Embodied Communication: How Robots and People Communicate Through Physical Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early research on physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) has necessarily focused on device design—the creation of compliant and sensorized hardware, such as exoskeletons, prostheses, and robot arms, that enables people to safely come in contact with robotic systems and to communicate about their collaborative intent. As hardware capabilities have become sufficient for many applications, and as computing has become more powerful, algorithms that support fluent and expressive use of pHRI systems have begun to play a prominent role in determining the systems’ usefulness. In this review, we describe a selection of representative algorithmic approaches that regulate and interpret pHRI, describing the progression from algorithms based on physical analogies, such as admittance control, to computational methods based on higher-level reasoning, which take advantage of multimodal communication channels. Existing algorithmic approaches largely enable task-specific pHRI, but they do not generalize to versatile human–robot collaboration. Throughout the review and in our discussion of next steps, we therefore argue that emergent embodied dialogue—bidirectional, multimodal communication that can be learned through continuous interaction—is one of the next frontiers of pHRI.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".