MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414567777 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.09.445

The Embodied Cognition paradigm: a novel approach to advancing Human-Robot Collaboration research

2025· article· en· W4414567777 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Mancusi, Patrick Neumann, Francesco Pierri, Fabio Fruggiero

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNextGenerationEUChulalongkorn University
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionWorkspacePerspective (graphical)CognitionRobotTask (project management)Human–robot interactionCognitive robotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent developments in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) have moved beyond reactive, preprogrammed robot responses, aiming instead for collaborative systems where robots actively anticipate and adapt to human actions. By integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI), robots can now interpret a range of human signals, enhancing the naturalness of interactions and making communication in industrial environments more intuitive. This evolution has expanded research to consider the cognitive aspects of robots. In industrial contexts, Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) in shared physical workspaces has been extensively studied from the perspective of the human operator. However, there is a notable lack of research on the mutual cognition in interaction between humans and robots, who can act as a whole, intelligent system. This paper aims to explore the ontological foundations first and, then, the epistemological knowledge regarding the emerging patterns of evolved forms of HRC in industrial contexts involving physically shared workspaces. Starting from the concept of embodied cognition, the authors introduce and define the Human-Robot Embodiment (HRE) paradigm. HRE descriptors allow for evaluating, both in the design and operations, the degree of mutual embodiment. Also, the HRE approach benefits are discussed in terms of workplace safety and ergonomics, task performance, and reliability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207