Learned helplessness,

M. E. P. Seligman, “Learned helplessness,” Annual Review of Medicine , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 407–412, 1972

1972
[197]

Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience,

S. F. Maier and M. E. P. Seligman, “Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience,” Psychological Review, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 349–367, 2016

2016
[198]

The high price of automation,

N. Carr, “The high price of automation,” MIT Technology Review, 2019, published online May 30, 2019

2019
[199]

Ironies of automation,

L. Bainbridge, “Ironies of automation,” Automatica, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 775–779, 1983

1983
[200]

The ugly truth about robots: They are tools of digital colonialism,

A. Howard and J. Borenstein, “The ugly truth about robots: They are tools of digital colonialism,” The American Scholar , Winter 2019, published online December 2, 2019

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Learning Multimodal AI Algorithms for Amplifying Limited User Input into High-dimensional Control Space

A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, M. Farhadi, R. Beyer, X. Bai, D. J. Lin, S. Ostadabbas, and R. Abiri, “Learning multimodal ai algorithms for amplifying limited user input into high-dimensional control space,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11366 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Progress and prospects of shared control in human-robot interaction,

A. Ajoudani, A. M. Zanchettin, S. Ivaldi, A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, K. Kosuge, and O. Khatib, “Progress and prospects of shared control in human-robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1430–1447, 2018

2018

[3] [2]

Toward human-centered shared autonomy AI paradigms for human-robot teaming in healthcare

R. Abiri, A. Rabiee, S. Ghafoori, and A. Cetera, “Toward human-centered shared autonomy ai paradigms for human-robot teaming in healthcare,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17464, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

A review of intent detection, arbitration, and communication aspects of shared control for physical human-robot interaction,

D. P. Losey, C. G. McDonald, E. Battaglia, and M. K. O’Malley, “A review of intent detection, arbitration, and communication aspects of shared control for physical human-robot interaction,” Applied Mechanics Reviews , vol. 70, no. 1, Jan. 2018, paper No: AMR-17-1021

2018

[5] [4]

The sense of agency in assistive robotics using shared autonomy,

M. A. Collier, R. Narayan, and H. Admoni, “The sense of agency in assistive robotics using shared autonomy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07462 , 2025

arXiv 2025

[6] [5]

Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control,

J. R. Wolpaw, N. Birbaumer, D. J. McFarland, G. Pfurtscheller, and T. M. Vaughan, “Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 767–791, 2002

2002

[7] [6]

The extraction of neural information from the surface EMG for the control of upper-limb prostheses: emerging avenues and challenges,

D. Farina, N. Jiang, H. Rehbaum, A. Holobar, B. Graimann, H. Dietl, and O. C. Aszmann, “The extraction of neural information from the surface EMG for the control of upper-limb prostheses: emerging avenues and challenges,” Physiological Measurement, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. R25–R53, 2010

2010

[8] [7]

Decoding human motor intent from electromyography for shared human-robot control,

J. He, C.-G. Siong, A. Nagarajan, L. E. Miller, H.-S. Liew, and C. Gao, “Decoding human motor intent from electromyography for shared human-robot control,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 3, pp. 349–373, 2020

2020