Shared autonomy in assistive mobile robots: a review

References

• American community survey, 1 year estimates [Internet]; 2019 [cited 2020 Sep 20]. Available from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=disability&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S1810&hidePreview=false.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi K, Sumant O. Elderly and disabled assistive devices market size | industry by 2026 [Internet]; 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/elderly-and-disabled-assistive-devices-market.
   Google Scholar
• Frank A, Neophytou C, Frank J, et al. Electric-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): users’ views of influence on family, friends and carers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:327–338.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirby RL, Rushton PW, Routhier F, et al. Extent to which caregivers enhance the wheelchair skills capacity and confidence of power wheelchair users: a cross-sectional study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(7):1295–1302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith EM, Sakakibara BM, Miller WC. A review of factors influencing participation in social and community activities for wheelchair users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):361–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton PW, Miller WC, Kirby RL, et al. Measure for the assessment of confidence with manual wheelchair use (wheelcon-m) version 2.1: reliability and validity. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(1):61–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakakibara BM, Miller WC, Eng JJ, et al. Preliminary examination of the relation between participation and confidence in older manual wheelchair users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:791–794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shore S, Juillerat S. The impact of a low cost wheelchair on the quality of life of the disabled in the developing world. Med Sci Monit. 2012;18(9):CR533-CR542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kara A, Kawamura K, Bagchi S, et al. Reflex control of a robotic aid system to assist the physically disabled. In: IEEE Control Systems Magazine; 1992. p.71–77.
   Google Scholar
• Bishay M, Cambron ME, Negishi K, et al. Visual servoing in ISAC, a decentralized robot system for feeding the disabled. Proceeding of International Symposium on Computer Vision - ISCV; 1995. p. 335–340. DOI:10.1109/ISCV.1995.477024
   Google Scholar
• Herlant LV, Holladay RM, Srinivasa SS. Assistive teleoperation of robot arms via automatic time-optimal mode switching. ACM/IEEE International Conference in Human-Robot Interaction; Christchurch, New Zealand. IEEE Computer Society; 2016. p. 35–42.
   Google Scholar
• Takagi M, Takahashi Y, Yamamoto S, et al. Vision based interface and control of assistive mobile robot system. 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Noordwijk, Netherlands. 2007. p. 341–346.
   Google Scholar
• Buckley M, Vaidyanathan R, Mayol-Cuevas W. Sensor suites for assistive arm prosthetics. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical System; Bristol, UK. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Tamir E, Heim M, Oppenheim U, et al. An assistive device designed to convey independent donning of a shuttle lock trans-tibial prosthesis for a multiple limb amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:74–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mace M, Abdullah-Al-Mamun K, Naeem AA, et al. A heterogeneous framework for real-time decoding of bioacoustic signals: applications to assistive interfaces and prosthesis control. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40(13):5049–5060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf MPH, Boon MY, Matteucci PB, et al. Towards an assistive peripheral visual prosthesis for long-term treatment of retinitis pigmentosa: evaluating mobility performance in immersive simulations. J Neural Eng. 2015;12(3). DOI:10.1088/1741-2560/12/3/036001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varol HA, Sup F, Goldfarb M. Powered sit-to-stand and assistive stand-to-sit framework for a powered transfemoral prosthesis. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2009. p. 645–651.
   Google Scholar
• Prazak B, Kronreif G, Hochgatterer A, et al. A toy robot for physically disabled children. TAD. 2004;16(3):131–136.
   Google Scholar
• Kawamura K, Bagchi S, Iskarous M, et al. Intelligent robotic systems in service of the disabled. IEEE Trans Rehab Eng. 1995;3(1):14–21.
   Google Scholar
• Kronreif G, Prazak B, Mina S, et al. PlayROB – robot-assisted playing for children with severe physical disabilities. Proceeding of 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2005. p. 193–196.
   Google Scholar
• Chowdhury MH, Newaz MA, Delwar Hossain Q, et al. Implementation of stimulating environment for lateral external disability and autism treatment by using hand grippers. 1st International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information and Communication Technology (ICEEICT); IEEE;2014. p. 1–5
   Google Scholar
• Alqasemi R, Mahler S, Dubey R. Design and construction of a robotic gripper for activities of daily living for people with disabilities. 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Noordwijk, Netherlands. 2007. p. 432–437.
   Google Scholar
• Andreasen Struijk LNS, Egsgaard LL, Lontis R, et al. Wireless intraoral tongue control of an assistive robotic arm for individuals with tetraplegia. J Neuroeng Rehab. 2017;14:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edsinger A, Kemp CC. Two arms are better than one: a behavior based control system for assistive bimanual manipulation. In: Lee S, Suh IIH, Kim MS, editors. Recent progress in robotics: viable robotic service to human. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;2007. p. 345–355.
   Google Scholar
• Groothuis SS, Stramigioli S, Carloni R. Lending a helping hand: toward novel assistive robotic arms. IEEE Robot Automat Mag. 2013;20(1):20–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice IM, Wong AWK, Salentine BA, et al. Differences in participation based on self-esteem in power and manual wheelchair users on a university campus: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(2):102–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau-Harrison K, Rochette A, Routhier F, et al. Impact of wheelchair acquisition on social participation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(5):344–352.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson DJ, Mitchell JM, Kemp BJ, et al. Effects of assistive technology on functional decline in people aging with a disability. Assist Technol. 2009;21:208–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann WC. Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly a randomized controlled trial. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:210–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Agree EM. The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability. Disabil Health J. 2014;7(1 Suppl):S33–S39.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards K, McCluskey A. A survey of adult power wheelchair and scooter users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(6):411–419.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stenberg G, Henje C, Levi R, et al. Living with an electric wheelchair – the user perspective. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;5:385–394.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson RC, LoPresti EF, Cooper RA. How many people would benefit from a smart wheelchair? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45:53–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillman M. 2 Rehabilitation robotics from past to present – a historical perspective. In: Bien ZZ, Stefanov D, editors. Advances in rehabilitation robotics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;2006. p. 25–44.
   Google Scholar
• Hersh M. Overcoming barriers and increasing independence – service robots for elderly and disabled people. Int J Adv Robot Syst. 2015;12(8):114.
   Google Scholar
• Argall BD. Autonomy in rehabilitation robotics: an intersection. Annu Rev Control Robot Auton Syst. 2018;1(1):441–463.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simpson T, Broughton C, Gauthier MJA, et al. Tooth-click control of a hands-free computer interface. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008;55:2050–2056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Q, He S, Wang Q, et al. An EOG-based human-machine interface for wheelchair control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018;65:2023–2032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escobedo A, Spalanzani A, Laugier C. Multimodal control of a robotic wheelchair: Using contextual information for usability improvement. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Tokyo, Japan. 2013. p. 4262–4267.
   Google Scholar
• Touati Y, Ali-Chérif A, Achili B. Smart wheelchair design and monitoring via wired and wireless networks. 2009 IEEE Symposium on Industrial Electronics and Applications ISIEA 2009 – Proceedings; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2009. p. 920–925.
   Google Scholar
• Bley F, Rous M, Canzler U, et al. Supervised navigation and manipulation for impaired wheelchair users. Conference Proceedings – IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics; The Hague, Netherlands. 2004. p. 2790–2796.
   Google Scholar
• Thorp EB, Abdollahi F, Chen D, et al. Upper body-based power wheelchair control interface for individuals with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016;24:249–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon I, Lee M, Ryu J, et al. Intelligent Robotic Wheelchair with EMG-, Gesture-, and Voice-based Interfaces. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Las Vegas, NV. 2003. p. 3453–3458.
   Google Scholar
• Jaffe DL, Harris HL, Leung SK. Ultrasonic head controlled wheelchair/interface: A case study in development and technology transfer. Proceedings of 13th Annual International Conference on Assisted Technology. People with Disability; Washington, DC. 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Katsura S, Ohnishi K. Human cooperative wheelchair for haptic interaction based on dual compliance control. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 2004;51(1):221–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson T, Del R. Millan J. Brain-controlled wheelchairs: a robotic architecture. IEEE Robot Automat Mag. 2013;20(1):65–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaudhary U, Birbaumer N, Ramos-Murguialday A. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and rehabilitation. Nat Rev Neurol. 2016;12(9):513–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MA. Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 2006;29:536–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitagawa H, Kobayashi T, Beppu T, et al. Semi-autonomous obstacle avoidance of omnidirectional wheelchair by joystick impedance control. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Maui, HI. 2001. p. 2148–2153.
   Google Scholar
• Luo RC, Hu CY, Chen TM, et al. Force reflective feedback control for intelligent wheelchairs. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Kyongju, Korea (South). IEEE;1999. p. 918–923.
   Google Scholar
• Yanco HA. Wheelesley: A robotic wheelchair system: indoor navigation and user interface. In: Mittal VO, Yanco HA, Aronis J, et al., editors. Assistive Technology and Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 1458. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1998. p. 256–268.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson RC, Levine SP. Voice control of a powered wheelchair. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002;10:122–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Chen W. Hybrid map-based navigation for intelligent wheelchair. Proceedings – IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Shanghai, China. 2011. p. 637–642.
   Google Scholar
• Braga RAM, Petry M, Reis LP, et al. Intellwheels: modular development platform for intelligent wheelchairs. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:1061–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iturrate I, Antelis JM, Kübler A, et al. A noninvasive brain-actuated wheelchair based on a P300 neurophysiological protocol and automated navigation. IEEE Trans Robot. 2009;25(3):614–627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philips J, Millán JDR, Vanacker G, et al. Adaptive shared control of a brain-actuated simulated wheelchair. 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Noordwijk, Netherlands. 2007. p. 408–414.
   Google Scholar
• Li Q, Chen W, Wang J. Dynamic shared control for human-wheelchair cooperation. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Shanghai, China. 2011. p. 4278–4283
   Google Scholar
• Röfer T, Mandel C, Laue T. Controlling an automated wheelchair via joystick/head-joystick supported by smart driving assistance. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Kyoto, Japan. 2009. p. 743–748.
   Google Scholar
• Demeester E, Hüntemann A, Vanhooydonck D, et al. Bayesian estimation of wheelchair driver intents: modeling intents as geometric paths tracked by the driver. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Beijing, China. 2006. p. 5775–5780.
   Google Scholar
• Torkia C, Reid D, Korner-Bitensky N, et al. Power wheelchair driving challenges in the community: A users’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:211–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E, D’Souza C, Maisel J. Clear floor space for contemporary wheeled mobility users. 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons; Hong Kong. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• D’Souza C, Paquet V, Lenker JA, et al. Effects of transit bus interior configuration on performance of wheeled mobility users during simulated boarding and disembarking. Appl Ergon. 2017;62:94–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Souza C, Steinfeld E, Paquet V, et al. Space requirements for wheeled mobility devices in public transportation: analysis of clear floor space requirements. Transport Res Rec. 2010;2145(1):66–71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker JA, Damle U, D’Souza C. Usability evaluation of access ramps in transit buses: preliminary findings. JPT. 2016;19(2):109–127.
   Google Scholar
• Rubio F, Valero F, Llopis-Albert C. A review of mobile robots: concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications. Int J Adv Robot Syst. 2019;16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Loos HFM. VA/Stanford rehabilitation robotics research and development program: lessons learned in the application of robotics technology to the field of rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehab Eng. 1995;3(1):46–55.
   Google Scholar
• Lozano-Perez T. Spatial planning: a configuration space approach. In: Autonomous Robotic Vehicle. New York, USA: Springer; 1990. pp. 259–271.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks RA. Solving the find-path problem by good representation of free space. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1983;SMC-13(2):190–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavraki LE, Latombe J-C, Motwani R, et al. Randomized query processing in robot path planning. J Comput Syst Sci. 1998;57(1):50–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofner C, Schmidt G. Path planning and guidance techniques for an autonomous mobile cleaning robot. Rob Auton Syst. 1995;14(2–3):199–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driessen BJF, Evers HG, Woerden JAV. MANUS – a wheelchair-mounted rehabilitation robot. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001;215(3):285–290.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abdulrazak B, Mokhtari M. Assistive robotics for independent living. In: The engineering handbook of smart technology for aging, disability, and independence. 2008. p. 353–374.
   Google Scholar
• Hh K. The Manus wheelchair-borne manipulator: system review and first results. IARP Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Medical Healthcare in Robotics; New Castle, UK. 1989. p. 385–395.
   Google Scholar
• Ivlev O, Martens C, Graeser A. Rehabilitation robots FRIEND-I and FRIEND-II with the dexterous lightweight manipulator. TAD. 2005;17(2):111–123.
   Google Scholar
• Volosyak I, Ivlev O, Gräser A. Rehabilitation robot FRIEND II – the general concept and current implementation. Proceedings of 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Chicago, IL. 2005. p. 540–544.
   Google Scholar
• Colello MS, Mahoney RM. Commercialising assistive and therapy robotics. In: Keats S, Langdon P, Clarkson PJ, et al., editors. Universal access and assistive technologies. London: Springer;2002. p. 223–234.
   Google Scholar
• Song WK, Lee HY, Kim JS. KARES: intelligent rehabilitation robotic system for the disabled and the elderly. Annual International Conference on IEEE Engineering and Medical Biology – Proceedings; Hong Kong. IEEE;1998. p. 2682–2685.
   Google Scholar
• Jung J, Song W, Lee H. A study on the enhancement of manipulation performance of wheelchair-mounted rehabilitation service robot. International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Stanford, CA;1999. p. 42–49.
   Google Scholar
• Bien Z, Kim DJ, Chung MJ, et al. Development of a wheelchair-based rehabilitation robotic system (KARES II) with various human-robot interaction interfaces for the disabled. IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Kobe, Japan. IEEE; 2003. p. 902–907.
   Google Scholar
• Katevas NI, Sgouros NM, Tzafestas SG, et al. The autonomous mobile robot SENARIO: A sensor-aided intelligent navigation system for powered wheelchairs. IEEE Robot Automat Mag. 1997;4(4):60–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson RC, Levine SP, Bell DA, et al. NavChair: an assistive wheelchair navigation system with automatic adaptation. Assist Technol Artif Intell. 1998;1458:235–255.
   Google Scholar
• Bourhis G, Agostini Y. The Vahm robotized wheelchair: system architecture and human-machine interaction. J Intell Robot Syst Theory Appl. 1998;22(1):39–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demeester E, Nuttin M, Vanhooydonck D, et al. Assessing the user’s intent using Bayes’ rule: application to wheelchair control. 1st International Work on Advanced Service Robotics, Bardolino, Italy;2003. p. 117–124.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhooydonck D, Demeester E, Nuttin M, et al. Shared control for intelligent wheelchairs: an implicit estimation of the user intention. 1st International Work on Advanced Service Robotics, Bardolino, Italy; 2003. p. 176–182.
   Google Scholar
• Demeester E, Nuttin M, Vanhooydonck D, et al. A model-based, probabilistic framework for plan recognition in shared wheelchair control: experiments and evaluation. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robotic Systems; 2003. p. 1456–1461.
   Google Scholar
• Borgolte U, Hoyer H, Bühler C, et al. Architectural concepts of a semi-autonomous wheelchair. J Intell Robot Syst Theory Appl. 1998;22(3/4):233–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan T, Verplank W. Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Man-Machine Systems Lab;1978.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley MR, Kaber DB. Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics. 1999;42(3):462–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roefer T, Lankenau A. Ensuring safe obstacle avoidance in a shared-control system. IEEE Symposium on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation ETFA; Barcalona, Spain. IEEE; 1999. p. 1405–1414.
   Google Scholar
• Röfer T, Lankenau A. Architecture and applications of the Bremen autonomous wheelchair. Inf Sci. 2000;126(1–4):1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong JP, Kwon OS, Lee EH, et al. Shared-control and force-reflection joystick algorithm for the door passing of mobile robot or powered wheelchair. IEEE Region 10 Annual International Conference, Proceedings/TENCON, IEEE, Malaysia;1999. p. 1577–1580.
   Google Scholar
• Fioretti S, Leo T, Longhi S. A navigation system for increasing the autonomy and the security of powered wheelchairs. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000;8:490–498.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pires G, Nunes U. A wheelchair steered through voice commands and assisted by a reactive fuzzy-logic controller. J Intell Robot Syst Theory Appl. 2002;34(3):301–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourhis G, Horn O, Habert O, et al. An autonomous vehicle for people with motor disabilities. IEEE Robot Automat Mag. 2001;8(1):20–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdallah SB, Ajmi F, Othman SB, et al. Augmented reality for real-time navigation assistance to wheelchair users with obstacles’ management. International Conference on Computer Science; Cham: Springer;2019. p. 528–534.
   Google Scholar
• Miermeister P, Pott A, Verl A. Auto-calibration method for overconstrained cable-driven parallel robots. Robot 2012; 7th German Conference on Robotics; Berlin: VDE;2012. p. 301–306.
   Google Scholar
• Xu L, Feng C, Kamat VR, et al. An occupancy grid mapping enhanced visual SLAM for real-time locating applications in indoor GPS-denied environments. Autom Constr. 2019;104:230–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantha BRK, Menassa CC, Kamat VR, et al. Evaluation of preference- and constraint-sensitive path planning for assisted navigation in indoor building environments. J Comput Civ Eng. 2020;34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng Q, Teo CL, Rebsamen B, et al. Collaborative path planning for a robotic wheelchair. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008;3:315–324.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devigne L, Pasteau F, Carlson T, et al. A shared control solution for safe assisted power wheelchair navigation in an environment consisting of negative obstacles: a proof of concept. Conference Proceedings – IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics; Bari, Italy. IEEE; 2019. p. 1043–1048.
   Google Scholar
• Boy ES, Teo CL, Burdet E. Collaborative wheelchair assistant. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Lausanne, Switzerland. 2002. p. 1511–1516.
   Google Scholar
• Hashimoto R, Nomura R, Kanbara M, et al. Behavior representation of robotic wheelchairs with physiological indices for passenger comfort. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Vehicle Electronic Safety; Yokohama, Japan. IEEE; 2015. p. 158–163.
   Google Scholar
• Gopinath D, Jain S, Argall BD. Human-in-the-loop optimization of shared autonomy in assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Lett. 2017;2:247–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdogan A, Argall BD. The effect of robotic wheelchair control paradigm and interface on user performance, effort and preference: an experimental assessment. Rob Auton Syst. 2017;94:282–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain S, Argall B. An approach for online user customization of shared autonomy for intelligent assistive devices. IEEE International Conference on Robotic Automation, Stockholm, Sweden;2016.
   Google Scholar
• Argall BD. Modular and adaptive wheelchair automation. In: Experimental robotics. Springer tracts in advanced robotics.2016. p. 835–848.
   Google Scholar
• Sawabe T, Ota S, Kanbara M, et al. Warning notification of potential collisions for comfort intelligence on autonomous vehicles. Intell Transp Syst Everyone’s Mobil. 2019;279–295.
   Google Scholar
• Viswanathan P, Zambalde EP, Foley G, et al. Intelligent wheelchair control strategies for older adults with cognitive impairment: user attitudes, needs, and preferences. Auton Robot. 2017;41(3):539–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwasawa Y, Nagamine K, Yairi IE, et al. Toward an automatic road accessibility information collecting and sharing based on human behavior sensing technologies of wheelchair users. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;63:74–81.
   Google Scholar
• Maske H, Chowdhary G, Pagilla P. Intent aware shared control in off-nominal situations. 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision Control CDC 2016; Las Vegas, NV. IEEE; 2016. p. 5171–5176.
   Google Scholar
• Faria BM, Reis LP, Lau N, et al. Intelligent wheelchair driving: bridging the gap between virtual and real intelligent wheelchairs. Port Conference on Artificial Intelligence; Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 445–456.
   Google Scholar
• Aquilina M, Bugeja MK, Fabri SG. Smart wheelchairs: Using robotics to bridge the gap between prototypes and cost-effective set-ups. ICINCO 2019 – Proceedings of 16th International Conferece on Informatics Control Automation Robotics; Prague, Czech Republic. 2019. p. 181–189.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders DA. Using self-reliance factors to decide how to share control between human powered wheelchair drivers and ultrasonic sensors. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25:1221–1229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Javaremi MN, Young M, Argall BD. Interface operation and implications for shared-control assistive robots. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Toronto, ON. IEEE; 2019. p. 232–239.
   Google Scholar
• Gacem A, Monacelli E, Wang T, et al. Assessment of wheelchair skills based on analysis of driving style. Cogn Tech Work. 2020;22(1):193–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang Y, Kutbi M, Agadakos N, et al. A shared autonomy approach for wheelchair navigation based on learned user preferences. Proceedings on IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops; Venice, Italy. 2017. p. 1490–1499.
   Google Scholar
• Kutbi M, Chang Y, Sun B, et al. Learning to navigate robotic wheelchairs from demonstration: is training in simulation viable? Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops; Seoul, Korea. 2019. p. 0–0.
   Google Scholar
• Chow HN, Xu Y. Learning human navigational skill for smart wheelchair in a static cluttered route. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 2006;53(4):1350–1361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goil A, Derry M, Argall BD. Using machine learning to blend human and robot controls for assisted wheelchair navigation. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Seattle, WA. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Poon J, Cui Y, Valls Miro J, et al. Learning from demonstration for locally assistive mobility aids. Int J Intell Robot Appl. 2019;3(3):255–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsumoto Y, Ino T, Ogasawara T. Development of intelligent wheelchair system with face and gaze based interface. Proceedings – IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication; Bordeaux, France. 2001. p. 262–267.
   Google Scholar
• Kuno Y, Shimada N, Shirai Y. Look where you’re going. IEEE Robot Automat Mag. 2003;10(1):26–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel S, Jung SH, Ostrowski JP, et al. Sensor based door navigation for a nonholonomic vehicle. Proceedings-IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Washington, DC. 2002. p. 3081–3086.
   Google Scholar
• Parikh SP, Grassi V, Kumar V, et al. Incorporating user inputs in motion planning for a smart wheelchair. Proceedings-IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; New Orleans, LA. 2004. p. 2043–2048.
   Google Scholar
• Parikh SP, Grassi V, Kumar V, et al. Integrating human inputs with autonomous behaviors on an intelligent wheelchair platform. IEEE Intell Syst. 2007;22(2):33–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrin X, Colas F, Pradalier C, et al. Learning to identify users and predict their destination in a robotic guidance application. Springer Tracts Adv Robot. 2010;62:377–387.
   Google Scholar
• Sinyukov DA, Padir T. A novel shared position control method for robot navigation via low throughput human-machine interfaces. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Madrid, Spain. IEEE; 2018. p. 3913–3920.
   Google Scholar
• Erdogan A, Argall BD. Prediction of user preference over shared-control paradigms for a robotic wheelchair. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; London, UK. IEEE Computer Society; 2017. p. 1106–1111.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen N, Cubuktepe M, Topcu U. Synthesis of shared control protocols with provable safety and performance guarantees. American Control Conference; Seattle, WA. IEEE; 2017. p. 1866–1873.
   Google Scholar
• Javdani S, Srinivasa SS, Bagnell JA. Shared autonomy via hindsight optimization. Robot Sci Syst Online Proc. 2015;2015.
   Google Scholar
• Ghorbel M, Pineau J, Gourdeau R, et al. A decision-theoretic approach for the collaborative control of a smart wheelchair. Int J Soc Robot. 2018;10:131–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Admoni H, Srinivasa S. Predicting user intent through eye gaze for shared autonomy. AAAI Fall Symp Ser. 2016;2016:298–303.
   Google Scholar
• Doshi F, Roy N. Spoken language interaction with model uncertainty: An adaptive human-robot interaction system. Conn Sci. 2008;20(4):299–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estrada A, Mitchell IM. Towards an emotionally-aware smart wheelchair. Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems; Montreal, Canada. 2019. p. 318–319.
   Google Scholar
• Poppe R. Vision-based human motion analysis: an overview. Comput Vis Image Underst. 2007;108(1–2):4–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson S, Horiuchi T, Kagami S. A probabilistic model of human motion and navigation intent for mobile robot path planning. 4th International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents; Wellington, New Zealand. IEEE; 2009. p. 663–668.
   Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Lee M. Human motion based intent recognition using a deep dynamic neural model. Rob Auton Syst. 2015;71:134–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H, Wang L. Human motion prediction for human-robot collaboration. J Manuf Syst. 2017;44:287–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudenko A, Palmieri L, Herman M, et al. Human motion trajectory prediction: a survey. Int J Rob Res. 2020;39(8):895–935.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sisbot EA, Marin-Urias KF, Alami R, et al. A human aware mobile robot motion planner. IEEE Trans Robot. 2007;23(5):874–883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson M, Murray-Smith R, Hansen V. Robot docking using mixtures of Gaussians. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 1999;11:945–951.
   Google Scholar
• Sermeno-Villalta H, Spletzer J. Vision-based control of a smart wheelchair for the automated transport and retrieval system (ATRS). Proceedings of 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics Automation; Orlando, FL. 2006. p. 3423–3428.
   Google Scholar
• Demeester E, Nuttin M, Vanhooydonck D, et al. Fine Motion planning for shared wheelchair control: requirements and preliminary experiments. 11th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Coimbra, Portugal;2003. p. 1278–1283.
   Google Scholar
• Leishman F, Horn O, Bourhis G. Multimodal laser-vision approach for the deictic control of a smart wheelchair. International Conference on Smart Homes and Health Telematics; Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;2009. p. 98–107.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhooydonck D, Demeester E, Hüntemann A, et al. Adaptable navigational assistance for intelligent wheelchairs by means of an implicit personalized user model. Rob Auton Syst. 2010;58(8):963–977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derry M, Argall B. Automated doorway detection for assistive shared-control wheelchairs. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics Automation; Karlsruhe, Germany. 2013. p. 1254–1259.
   Google Scholar
• Cheein FAA, De La Cruz C, Bastos TF, et al. SLAM-based cross-a-door solution approach for a robotic wheelchair. Int J Adv Robot Syst. 2009;6(3):20–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusu RB, Meeussen W, Chitta S, et al. Laser-based perception for door and handle identification. 2009 International Conference on Advanced Robotics; Munich, Germany. 2009. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Fehr L, Langbein WE, Skaar SB. Adequacy of power wheelchair control interfaces for persons with severe disabilities: a clinical survey. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37:353–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey T, Nebot EM, Rosenblatt JK. Behaviour-based docking using the DAMN Arbiter. Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation; Brisbane, Australia. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Muse D, Weber C, Wermter S. Robot docking based on omnidirectional vision and reinforcement learning. International Conference on Innovative Technology and Applications of Artificial Intelligence; London: Springer;2006. p. 23–36.
   Google Scholar
• Weber C, Wermter S, Zochios A. Robot docking with neural vision and reinforcement International Conference on Innovative Technology and Applications of Artificial Intelligence; London: Springer;2003. p. 213–226.
   Google Scholar
• Martínez-Marín T, Duckett T. Fast reinforcement learning for vision-guided mobile robots. Proceedings of 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics Automation; Barcelona, Spain. 2005. p. 4170–4175.
   Google Scholar
• Wei Z, Chen W, Wang J. 3D semantic map-based shared control for smart wheelchair. Int Conf Intell Robot Appl. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg;2012. p. 41–51.
   Google Scholar
• Wasson G, Sheth P, Huang C, et al. Intelligent mobility aids for the elderly. Eldercare Technol Clin Pract. 2007;53–76.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson RC, Poirot D, Baxter F. The Hephaestus smart wheelchair system. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002;10:118–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuttin M, Vanhooydonck D, Demeester E, et al. Selection of suitable human-robot interaction techniques for intelligent wheelchairs. Proceedings of 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication; Berlin, Germany. 2002. p. 146–151.
   Google Scholar
• Matni N, Oishi M. Reachability analysis for continuous systems under shared control: application to user-interface design. Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference; Shanghai, China. 2009. p. 5929–5934.
   Google Scholar
• Oishi M, Matni N. Towards provably safe control for smart wheelchairs. AAAI Fall Symposium AI in Eldercare New Solutions to Old Problems; 2008. p. 67–69.
   Google Scholar
• Cubuktepe M, Jansen N, Alshiekh M, et al. Synthesis of provably correct autonomy protocols for shared control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Matni N, Oishi M. Reachability-based abstraction for an aircraft landing under shared control. Proceedings of American Control Conference; Seattle, WA. 2008. p. 2278–2284.
   Google Scholar
• Yu H, Spenko M, Dubowsky S. An adaptive shared control system for an intelligent mobility aid for the elderly. Auton Robots. 2003;15(1):53–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruemmer D, Few D, Goodrich M, et al. How to trust robots further than we can throw them. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems–Proceedings; Vienna, Austria. 2004. p. 1576–1577.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, et al. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum Factors. 2011;53:517–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, et al. Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. Proceedings – IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communications; Toyama, Japan. 2009. p. 528–533.
   Google Scholar
• Desai M, Stubbs K, Steinfeld A, et al. Creating trustworthy robots: lessons and inspirations from automated systems. Procedings of AISB Convention of New Front Human-Robot Interaction; Edinburgh, Scotland. 2009. p. 49–56.
   Google Scholar
• Desai M, Medvedev M, Vázquez M, et al. Effects of changing reliability on trust of robot systems. HRI’12 – Proceedings of 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; Boston, MA. 2012. p. 73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Dubowsky S, Genot F, Godding S, et al. PAMM – a robotic aid to the elderly for mobility assistance and monitoring: a “helping hand” for the elderly. Proceedings 2000 ICRA Millennium Conference IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Symposia Proceedings (Cat No 00CH37065); San Francisco, CA. IEEE; 2000. p. 570–576.
   Google Scholar
• Ragaja SR, Dinesh NS. Development of an active walker for disabled children. 2017 IEEE 3rd International Symposium in Robotics and Manufacturing Automation ROMA 2017; Kuala Lumpur. IEEE; 2017. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Ragaja SR, Dinesh NS, Madhuri V, et al. Development and clinical evaluation of a posterior active walker for disabled children. J Intell Robot Syst. 2020;97(1):47–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pires G, Aradjo R, Nunes U, et al. RobChair – a powered wheelchair using a behaviour-based navigation. International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control AMC; Coimbra, Portugal. IEEE; 1998. p. 536–541.
   Google Scholar
• Yanco H. Integrating robotic research: a survey of robotic wheelchair development. AAAI Spring Symposium Integrated Robotics Research, Stanford University;1998. p. 136–141.
   Google Scholar
• Bonarini A, Ceriani S, Fontana G, et al. Introducing LURCH: a shared autonomy robotic wheelchair with multimodal interfaces. Proceedings of IROS 2012 workshop on progress, challenges and future perspectives in navigation and manipulation assistance for robotic wheelchairs; 2012. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein J, Koren Y. The vector field histogram—fast obstacle avoidance for mobile robots. IEEE Trans Robot Automat. 1991;7(3):278–288.
   Google Scholar
• Koren Y, Borenstein J. Potential field methods and their inherent limitations for mobile robot navigation. Proceedings – IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Sacramento, CA. IEEE; 1991. p. 1398–1404.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet PD. Who’s intelligent? Wheelchair, driver or both? Proceedings of International Conference on Control Applications; Glasgow, UK. IEEE; 2002. p. 760–765.
   Google Scholar
• Padir T. Towards personalized smart wheelchairs: lessons learned from discovery interviews. 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); Milan, Italy. IEEE; 2015. p. 5016–5019.
   Google Scholar
• Sinyukov DA. Semi-autonomous robotic wheelchair controlled with low throughput human-machine interfaces [dissertation]. Worcester Polytechnic Institute;2017.
   Google Scholar
• Healey JA, Picard RW. Detecting stress during real-world driving tasks using physiological sensors. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2005;6(2):156–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Stegeren A, Rohleder N, Everaerd W, et al. Salivary alpha amylase as marker for adrenergic activity during stress: Effect of betablockade. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2006;31:137–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess EH, Polt JM. Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science. 1960;132:349–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales Y, Watanabe A, Ferreri F, et al. Passenger discomfort map for autonomous navigation in a robotic wheelchair. Rob Auton Syst. 2018;103:13–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain S, Argall B. Probabilistic human intent recognition for shared autonomy in assistive robotics. J Hum-Robot Interact. 2020;9(1):1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Narayanan VK, Spalanzani A, Babel M. A semi-autonomous framework for human-aware and user intention driven wheelchair mobility assistance. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Daejeon, Korea (South) IEEE; 2016. p. 4700–4707.
   Google Scholar
• Jain S, Argall B. Automated perception of safe docking locations with alignment information for assistive wheelchairs. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Chicago, IL. 2014. p. 4997–5002.
   Google Scholar
• Ali S, Lam A, Fukuda H, et al. Smart wheelchair maneuvering among people. International Conference on Intelligent Computing; Cham: Springer;2019. p. 32–42.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtson SH, Bak T, Andreasen Struijk LNS, et al. A review of computer vision for semi-autonomous control of assistive robotic manipulators (ARMs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(7):731–745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zolotas M, Demiris Y. Towards explainable shared control using augmented reality. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Macau, China. 2019. p. 3020–3026.
   Google Scholar
• K. Narayanan V, Pasteau F, Marchal M, et al. Vision-based adaptive assistance and haptic guidance for safe wheelchair corridor following. Comput Vis Image Underst. 2016;149:171–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holladay R, Herlant L, Admoni H, et al. Visibility optimization in manipulation tasks for a wheelchair-mounted robot arm. RO-MAN Work Human-Oriented Approaches Assist Rehabil Robot. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Ren Y, Zou W, Fan H, et al. A docking control method in narrow space for intelligent wheelchair. 2012 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation; Chengdu, China. 2012. p. 1615–1620.
   Google Scholar
• Pasteau F, Babel M, Sekkal R. Corridor following wheelchair by visual servoing. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Tokyo, Japan. 2013. p. 590–595.
   Google Scholar
• Pasteau F, Narayanan VK, Babel M, et al. A visual servoing approach for autonomous corridor following and doorway passing in a wheelchair. Rob Auton Syst. 2016;75:28–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra EW. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math. 1959;1(1):269–271.
   Google Scholar
• Piazzi A, Lo BC., Romano M. Smooth path generation for wheeled mobile robots using η3-splines. Motion Control. 2010;75–96.
   Google Scholar
• Ön S, Yazici A. A comparative study of smooth path planning for a mobile robot considering kinematic constraints. 2011 International Symposium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications; Istanbul, Turkey. IEEE; 2011. p. 565–569.
   Google Scholar
• Morales Y, Watanabe A, Ferreri F, et al. Including human factors for planning comfortable paths. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics Automation; Seattle, WA. IEEE; 2015. p. 6153–6159.
   Google Scholar
• Guzzi J, Di Caro GA. From indoor GIS maps to path planning for autonomous wheelchairs. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; Daejeon, Korea (South). IEEE;2016. p. 4773–4779.
   Google Scholar
• Papon J, Schoeler M. Semantic pose using deep networks trained on synthetic RGB-D. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision; Santiago, Chile. 2015. p. 774–782.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Roberson M, Barto C, Mehta R, et al. Driving in the Matrix: Can virtual worlds replace human-generated annotations for real world tasks? Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics Automation; Singapore. 2017. p. 746–753.
   Google Scholar
• Abu Alhaija H, Mustikovela SK, Mescheder L, et al. Augmented reality meets computer vision: efficient data generation for urban driving scenes. Int J Comput Vis. 2018;126(9):961–972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konduri S. Coordination of multiple autonomous vehicles with directed communication graphs [dissertation]. Oklahoma State University;2012.
   Google Scholar
• Albagul A. Wahyudi. 149-154 Dynamic modelling and adaptive traction control for mobile robots. Int J Adv Robot Syst. 2004;1:149–154.
   Google Scholar