Improving Human–Robot Collaboration through Augmented Reality and Eye Gaze
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
When humans work together to complete a joint task, each person builds an internal model of the situation and how it will evolve. Efficient collaboration depends on how these individual models overlap to form a shared mental model among team members; shared models are also important for collaborative processes in human–robot teams. The development and maintenance of an accurate shared mental model requires bidirectional communication of individual intent and the ability to interpret the intent of other team members. To enable effective human–robot collaboration, this article investigates the use of augmented reality (AR) technology and user eye gaze to enable bidirectional communication of intent in a joint action task. We tested this approach through a user study with 37 participants and found that this communication improves task efficiency, trust, as well as task fluency. We conclude that using AR and eye gaze to enable bidirectional communication and support shared mental models is a promising means for improving collaboration between humans and robots.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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