Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Validating Virtual Reality for Studying Multimodal Human-Robot Interaction in Socially Aware Robot Navigation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Virtual reality reproduces human locomotion and head-orientation patterns with a socially aware robot closely enough to serve as a reliable study platform.

desk verdict Useful matched RW–VR multimodal dataset for SRN, but the leap from descriptive trends to “preserves dynamics / reliable platform” is under-supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09261 v1 pith:ZRFAAKGR submitted 2026-07-10 cs.RO

Hariharan Arunachalam , Phani Teja Singamaneni , Rachid Alami This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords VirtualRealitySociallyAwareRobotNavigationMultimodalHRIHeadOrientationCo-navigationHuman-RobotInteractionTrajectoryAnalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether immersive virtual reality can stand in for real-world experiments when people share space with a robot that navigates in a socially aware way. Earlier VR work on social navigation mostly tracked planar paths and distances; it was unclear whether richer cues such as head orientation would match real behavior. In a within-subjects study of 21 participants walking with the same PR2 robot and planner in a motion-capture arena and its VR replica, people rated the robot’s social awareness similarly, and their trajectories and head directions followed consistent patterns in both orthogonal-crossing and pass-by encounters. The result matters because it would let researchers run safer, more controllable, and richer multimodal studies without building a full physical arena for every condition, speeding work on robots that coordinate using gaze and motion rather than pure geometry.

What carries the argument

A matched within-subjects VR prototype that replicates a motion-capture arena and a PR2 driven by the same CoHAN socially aware planner and gaze behavior; comparison of social-awareness ratings with quantitative trajectory metrics (velocity, jerk, path deviation, minimum distance) and head-orientation cosine distances while approaching and after crossing.

What would settle it

A larger within-subjects study using identical questionnaire items and formal equivalence or mixed-model tests that finds significant differences in social-awareness ratings or systematic mismatches in head-orientation correlation with human–robot distance between VR and the real world would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Participants perceive a PR2 robot’s socially aware navigation similarly in immersive VR and in the real world, and VR captures human locomotion trajectories and head-orientation cues in ways consistent with real-world co-navigation for orthogonal-crossing and pass-by scenarios, supporting VR as a reliable platform for multimodal socially aware navigation research.

Load-bearing premise

That similar median ratings and consistent descriptive patterns in speed, path deviation, and head direction are enough to treat VR as preserving multimodal dynamics, even though absolute human speeds, distances, jerk, and naturalness differ and the questionnaires were not identical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can collect richer multimodal navigation data (trajectories plus head orientation) under controlled conditions without always needing a physical arena.
  • Preliminary user studies of multimodal socially aware navigation strategies can be run in VR before full real-world deployment.
  • The same robot planner and embodiment can be tested for human responses across VR and real settings with comparable perceived social awareness.
  • Future framework extensions (spatial audio, full-body pose, eye tracking) can build on the validated locomotion and head-orientation baseline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If depth-perception and speed biases in VR are systematically calibrated, trajectory datasets from VR could be mixed with real-world logs for training human-motion predictors.
  • Validating head orientation as a proxy for attention opens tests of whether robots that condition plans on estimated human gaze improve comfort more than trajectory-only planners.
  • The same matched VR–real protocol could benchmark whether different robot morphologies or planners preserve cross-setting consistency of human head behavior.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Unity/ROS VR prototype that replicates a motion-capture arena and a PR2 robot controlled by the CoHAN socially-aware planner (plus a simple gaze behavior). It reports a counterbalanced within-subjects study (N=21) comparing two co-navigation scenarios (orthogonal crossing, pass-by) in real-world (RW) versus VR. Subjective Likert items assess perceived social awareness and comfort; objective metrics include velocity/jerk at closest approach, minimum human-robot distance, path deviation from shortest path, and head-orientation cosine distances (toward future path and toward the robot). The authors conclude that participants perceive the robot similarly and that VR captures locomotion and head-orientation patterns consistent with RW, so VR is a reliable platform for multimodal socially-aware navigation studies.

Significance. A carefully matched RW-VR comparison that includes head orientation (not only planar trajectories) would be a useful methodological contribution for the SRN/HRI community, where real-world multimodal data collection is costly and hard to control. The shared robot morphology, identical planner, and dual-scenario design are strengths; the open acknowledgment of limitations (audio, FOV, naturalness) is also welcome. If the similarity claim holds under tighter statistical scrutiny, the platform could support safer preliminary studies and richer multimodal data collection before real-robot deployment.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Abstract, §7] Abstract, §5.1 and §7: The central claim that participants “perceive the robot’s socially aware navigation similarly” and that VR “preserves the multimodal interaction dynamics” rests on identical medians for Q1/Q2 (both 4) despite a reported Pearson r = 0.17 and greater variance in VR. Non-identical questionnaires are explicitly noted as precluding deeper statistical comparison (§5). Without equivalence tests, confidence intervals, or pre-specified similarity criteria, the leap from “same median” to “similarly / preserves / reliable” is under-supported.
  2. [Tables 2–4, §5.4] Tables 2–4 and §5.4: Systematic differences appear alongside the claimed consistencies—humans move slower, exhibit lower jerk, and maintain larger minimum distances in VR; path-deviation and head-cosine patterns are directionally similar but not statistically tested for equivalence. The 240 trajectories are described as a post-hoc subset of the collected rounds with no selection rule or inclusion criteria given. These differences and the missing selection protocol weaken the assertion that VR “captures human interaction behaviors in ways consistent with real-world observations.”
  3. [Table 4, §5.4] Table 4 and §5.4: Cosine-distance calculations use different FOV thresholds (90° in VR vs. assumed 150° in RW) and set out-of-FOV values to zero. This ad-hoc asymmetry can itself produce the reported numerical similarity; a sensitivity analysis or identical FOV treatment is needed before claiming that head-orientation patterns are preserved.
  4. [§6] §6: The authors themselves label the analysis “preliminary” and call for “deeper statistical validation” with larger samples. Given that the paper’s title and abstract already assert validation and reliability, either the statistical treatment must be strengthened (equivalence bounds, mixed-effects models, trajectory-selection protocol) or the claims must be substantially tempered to match the evidence actually presented.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3] §4.3 / Table 1: Q1 is administered only after RW and Q2–Q4 only after VR; the direct-comparison items (Q5–Q6) are post-hoc. A fully parallel instrument would have allowed paired tests and should be noted as a design limitation.
  2. [Fig. 5] Fig. 5: Representative trajectories are helpful, but error bands or density plots across the 60 interactions per cell would better convey variability.
  3. [§3] §3: The pitch-to-velocity mapping (max 1.5 m/s) and avatar animation details are free parameters that affect naturalness ratings (median 3); a brief sensitivity note would help readers assess generalizability.
  4. Minor typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “Weconductedacomparativeuserstudy”, spacing around citations). A careful proof-read is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical within-subjects comparison of VR vs real-world behaviors under fixed identical stimuli; no derivation, fit, or self-citation that forces the similarity claim by construction.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental validation study, not a theoretical derivation. Its central claim (Abstract, §5, §7) is that participant perceptions (Q1/Q2 medians), locomotion metrics (Tables 2–3: velocity/jerk/min-distance/path deviation), and head-orientation patterns (Table 4: cosine distances and correlations) are descriptively similar between a motion-capture arena and its VR replica when both use the same PR2 + CoHAN planner + gaze behavior. CoHAN [27] and the gaze planner (inspired by [18]) are fixed, identical stimuli applied in both conditions; they are not redefined, fitted to the similarity outcome, or invoked via a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. Questionnaire items are non-identical by design (§5), trajectories are post-selected descriptively, and the authors themselves label the analysis preliminary and call for deeper statistics (§6). None of these steps reduce a claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs by construction. Self-citations exist (CoHAN, related SRN surveys) but supply the experimental apparatus, not a load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz that manufactures the VR–RW equivalence. The work is therefore self-contained against its own empirical benchmarks; any weakness is evidential strength, not circularity.

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

Empirical validation paper; load-bearing content is experimental design choices and measurement assumptions rather than free parameters of a fitted theory. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • VR avatar max speed and pitch-to-velocity mapping = 1.5 m/s max
    Controller pitch linearly mapped to velocity with max 1.5 m/s; chosen by design and affects naturalness and speed profiles (Section 3).
  • Assumed FOV for cosine-distance thresholding = 90° VR / 150° RW
    90° for VR headset and 150° for real-world head orientation when computing head-behavior metrics (Table 4 caption / Section 5.4); ad-hoc thresholds that directly affect reported cosine distances.
  • Gaze planner parameters (1 s anticipation, 4 m FOV trigger) = 1 s / 4 m
    Robot saccadic gaze triggered when human enters 4 m FOV, looking ~1 s ahead on CoHAN trajectory (Section 4.2); fixed design choices that shape the stimulus participants rate.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Head orientation is a sufficiently reliable coarse proxy for attention/intention during co-navigation.
    Stated in Section 2.3 and used as the second multimodal channel throughout the analysis.
  • domain assumption Using the identical CoHAN planner and PR2 morphology in both settings isolates the effect of the medium (VR vs RW).
    Explicit design choice in Section 4.2; if robot behavior or embodiment differed, the similarity claim would not isolate VR fidelity.
  • ad hoc to paper Descriptive consistency of medians, averages, and Pearson correlations across settings is adequate evidence that VR “preserves” multimodal dynamics.
    No equivalence tests or formal statistical criteria for “similar enough”; authors themselves note the analysis is preliminary (Sections 5 and 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validating Virtual Reality for Studying Multimodal Human-Robot Interaction in Socially Aware Robot Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRFAAKGR

@misc{pith2026260709261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validating Virtual Reality for Studying Multimodal Human-Robot Interaction in Socially Aware Robot Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRFAAKGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09261}
}
read the original abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) offers a flexible and controllable platform for studying human-robot interaction. Prior work has explored VR for socially aware robot navigation. However, whether VR captures the multimodal interaction dynamics observed in real-world human-robot co-navigation remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we present a VR prototype and evaluate its suitability for studying multimodal human-robot interaction (HRI) in socially aware navigation. Specifically, we investigate whether VR preserves the multimodal interaction dynamics observed in real-world human-robot co-navigation. We conducted a within-subjects study (N = 21) in which participants interacted with a PR2 mobile manipulator robot in both a motion capture equipped arena and its virtual replica in an immersive VR environment. Two common co-navigation scenarios were examined : orthogonal crossing and pass-by interactions. Participants evaluated the robot's perceived social awareness and interaction comfort, while trajectory and head-orientation data were analysed to examine behavioral responses during the interaction. Our results show that participants perceive the robot's socially aware navigation similarly in VR and in the real world. Furthermore, VR captures human interaction behaviors in ways consistent with real-world observations. These findings suggest that VR can be a reliable and flexible platform for studying richer multimodal behaviors in social navigation and HRI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the VR prototype that includes four main components, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Navigation scenarios developed for the study. Blue indicates human goal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Depiction of human interactions in VR and real world setups. (a) User [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of participant responses to questionnaire items. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of navigational and head behavior of human and robot. Red: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW)

    Alves, S.F.R., Uribe-Quevedo, A., Chen, D., Morris, J., Radmard, S.: Devel- oping a VR Simulator for Robotics Navigation and Human Robot Interac- tions employing Digital Twins. In: 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). pp. 121–125 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW55335.2022.00036

    doi:10.1109/vrw55335.2022.00036 2022

  2. [2]

    In: AAAI Fall Symposia

    Aroor, A., Epstein, S.L., Korpan, R.: Mengeros: A crowd simulation tool for au- tonomous robot navigation. In: AAAI Fall Symposia. pp. 123–125 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN

    Basili, P., Huber, M., Kourakos, O., Lorenz, T., Brandt, T., Hirche, S., Glasauer, S.: Inferring the goal of an approaching agent: A human-robot study. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN. pp. 527–532. IEEE (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems53(6),965–974(Dec2023).https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2023.3314894, https://hal.science/hal-04240696

    Buisan, G., Compan, N., Caroux, L., Clodic, A., Carreras, O., Vrignaud, C., Alami, R.: Evaluating the Impact of Time-to-Collision Constraint and Head Gaze on Us- ability for Robot Navigation in a Corridor. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems53(6),965–974(Dec2023).https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2023.3314894, https://hal.science/hal-04240696

    work page doi:10.1109/thms.2023.3314894 2023

  5. [5]

    Procedia CIRP97, 407–411 (2021)

    Dianatfar, M., Latokartano, J., Lanz, M.: Review on existing vr/ar solutions in human–robot collaboration. Procedia CIRP97, 407–411 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.17317 (2025)

    Escudero-Jiménez, M., Pérez-Higueras, N., Martínez-Silva, A., Caballero, F., Merino, L.: Hunavsim 2.0: An enhanced human navigation simulator for human- aware robot navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.17317 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Fang, R., Doering, M., Chai, J.Y.: Embodied Collaborative Referring Expression Generation in Situated Human-Robot Interaction. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 271–278. ACM (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696467

    doi:10.1145/2696454.2696467 2015

  8. [8]

    Bioinspiration & biomimetics12(5), 055004 (2017)

    Farkhatdinov, I., Roehri, N., Burdet, E.: Anticipatory detection of turning in humans for intuitive control of robotic mobility assistance. Bioinspiration & biomimetics12(5), 055004 (2017)

    2017

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    In: 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

    Favier, A., Singamaneni, P.T., Alami, R.: An intelligent human avatar to debug and challenge human-aware robot navigation systems. In: 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). pp. 760–764. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the Halfway to the Future Symposium 2019

    Fratczak, P., Goh, Y.M., Kinnell, P., Soltoggio, A., Justham, L.: Understanding Human Behaviour in Industrial Human-Robot Interaction by Means of Virtual Reality. In: Proceedings of the Halfway to the Future Symposium 2019. pp. 1–7. ACM (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3363384.3363403

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    In: 2020 IEEE Confer- ence on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

    Grzeskowiak, F., Babel, M., Bruneau, J., Pettre, J.: Toward Virtual Reality- based Evaluation of Robot Navigation among People. In: 2020 IEEE Confer- ence on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). pp. 766–774. IEEE (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00100 Valid...

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    In: 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)

    Grzeskowiak, F., Gonon, D., Dugas, D., Paez-Granados, D., Chung, J.J., Nieto, J., Siegwart, R., Billard, A., Babel, M., Pettré, J.: Crowd against the machine: A simulation-based benchmark tool to evaluate and compare robot capabilities to navigate a human crowd. In: 2021 IEEE ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IROS2022 Workshop: Artificial Intelligence for Social Robots Interacting with Humans in the Real World, Kyoto, Japan

    Hauterville, O., Fernández, C., Singamaneni, P.T., Favier, A., Matellán, V., Alami, R.: Imhus: Intelligent multi-human simulator. In: Proceedings of the IROS2022 Workshop: Artificial Intelligence for Social Robots Interacting with Humans in the Real World, Kyoto, Japan. vol. 27 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Higgins, P., Barron, R., Matuszek, C.: Head Pose as a Proxy for Gaze in Virtual Reality

  7. [15]

    In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Holman,B.,Anwar,A.,Singh,A.,Tec,M.,Hart,J.,Stone,P.:WatchWhereYou’re Going! Gaze and Head Orientation as Predictors for Social Robot Navigation. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3553–3559. IEEE (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA48...

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 549360 (2021)

    Inamura, T., Mizuchi, Y.: Sigverse: A cloud-based vr platform for research on mul- timodal human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 549360 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    IEEE Access5, 16495–16519 (2017)

    Kar, A., Corcoran, P.: A Review and Analysis of Eye-Gaze Estimation Systems, Algorithms and Performance Evaluation Methods in Consumer Platforms. IEEE Access5, 16495–16519 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2735633

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    In: 9th International workshop on Human-Friendlly Robotics (HFR 2016)

    Khambhaita, H., Rios-Martinez, J., Alami, R.: Head-body motion coordination for human aware robot navigation. In: 9th International workshop on Human-Friendlly Robotics (HFR 2016). vol. 8 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction

    Kruse, T., Kirsch, A., Khambhaita, H., Alami, R.: Evaluating directional cost mod- els in navigation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. pp. 350–357 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems61(12), 1726–1743 (2013)

    Kruse, T., Pandey, A.K., Alami, R., Kirsch, A.: Human-aware robot navigation: A survey. Robotics and Autonomous Systems61(12), 1726–1743 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    In: 30th ACM Sym- posium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

    Leblong, E., Grzeskowiak, F., Thomas, S., Devigne, L., Babel, M., Olivier, A.H.: Wheelchair Proxemics: interpersonal behaviour between pedestrians and power wheelchair drivers in real and virtual environments. In: 30th ACM Sym- posium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

    Li, R., van Almkerk, M., van Waveren, S., Carter, E., Leite, I.: Comparing Human- Robot Proxemics Between Virtual Reality and the Real World. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). pp. 431–439 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673116

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)

    Liu, O., Rakita, D., Mutlu, B., Gleicher, M.: Understanding human-robot inter- action in virtual reality. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). pp. 751–757. IEEE (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172387

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

    Lynch, S.D., Pettré, J., Bruneau, J., Kulpa, R., Crétual, A., Olivier, A.H.: Effect of Virtual Human Gaze Behaviour During an Orthogonal Collision Avoidance Walk- ing Task. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). pp. 136–142 (2018). https://doi...

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    In: ROBOTIK 2012; 7th German Conference on Robotics

    Rösmann, C., Feiten, W., Wösch, T., Hoffmann, F., Bertram, T.: Trajectory mod- ification considering dynamic constraints of autonomous robots. In: ROBOTIK 2012; 7th German Conference on Robotics. pp. 1–6. VDE (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Arunachalam et al

    Singamaneni, P.T., Bachiller-Burgos, P., Manso, L.J., Garrell, A., Sanfeliu, A., Spalanzani, A., Alami, R.: A survey on socially aware robot navigation: Taxonomy 18 H. Arunachalam et al. and future challenges. The International Journal of Robotics Research43(10), 1533–1572 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Singamaneni, P.T., Favier, A., Alami, R.: Human-aware navigation planner for diverse human-robot interaction contexts. In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 5817–5824. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Stratton, A., Singamaneni, P.T., Goyal, P., Alami, R., Mavrogiannis, C.: How Human Motion Prediction Quality Shapes Social Robot Navigation Performance in Constrained Spaces (Jan 2026), https://hal.science/hal-05463565, accepted for ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-R...

    2026

  21. [29]

    In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Tsoi, N., Hussein, M., Fugikawa, O., Zhao, J., Vázquez, M.: An approach to de- ploy interactive robotic simulators on the web for hri experiments: Results in so- cial robot navigation. In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 752...

    2021

  22. [30]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction13(4), 1–19 (2024)

    Tsoi, N., Sterneck, R., Zhao, X., Vázquez, M.: Influence of Simulation and Interactivity on Human Perceptions of a Robot During Navigation Tasks. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction13(4), 1–19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3675784

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Unhelkar, V.V., Perez-D’Arpino, C., Stirling, L., Shah, J.A.: Human-robot co- navigation using anticipatory indicators of human walking motion. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 6183–6190. IEEE (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.20...

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    PloS one20(5), e0323632 (2025)

    Yamauchi, T., Tamura, H., Minami, T., Nakauchi, S.: Waist rotation angle as indicator of probable human collision-avoidance direction for autonomous mobile robots. PloS one20(5), e0323632 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction14(3), 1–27 (2025)

    Zhang, Q., Tsoi, N., Nagib, M., Choi, B., Tan, J., Chiang, H.T.L., Vázquez, M.: Predicting Human Perceptions of Robot Performance during Navigation Tasks. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction14(3), 1–27 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3719020

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

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

    Zhang, Q., Tsoi, N., Vázquez, M.: SEAN-VR: An Immersive Virtual Reality Ex- perience for Evaluating Social Robot Navigation. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 902–904. ACM (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580039

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Zhang, Z., Rhim, J., Lim, A., Chen, M.: A multimodal and hybrid framework for human navigational intent inference. In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 993–1000. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Applied Sciences15(20), 11048 (2025)

    Żuchowicz, P., Lewczuk, K.: Leveraging Immersive Technologies for Safety Evaluation in Forklift Operations. Applied Sciences15(20), 11048 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011048

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.