Fig 3 - uploaded by David W Franklin
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comparison between the performance of dyadic and bimanual experiments. A and B show the performance in completion time and trajectory smoothness, respectively. The x and y coordinates show the relative performance of each participant with respect to their partners and their dyad, respectively.

Comparison between the performance of dyadic and bimanual experiments. A and B show the performance in completion time and trajectory smoothness, respectively. The x and y coordinates show the relative performance of each participant with respect to their partners and their dyad, respectively.

Source publication
Preprint
Full-text available
Intuitive and efficient physical human-robot collaboration relies on the mutual observability of the human and the robot, i.e. the two entities being able to interpret each other's intentions and actions. This is remedied by a myriad of methods involving human sensing or intention decoding, as well as human-robot turn-taking and sequential task pla...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... each dyad, we compared individual performance and dyadic performance with or without haptic feedback, to see if performance improved in dyad. In Figure 3, the x and y coordinates were calculated as follows: ...
Context 2
... is better than the average performance of the two participants, the data points should be below the diagonal line. When there was haptic feedback, all dyads had a shorter completion time as compared to the average individual completion time, while half of the dyads took a longer time to complete the task when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. 3A). A similar result could be found in the smoothness of ball trajectory. Three out of four dyads had a smoother trajectory when there was haptic feedback, while only one dyad had a smoother trajectory when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. ...
Context 3
... time, while half of the dyads took a longer time to complete the task when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. 3A). A similar result could be found in the smoothness of ball trajectory. Three out of four dyads had a smoother trajectory when there was haptic feedback, while only one dyad had a smoother trajectory when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. ...
Context 4
... each dyad, we compared individual performance and dyadic performance with or without haptic feedback, to see if performance improved in dyad. In Figure 3, the x and y coordinates were calculated as follows: ...
Context 5
... is better than the average performance of the two participants, the data points should be below the diagonal line. When there was haptic feedback, all dyads had a shorter completion time as compared to the average individual completion time, while half of the dyads took a longer time to complete the task when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. 3A). A similar result could be found in the smoothness of ball trajectory. Three out of four dyads had a smoother trajectory when there was haptic feedback, while only one dyad had a smoother trajectory when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. ...
Context 6
... time, while half of the dyads took a longer time to complete the task when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. 3A). A similar result could be found in the smoothness of ball trajectory. Three out of four dyads had a smoother trajectory when there was haptic feedback, while only one dyad had a smoother trajectory when there was no haptic feedback (Fig. ...