Hey Robot, Which Way Are You Going? Nonverbal Motion Legibility Cues for Human-Robot Spatial Interaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile robots have recently been deployed in public spaces such as shopping malls, airports, and urban sidewalks. Most of these robots are designed with human-aware motion planning capabilities but are not designed to communicate with pedestrians. Pedestrians that encounter these robots without prior understanding of the robots' behaviour can experience discomfort, confusion, and delayed social acceptance. In this work we designed and evaluated nonverbal robot motion legibility cues, which communicate a mobile robot's motion intention to pedestrians. We compared a motion legibility cue using Projected Arrows to one using Flashing Lights. We designed the cues to communicate path information, goal information, or both, and explored different Robot Movement Scenarios. We conducted an online user study with 229 participants using videos of the motion legibility cues. Our results show that the absence of cues was not socially acceptable, and that Projected Arrows were the more socially acceptable cue in most experimental conditions. We conclude that the presence and choice of motion legibility cues can positively influence robots' acceptance and successful deployment in public spaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it