Natural head and body orientation for humanoid robots during conversations with moving human partners through motion capture analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In conversations between humans, a natural body and head orientation towards the interlocutor is important for their social interaction. Humanoids communicating with humans have to learn how to orient themselves properly which becomes a challenging task in the case of moving conversation partners. Studies of conversational behaviour often involve only stationary partners. In this research, we perform a motion capture study to address the scenario of moving subjects. Specifically, study trials were recorded during conversation between a human participant and interlocutor, with a focus on the behaviour of the head, shoulders, and feet. The results help better understand how humans behave while conversing with non-stationary interlocutors. The data from the trials was used to generate a mathematical model describing the relationship of the angle at which the interlocutor is located to the orientations of the head, shoulders and feet while tracking is performed. A new model setup to couple the motion of the interlocutor, the head and the shoulders is introduced, as well as a model to represent stepping in order to better replicate participant behaviour. The models are evaluated and then deployed to the REEM-C Humanoid Robot, for the purposes of generating a natural behavior of the robot and improving human-robot interaction.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".