Motor interference of incongruent motions increases workload in close HRI

References

• Kilner J, Paulignan Y, Blakemore S. An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Curr Biol. 2003;13(6):522–525. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00165-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, et al. Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci. 2001;13:400–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buccino G, Binkofski F, Riggio L. The mirror neuron system and action recognition. Brain Lang. 2004;89(2):370–376. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00356-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, et al. Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J Neurophysiol. 1995;73(6):2608–2611. doi: 10.1152/jn.1995.73.6.2608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brass M, Bekkering H, Prinz W. Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychol. 2001;106(1–2):3–22. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00024-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilner J, Hamilton A, Blakemore S. Interference effect of observed human movement on action is due to velocity profile of biological motion. Soc Neurosci. 2007;2(3):158–166. doi: 10.1080/17470910701428190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupferberg A, Glasauer S, Huber M, et al. Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction. AI Soc. 2011;26(4):339–345. doi: 10.1007/s00146-010-0314-2
   Google Scholar
• Flash T, Hogan N. The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci. 1985;5(7):1688–1703. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.05-07-01688.1985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook J, Saygin AP, Swain R, et al. Reduced sensitivity to minimum-jerk biological motion in autism spectrum conditions. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(14):3275–3278. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber M, Rickert M, Knoll A, et al. Human-robot interaction in handing-over tasks. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); Munich, Germany; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Oztop E, Franklin D, Chaminade T, et al. Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? Int J Humanoid Robots. 2005;2:537–559. doi: 10.1142/S0219843605000582
   Google Scholar
• Chaminade T, Franklin D, Oztop E, et al. Motor interference between humans and humanoid robots: effect of biological and artificial motion. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Development and Learning; Osaka, Japan; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Kuz S, Schlick C. Anthropomorphic motion control for safe and efficient human-robot cooperation in assembly system. Proceedings of the Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA); Melbourne, Australia; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Petruck H, Kuz S, Mertens A, et al. Increasing safety in human-robot collaboration by using anthropomorphic speed profiles of robot movements. In: Schlick C, Trzcieliski S, editors. Advances in ergonomics of manufacturing: managing the enterprise of the future. Springer, Berlin; 2016. (Advances in intelligent systems and computing; 490).
   Google Scholar
• Duffy BR. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Rob Auton Syst. 2003;42(3–4):177–190. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart S, Staveland L. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock P, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. North-Holland Elsevier Science, Amsterdam; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Fron C, Korn O. A short history of the perception of robots and automata from antiquity to modern times. In: Korn O, editor. Social robots: technological, societal and ethical aspects of human-robot interaction. Springer, Berlin; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Draper J, Blair L. Workload, flow and telepresence during teleoperation. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); Minneapolis, USA; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Kaber D, Onal E, Endsley M. Design of automation for telerobots and the effect on performance, operator situation awareness and subjective workload. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2000;10:409–430. doi: 10.1002/1520-6564(200023)10:4<409::AID-HFM4>3.0.CO;2-V
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholtz J, Antonishek B, Young J. Evaluation of operator interventions in autonomous off-road driving. Proceedings of the NIST Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop; Gaithersburg, USA; 2003.
   Google Scholar