4.5 Article

Perceived safety in physical human-robot interaction-A survey

期刊

ROBOTICS AND AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.robot.2022.104047

关键词

Physical human robot interaction; Perceived safety; Trust; Comfort; UAVs; Self-driving cars

资金

  1. Nazarbayev University [091019CRP2118, 091019CRP2107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review paper summarizes the various aspects of perceived safety in autonomous physical systems, including related concepts, assessment methods, categories of autonomous systems, and their impact on perceived safety. The paper provides an overview and analysis of the research in this field, and discusses experimental duration, location, and the connection to safety standards.
This review paper focuses on different aspects of perceived safety for a number of autonomous physical systems. This is a major aspect of robotics research, as more and more applications allow humans and autonomous systems to share their space, with crucial implications both on safety and on its perception. The alternative terms used to express related concepts (e.g., psychological safety, trust, comfort, stress, fear, and anxiety) are listed and explained. Then, the available methods to assess perceived safety (i.e., questionnaires, physiological measurements, behavioral assessment, and direct input devices) are described. Six categories of autonomous systems are considered (industrial polyarticulated manipulators, indoor mobile robots, mobile manipulators, humanoid robots, drones, and autonomous vehicles), providing an overview of the main themes related to perceived safety in the specific domain, a description of selected works, and an analysis of how motion and characteristics of the system influence the perception of safety. The survey also discusses experimental duration and location of the reviewed papers, and the connection between perceived safety and safety standards. (C) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据