Human Factors Considerations for Quantifiable Human States in Physical Human–Robot Interaction: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the global population rapidly ages with longer life expectancy and declining birth rates, the need for healthcare services and caregivers for older adults is increasing. Current research envisions addressing this shortage by introducing domestic service robots to assist with daily activities. The successful integration of robots as domestic service providers in our lives requires them to possess efficient manipulation capabilities, provide effective physical assistance, and have adaptive control frameworks that enable them to develop social understanding during human-robot interaction. In this context, human factors, especially quantifiable ones, represent a necessary component. The objective of this paper is to conduct an unbiased review encompassing the studies on human factors studied in research involving physical interactions and strong manipulation capabilities. We identified the prevalent human factors in physical human-robot interaction (pHRI), noted the factors typically addressed together, and determined the frequently utilized assessment approaches. Additionally, we gathered and categorized proposed quantification approaches based on the measurable data for each human factor. We also formed a map of the common contexts and applications addressed in pHRI for a comprehensive understanding and easier navigation of the field. We found out that most of the studies in direct pHRI (when there is direct physical contact) focus on social behaviors with belief being the most commonly addressed human factor type. Task collaboration is moderately investigated, while physical assistance is rarely studied. In contrast, indirect pHRI studies (when the physical contact is mediated via a third item) often involve industrial settings, with physical ergonomics being the most frequently investigated human factor. More research is needed on the human factors in direct and indirect physical assistance applications, including studies that combine physical social behaviors with physical assistance tasks. We also found that while the predominant approach in most studies involves the use of questionnaires as the main method of quantification, there is a recent trend that seeks to address the quantification approaches based on measurable data.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".