A systematic review of handover actions in human dyads

Abstract

Introduction
Handover actions are joint actions in which an object is passed from one actor to another. In order to carry out a smooth handover action, precise coordination of both actors’ movements is of critical importance. This requires the synchronization of both the kinematics of the reaching movement and the grip forces of the two actors during the interaction. Psychologists, for example, may be interested in studying handover actions in order to identify the cognitive mechanisms underlying the interaction of two partners. In addition, robotic engineers may utilize insights from sensorimotor information processing in human handover as models for the design controllers in robots in hybrid (human-robot) interaction scenarios. To date, there is little knowledge transfer between researchers in different disciplines and no common framework or language for the study of handover actions.

Methods
For this reason, we systematically reviewed the literature on human-human handover actions in which at least one of the two types of behavioral data, kinematics or grip force, was measured.

Results
Nine relevant studies were identified. The different methodologies and results of the individual studies are here described and contextualized.

Discussion
Based on these results, a common framework is suggested that, provides a distinct and straightforward language and systematics for use in future studies. We suggest to term the actors as giver and receiver, as well as to subdivide the whole action into four phases: (1) Reach and grasp, (2) object transport, (3) object transfer, and (4) end of handover to comprehensively and clearly describe the handover action. The framework aims to foster the necessary exchange between different scientific disciplines to promote research on handover actions. Overall, the results support the assumption that givers adapt their executions according to the receiver’s intentions, that the start of the release of the object is processed feedforward and that the release process is feedback-controlled in the transfer phase. We identified the action planning of the receiver as a research gap.

Full text

Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org
A systematic review of handover
actions in human dyads
LenaKopnarski , JulianRudisch and ClaudiaVoelcker-Rehage *
Department of Neuromotor Behavior and Exercise, Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University
of Münster, Münster, Germany
Introduction: Handover actions are joint actions in which an object is passed from
one actor to another. In order to carry out a smooth handover action, precise
coordination of both actors’ movements is of critical importance. This requires
the synchronization of both the kinematics of the reaching movement and the
grip forces of the two actors during the interaction. Psychologists, for example,
may beinterested in studying handover actions in order to identify the cognitive
mechanisms underlying the interaction of two partners. In addition, robotic
engineers may utilize insights from sensorimotor information processing in
human handover as models for the design controllers in robots in hybrid (human-
robot) interaction scenarios. To date, there is little knowledge transfer between
researchers in dierent disciplines and no common framework or language for
the study of handover actions.
Methods: For this reason, wesystematically reviewed the literature on human-
human handover actions in which at least one of the two types of behavioral data,
kinematics or grip force, was measured.
Results: Nine relevant studies were identified. The dierent methodologies and
results of the individual studies are here described and contextualized.
Discussion: Based on these results, a common framework is suggested that,
provides a distinct and straightforward language and systematics for use in future
studies. Wesuggest to term the actors as giver and receiver, as well as to subdivide
the whole action into four phases: (1) Reach and grasp, (2) object transport, (3)
object transfer, and (4) end of handover to comprehensively and clearly describe
the handover action. The framework aims to foster the necessary exchange
between dierent scientific disciplines to promote research on handover actions.
Overall, the results support the assumption that givers adapt their executions
according to the receiver’s intentions, that the start of the release of the object is
processed feedforward and that the release process is feedback-controlled in the
transfer phase. Weidentified the action planning of the receiver as a research gap.
KEYWORDS
object handover, kinematics, grip force, joint action, human dyads
1. Introduction
e handing over of a salt shaker at dinner or a surgical tool from a nurse to a doctor are
examples of handover actions that take place as a matter of course in everyday life. A handover
action is eective when both actors achieve a smooth transfer of an object from one person to
the other. A high degree of intrapersonal coordination (the coordination of the action within a
person) and interpersonal coordination (the coordination of the action with another person)
(Kovacs etal., 2020) in time and space is necessary for such joint actions to besuccessful (Sebanz
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Philipp Beckerle,
University of Erlangen Nuremberg, Germany
REVIEWED BY
Luisa Sartori,
University of Padua, Italy
Marta Bieńkiewicz,
Université de Montpellier, France
*CORRESPONDENCE
Claudia Voelcker-Rehage
claudia.voelcker-rehage@uni-muenster.de
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Cognitive Science,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
RECEIVED 18 January 2023
ACCEPTED 10 March 2023
PUBLISHED 04 May 2023
CITATION
Kopnarski L, Rudisch J and
Voelcker-Rehage C (2023) A systematic review
of handover actions in human dyads.
Front. Psychol. 14:1147296.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Kopnarski, Rudisch and Voelcker-
Rehage. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
TYPE Systematic Review
PUBLISHED 04 May 2023
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org
etal., 2006). Many sub-actions are performed during handover actions
including both feedforward and feedback control mechanisms to use
predictions to anticipate one’s motor executions, as well as to
implement error corrections. A detailed understanding of the motor
control processes of both the giver and receiver that underlie handover
actions and the factors that inuence them contribute to the testing of
concepts of human interaction and further development of robotic
technologies. us, the article aims was to provide a common
framework for investigating handover actions, based on an overview
of the current state of research on handover actions. To facilitate this,
werst divided handover actions into discrete phases and named
them to create a foundation for clear communication.
Joint actions are an essential part of human life and are characterized
by the fact that two or more individuals pursue a common goal and
coordinate their individual actions accordingly. is coordination
requires an optimal alignment of the actors in time and space. To achieve
this, additional abilities beyond those required in a single action are
necessary. ese abilities are (a) the sharing of representations, (b) the
prediction of actions of the co-actor, and (c) the continuous integration
of predictions and incoming information (Sebanz etal., 2006). Shared
representations, common mapping of external conditions (Hagendorf
etal., 2011), are formed through the planning of one’s own actions and
predicting that of one’s partner (Kourtis etal., 2014), while considering
the constraints of both (Schmitz etal., 2017). e individual constraints
of one’s own body and that of one’s partner, such as body size or obstacles
in the action space, are considered during this process. Based on these
shared representations, predictions about the co-actor’s actions are made
that are then used for anticipatory action control. e predictions are
integrated into the available perceptual information (i.e., feedback
control), enabling coordination in time and space (Sebanz and Knoblich,
2021). In this context, incoming information means monitoring one’s
own actions and the actions of one’s partner to identify discrepancies
between the expected and actual execution (Loehr etal., 2013). For
example, when taking the role of the receiver in a handover task,
misjudgments about the anticipated movement trajectories of the giver
are detected through constant observation and by monitoring the giver’s
movement kinematics, thus the response plan may be updated
accordingly. In the same vein, the receiver may anticipate the essential
properties of the handover object (such as its weight). Information and
even misjudgments about these properties (e.g., an empty milk carton,
instead of the expected full carton) may also bedetected in the action-
partner’s movement kinematics with, for example, heavy objects leading
to dierent kinematics than light objects (Eastough and Edwards, 2007).
us, the receiver may beable to develop an accurate forward model that
enables the precise anticipatory scaling of grip forces needed to
successfully grasp the object.
Movement kinematics (which can bemeasured with 3D motion
tracking systems) such as movement duration (Vesper etal., 2017),
height, and velocity (McEllin etal., 2018) contain relevant information
for the receiver of an object in a handover task. is means that an
actor transmits information through the way they move during an
action. is can be viewed as signaling (i.e., an intentional
communication strategy) through which the actor makes their task
execution more predictable for the co-actor in order to minimize
uncertainties in the prediction of their action and, thus, optimize the
joint action (Pezzulo and Dindo, 2011). e information required for
the joint action can becommunicated, for example, by varying the
motor executions and systematically deviating from the most ecient
way of executing the action (Pezzulo etal., 2013) (e.g., by changing in
the duration or velocity of a certain action). Such signals could beused
in a handover action, for example, to communicate the position of the
handover. In addition to signaling for action synchronization, other
environmental factors can also lead to an observable change in
kinematics. Assuming that the reaching and grasping of the giver are
inuenced by specic factors (e.g., object properties) (Yamamoto etal.,
2016), the receiver may obtain information about these factors by
observing such movements (Lastrico etal., 2021). Observing how a
person grasps an object and transports it to the handover position can
provide information about the weight or fragility of an object and even
the handover position, whereupon the receiver can perform a more
precisely adapted action (e.g., more precise initial grip force scaling).
Research on joint handover actions was not only of interest to
psychologists and movement scientists, it is also pose a major challenge
in robotics research today (omaz etal., 2016; Castro etal., 2021).
us, investigating human handover actions may help determine key
features of the kinematics of human handover movements (Liu etal.,
2021) and, thus, enable the robot to interpret human behavior and adapt
its own movement to human requirements. Furthermore, the results of
the investigations of human-human handover actions can beused to
design robots in such a way that they act more human-like so that the
human-robot interaction will beperceived as more natural from the
human perspective (Costanzo etal., 2021). As empirical experiments
on handover actions are being conducted in robotics, movement
science, and psychology, weare proposing a common terminology and
framework that will facilitate scientic exchange and, thus, advance
research in this area. Language is a key challenge in the context of
interdisciplinary works, thus, it is advisable to create a clear framework
description and, thus, a common language (Wear, 1999; Domino etal.,
2007). To the best of our knowledge, no common framework has yet
been established for research on handover actions, with the result that
various terms are being used to describe one meaning, while dierent
meanings are being attributed to other specic terms.
e aim of this review was, therefore, to provide a foundation for
interdisciplinary research in the eld of handover actions. To this end,
the current literature on handover actions was systematically reviewed
and a common framework was derived that clearly denes the
individual sub-actions of a handover action, thus faciliating the clear
identication of the dierent components of handover actions. e
systematic literature review also provided an overview of
characteristics in the execution of human-human handover actions
and enabled us to identify dierent factors, such as object properties,
that inuence the execution of a handover action and to identify in
what fashion they inuence the action.
2. Methods
2.1. Transparency and openness
is study followed the Transparency and Openness Promotion
(TOP) Guidelines (Level 2; Mellor etal., 2022). e systematic review
was also performed according to PRISMA guidelines (Moher etal.,
2009). All references have been cited according to the maximum level
of uniqueness (if a DOI was available, this has been included). No
original data has been used, hence, there are no ethical constraints on
data sharing.

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org
2.2. Search strategy
e literature search was conducted in June 2021, with the nal
update on June 16, 2021. Based on a preliminary search of relevant
publications in the eld of handover action, wedecided to include
items published between January 1980 and June 16, 2021, in German
and English from the databases PsychINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and
Web of Science. To optimally adapt the search term formula to the
research question, the individual search terms were combined with
the operators “AND” or “OR.” e search was carried out within titles,
abstracts, and keywords. e search term formula used was: (hand-
over OR handover* OR pass OR passing OR transfer* OR “joint*”)
AND (object OR objects) AND (kinematic OR kinematics OR force
OR forces OR “motion*” OR “grasp*” OR “grip*” OR social) AND
(“human*” OR “participant*”).
2.3. Selection criterion
For the purpose of our systematic literature review, weconsidered
studies that empirically investigated handover actions between two
human actors. A handover action was considered as such if both
actors had an active part (i.e., giver reduced grip force, receiver
increased grip force) during the object transfer phase (the part of the
handover action in which both actors had physical contact with the
object). As wewere referring to the execution of a handover action,
weincluded studies that recorded at least one of the two data types
kinematics or grip force of one or both of the actors. Dissertations,
conference papers, case studies that were not peer-reviewed, and
studies that did not produce an outcome of interest were excluded
from this review.
2.4. Selection process and data extraction
First, all duplicates were removed from the set of publications
gathered using the search term formula above and the title and
abstracts were scanned. Potential publications were then screened by
two independent researchers in relation to the predened inclusion
and exclusion criteria. e remaining studies were assessed for their
eligibility and when disagreements occurred between the two
researchers, a third, independent researcher was consulted.
2.5. Definition of a handover action
Given that studies focused on a variety of dierent objectives in
handover actions, they used diverse experimental setups and
procedures. As some studies claimed to have investigated handover
actions, but the experimental design did not exhibit an actual
handover action (e.g., an object was replaced by one subject followed
by another subject grasping the object), weinclude or exclude studies
based on the following denition:
e handover action should comprise a transfer phase in which
both actors (giver and receiver) have physical contact with the
object at the same time. Furthermore, both actors must have an
active part in the transfer phase. Hence, it is not sucient if only
one actor is active (e.g., one person takes/pulls an object out of
another person's hand).
2.6. Assessment of methodological quality
Following the recommendation that Ma et al. (2020) make
regarding cross-sectional studies, a quality assessment was performed
using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool (Moola etal., 2017). e criteria
considered were (a) subject selection, (b) the description of subjects
and, setting, (c) validity/reliability, (d) the objectivity of measurement,
(e) control of confounding factors, (f) validity/reliability of outcomes,
and (g) the appropriateness of statistics used. e results of the quality
assessment of each study are summarized in Table1.
3. Results
3.1. Search results
As a result of our electronic database search, in PsychINFO,
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, a total of 9,092 studies were
identied. All studies were found, which wehad also previously found
in our preliminary search.
Aer removing duplicates (n = 3,639 removed) and aer title and
abstract screening (n = 5,435 removed), the full text of 18 studies were
scanned and 10 studies were found to meet our eligibility criteria
[n = 8 removed: no active handover = 4 (Salleh etal., 2011; Parastegari
etal., 2018; Kato etal., 2019; Neranon, 2020), non-relevant outcome = 2
(Korkiakangas etal., 2014; Carfì etal., 2019), no human kinematic or
force data = 2 (Xie and Zhao, 2015; Chan et al., 2020)]. us,
weincluded 10 studies in our systematic review that investigated the
characteristics of human-human handover actions and their
inuencing factors, such as the handover object weight and availability
of sensory information (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Becchio etal.,
2008; Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer etal., 2013; Hansen etal., 2017;
Controzzi etal., 2018; Bekemeier etal., 2019; Cini etal., 2019; Döhring
etal., 2020; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). See Figure1 for a comprehensive
owchart of our search process. In the following section, wedetail
studies with regard to specic study characteristics, such as study
design and participant characteristics (e.g., age, gender), experimental
task and condition/manipulation, and outcome parameters of interest.
In scanning the references of the included articles, a conference
paper was found that was relevant to the context of this review (Endo
etal., 2012). As conference papers were excluded, this paper was not
considered in the results section. Nevertheless, it is a detailed
conference paper that contained a comprehensive description of the
study methodology and has, therefore, been included in the discussion
of the complete overview of handover research and added to Table1.
3.2. Study design and participant
characteristics
e main study characteristics identied in our sample are
summarized in Table 1. e selection of studies showed strong
variations in the scope of their design and research aims. erefore,
weincluded additional information on the aims of each study and the

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org
TABLE1 Study characteristics.
First author Sample Study
design
Aim Conditions Type of data Measuring
instruments
Handover
object
Results Risk of
bias
Becchio etal.
(2008)
N= 13
f/m = 11/2
age = 20–31
h = r
Italy
Giver
n= 30
Within-subjects
study design
Inuence of intention
on the execution of
action
3 tasks (single action,
social, passive-
observer)
Kinematics (wrist,
index, thumb)
ELITE – Bioengineering
technology and Systems
(4 cameras)
Egg-shaped object Longer duration of nger
closure when grasping in
social than in single action
condition
Higher point of maximum
trajectory height and
shorter time to maximum
velocity in social than in
single action condition
Moderate
Bekemeier etal.
(2019)
N= 10
f/m = 5/5
age = 24–73
h = n.a.
Germany
Giver/receiver
n= 96
Within-subjects
study design
Classication of
identity and
personality
characteristics by
handover trajectories
2 handover heights
(low, high)
2 object sizes (low, high)
2 object weights (light,
heavy)
2 types of handover
(direct, indirect)
2 roles (giver, receiver)
Kinematics (hand) Vicon (17 cameras) Beaker (diers in size
and weight)
Classication of identity
possible
Classication of personality
characteristics not possible
Low
Cini etal. (2019) N= 34
f/m = 11/23
age = 30.9 (7.9)
h = r
Australia
Giver/receiver
n= 306
Within-subjects
study design
Choice of grasp type
and hand placement
on object during
handover
2 activities (non-
interactive, interactive)
2 tasks (replacement,
use)
Kinematics (grasp
classication)
Optitrack (10 cameras) 17 Everyday objects Precision grip was chosen in
73.6% of interactive trials
and 50.9% of non-interactive
trials
Giver and receiver choose
similar grip types but
receivers more frequently
use power grip than giver
Moderate
Controzzi etal.
(2018)
N= 14
f/m = 5/9
age = 26 (11)
h = r
Italy
Giver
n= 60
Within-subjects
study design
Investigates the need
for the givers’ visual
input on anticipatory
control to trigger the
release of the object
3 receiver’s reaching
velocities (slow,
medium, fast)
2 giver’s visions
(available, not
available)
Grip force 2 Six-axis force/torque
sensors
Abstract object Giver starts releasing in
synchrony with object-
receiver contact
Grip force releasing rate
correlates with receivers
reaching velocity
Without vision: Start of grip
force releases delayed
proportionally to the
receivers reaching velocity
Low
(Continued)

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org
TABLE1 (Continued)
First author Sample Study
design
Aim Conditions Type of data Measuring
instruments
Handover
object
Results Risk of
bias
Döhring etal.
(2020)
N= 22
f/m = 16/6
age = 23.4 (2.4)
h = r
Germany
Giver
n= 128
Within-subjects
study design
Inuence of available
sensory information
on grip force control
4 receiver’s reaching
velocities (slow,
medium, fast, very fast)
2 giver’s visions
(available, not
available)
2 giver’s tactile
information (glove, no
glove)
Grip force 2 Strain-gauge-sensors Abstract object Rate of grip force release
increases with reduction of
sensory information (most
due to removal of tactile
information)
Handover duration
increases with reduction of
sensory information
(mostly due to removal of
visual information)
Receiver grip force rate
proportional to reaching
velocity Giver adapts their force
rates to receivers’ force rates
Low
Gonzalez etal.
(2011)
N= 10
f/m = 1/9
age = 32.2 (11.1)
h = 8 r, 2 l
USA
Giver
n= 216
Within-subjects
study design
Inuence of the
partner’s intention on
one’s own motor
planning
3 objects (hammer,
calculator, stick)
2 tasks (non-
interactive, interactive)
2 initial orientations
(comfortable,
uncomfortable)
2 tasks (replacement,
use)
Kinematics (hand
placement on
object)
Panasonic MiniDV
camera (video camera)
Toy hammer
Calculator Stick
Maximization of comfort in
own end-state and
beginning state of the
partner
High
Hansen etal. (2017) N= 10 f/m = 4/6
age = 26.0 (5.0)
h = r
France
Giver/receiver
n= 18
Within-subjects
study design
Inuence of object
weight and interactor
distance on handover
kinematics
3 object weights (light,
medium, heavy)
3 inter-actor distances
(self-chosen, self-
chosen +20%, self-
chosen- 20%)
2 roles (giver, receiver)
Kinematics (hand) Vicon (17 cameras) Dry food jars Distance and mass aect
handover duration
Distance aects handover
height Mass does not aect
handover height
Low
Mason and
Mackenzie (2005)
N= 12
f/m = 6/6
age = 18–23
h = r
Canada
Giver/receiver
n= 80
Within-subjects
study design
Initial grip force
scaling of giver and
receiver
Mutual inuence of
the kinematics of the
actors
2 giver’s reaching
behaviors (stationary,
moving)
2 receiver’s reaching
behaviors (stationary,
moving)
2 roles (giver, receiver)
Grip force
Kinematics (hand,
wrist)
2 Load Cells
Optotrak
(2 cameras)
Rectangular object Giver kinematics inuences
receivers’ kinematics
Receiver kinematics do not
inuence giver kinematics
Synchronization of grip forces
in object transfer phase
Low
(Continued)

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 06 frontiersin.org
First author Sample Study
design
Aim Conditions Type of data Measuring
instruments
Handover
object
Results Risk of
bias
Meyer etal. (2013) N= 44
f/m = 34/10
age = n.a.
h = n.a.
Netherlands
Giver
n= 36
Within-/between-
subjects study
design (individual-
joint group, joint-
joint group)
Is the end-state
comfort of the
receiver considered
by the giver?
3 object end positions
(low, medium, high) 6
object types (dierently
arranged grasp areas)
Kinematics
(grasping area on
object: low vs. high)
Video camera Cylinders with
dierent grasping
areas
Givers consider the end-
state comfort of the receiver
Learning eect in third-
order planning that can
betransferred from
individual (own experience
with end-state comfort) to
joint actions
Low
Sutiphotinun etal.
(2020)
N= 20
f/m = n.a.
age = n.a.
h = r
ailand
Giver/receiver
n= 15
subjects are
standing/walking
Within-subjects
study design
How do the giver and
receiver nd the
handover position,
during a handover
action?
What strategies do
agents use during the
transfer phase under
varying object
weights?
How does the giver
regulate the bilateral
force before releasing
the object?
3 object weights (light,
medium, heavy)
Grip force
Kinematics (object)
Multi-axis force sensor Bottle Handover actions consist of
three distinct phases (send,
transfer, receive)
Giver kinematics in
agreement with minimum
jerk theory (unaected by
object weight)
Body size inuences the
handover position
High
*Endo etal. (2012) N= 10
f/m = 5/5
age = 31.4 (5.6)
h = r
United Kingdom
Giver/receiver
n= 140
Within-subjects
study design
Eect of uncertainty
about partner’s
movement on grip
forces
3 handover locations
(middle, close to giver,
close to receiver)
3 orders of handover
locations (natural, xed,
random)
3 receiver’s tactile
information (glove/no
glove)
Grip force
Kinematics (wrist)
3 6-DoF force/torque
sensor Qualisys (12
cameras)
Abstract object Givers start the grip release
later when the handover
position varies randomly or
the receiver wears a glove
Forces at contact dropped
across trials
Moderate
N: Number of participants; f/m: Number of female/male; age: Participants’ age in years; h: handedness (l: le; r: right); n: Number of trials per participant *: Supplementary study that does not fulll the inclusion criteria but is relevant in terms of content.
TABLE1 (Continued)

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 07 frontiersin.org
handover object in the table, supplementing that information as
recommended in the PRISMA guidelines (Moher etal., 2009). All the
studies included were published between 2005 and 2021 and were
conducted in eight dierent countries (Germany, Italy = 2, Australia,
Canada, France, Netherlands, ailand, USA = 1 each). Study designs
varied, particularly, in the role that was allocated to the subjects. In
ve studies, the subjects took the role of both, giver and receiver. In
three of these studies, subjects switched the giver/receiver roles in the
course of the experiment (each subject was giver and receiver in 50%
of the trials; Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Hansen et al., 2017;
Bekemeier et al., 2019). In the other two studies, the roles were
permanently assigned (Cini etal., 2019; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). In
the remaining ve studies, the experimenter took the role of the
receiver and the subjects were only assigned the role of the giver
(Becchio et al., 2008; Gonzalez et al., 2011; Meyer et al., 2013;
Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring etal., 2020). All included studies were
conducted using a within-subjects design (Mason and Mackenzie,
2005; Becchio etal., 2008; Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer etal., 2013;
Hansen etal., 2017; Controzzi etal., 2018; Bekemeier etal., 2019; Cini
etal., 2019; Döhring etal., 2020; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), although
Meyer etal. (2013) also used a between-subjects design. In this study,
Meyer and colleagues divided their subjects into two dierent groups,
who were the assigned dierent tasks in the rst part of the study. Half
of the subjects initially had a single action task (replacement) and then
a joint action task (handover), while the other half had to complete a
joint action task (handover) in both parts of the investigation.
Overall, data was collected from 189 individuals with sample sizes
per study ranging from 10 to 44. In one study with 20 participants, no
gender distribution was given (Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), so these
study participants are not included in the gender description of the
sample. Across the remaining studies, the gender distribution was
relatively balanced with 55% female and 45% male participants. e
age reported in the individual studies ranged from 18 to 32 years
(Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Becchio etal., 2008; Gonzalez etal.,
2011; Hansen etal., 2017; Controzzi etal., 2018; Bekemeier etal.,
2019; Cini etal., 2019; Döhring etal., 2020), with the exception of one
study that also included two subjects over 70-years-old and one
subject over 40-years-old (Bekemeier etal., 2019). As the age of the
subjects was reported in dierent ways, it is not possible to determine
a mean value across all studies. Two studies did not specify the age of
their subjects (Meyer etal., 2013; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). In most
studies, all the subjects were right-handed (Mason and Mackenzie,
2005; Becchio etal., 2008; Hansen etal., 2017; Controzzi etal., 2018;
Cini etal., 2019; Döhring etal., 2020; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), and
only one study also included two le-handed subjects (Gonzalez etal.,
2011). Two studies did not report any information about the
handedness of the subjects (Meyer etal., 2013; Bekemeier etal., 2019).
3.3. Research areas and terminology
e diversity of disciplines interested in handover actions mapped
out in our introduction is reected in the disciplinary background of
the studies considered in this review. e studies were conducted by
scientists from the elds of movement science (Mason and Mackenzie,
2005; Gonzalez etal., 2011; Hansen etal., 2017; Döhring etal., 2020),
psychology (Becchio etal., 2008; Meyer etal., 2013; Controzzi etal.,
2018), informatics (Bekemeier etal., 2019), and robotics (Hansen
etal., 2017; Controzzi etal., 2018; Cini etal., 2019; Sutiphotinun
etal., 2020).
Consequently, the terminology used in the studies is rather
inconsistent. e term “handover” as dened in this review was used
in the same way in ve studies (Hansen etal., 2017; Bekemeier etal.,
2019; Cini etal., 2019; Döhring etal., 2020; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020),
while the other studies used the terms “object passing” (Mason and
Mackenzie, 2005; Becchio etal., 2008; Gonzalez etal., 2011; Controzzi
et al., 2018) or “joint object manipulation” (Meyer et al., 2013)
synonymously.
In addition, there were variations in how studies referred to the
two actors. In three studies, no names were assigned at all to either
actor (Becchio etal., 2008; Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer etal., 2013).
However, in all other studies, the word “receiver” was used uniformly
for the person receiving the object (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005;
Hansen etal., 2017; Controzzi etal., 2018; Bekemeier etal., 2019; Cini
etal., 2019; Döhring etal., 2020; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), while
either the term “giver”, (Hansen etal., 2017; Bekemeier etal., 2019;
Sutiphotinun etal., 2020) or “passer” (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005;
Controzzi etal., 2018; Cini etal., 2019; Döhring etal., 2020) was used
to refer to the person giving the object.
e most important inconsistency across the studies was, however,
the division of a handover action into specic phases from grasping
the object to having completed the handover. ree studies did not
divide the action into phases (Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer etal., 2013;
Bekemeier etal., 2019). e remaining studies diered both in terms
of the number of phases (between two and ve) and in the temporal
events demarking the onset and termination of the individual phases.
Cini and colleagues (Cini etal., 2019) divided handover actions into
two phases, (1) the “handover” and (2) the “subsequent action”, where
the handover phase ends with the giver losing contact with the object
(and the object remaining in the receiver’s hand; Cini etal., 2019). In
contrast, Becchio and colleagues (Becchio etal., 2008) called the
phases (1) “reach-to-grasp” and (2) “place”. e “reach-to-grasp” phase
describes the part until the giver has grasped the object and the object
starts to move. At this point, the “place” phase begins. Mason and
Mackenzie (2005) also divided the action into two phases called (1)
“object transport by passer/reach to grasp by receiver” and (2) “object
transfer”. e rst phase ends with the rst contact between the
receiver and the object. is point also marks the beginning of the
second phase, which ends as soon as the giver loses contact with the
object (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005). Controzzi etal. (2018), Döhring
etal. (2020), and Sutiphotinun etal. (2020) presented a division into
three phases. Similar to Mason and Mackenzie’s (2005) division, the
rst phase ends with the rst contact between the receiver and the
handover object. However, they each had a dierent term for it,
ranging from “coordination” (Controzzi etal., 2018), “transport phase
passer” (Döhring etal., 2020), to “sending” (Sutiphotinun etal., 2020).
e second phase describes the time in a handover action in which
both actors have physical contact with the object. It begins with the
end of the rst phase and ends when the giver loses contact with the
object (similar to the object transfer phase of Mason and Mackenzie
(2005)). is phase was called “modulation of grip forces” (Controzzi
et al., 2018), “handover” (Döhring et al., 2020), or “transferring”
(Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). Similar to the subsequent action phase of
Cini etal. (2019), the third and nal phase of the handover action
describes the phase where the object remains in the receiver’s hand.
is is called “end of handover” (Controzzi etal., 2018), “transport

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 08 frontiersin.org
phase receiver” (Döhring etal., 2020), or “receiving” (Sutiphotinun
etal., 2020). Hansen etal. (2017) divided the handover action into ve
phases. eir phase divisions only consider the actions of the giver and
are called (1) “reaching”, (2) “loading”, (3) “in-hand manipulation”
(comparable to the rst phase according to Mason and Mackenzie
(2005), Controzzi etal. (2018), Döhring etal. (2020), and Sutiphotinun
etal. (2020), (4) “release”, and (5) “unloading”. e beginning and end
of the phases are not described in more detail (Hansen etal., 2017).
is variation in how the handover movement has been divided into
phases makes comparability across studies arduous.
3.4. Experimental task and condition/
manipulation
Given the diverse objectives of the individual studies, they also
varied with respect to the type of data collected and the manipulation
of the experimental conditions. Seven studies recorded kinematic
data, using dierent measurement techniques such as 3D motion
tracking (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Becchio etal., 2008; Hansen
etal., 2017; Bekemeier etal., 2019; Cini etal., 2019) and video cameras
(Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer etal., 2013; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020).
Four studies recorded the grip forces exerted on the handover object
(Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring etal.,
2020; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), while two studies assessed both
kinematic and dynamic data (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005;
Sutiphotinun etal., 2020).
In addition to the handover action, an additional comparison task
was performed in four studies (Becchio etal., 2008; Gonzalez etal.,
2011; Meyer etal., 2013; Cini etal., 2019). In one study, a replacement
task (single action condition) was compared with a similar handover
task (social condition; Becchio etal., 2008). In the other three studies,
the comparison task was a single action task with two dierent
conditions, namely (1) replacement or (2) use (Gonzalez etal., 2011;
Meyer et al., 2013; Cini et al., 2019). is extension enabled a
comparison between single and joint actions. In one study, the control
task was investigated using a between-subjects design (see Section
“Study design and participant characteristics”; Meyer etal., 2013). In
the other three studies, the control task was investigated within
subjects, for givers only (Becchio etal., 2008; Gonzalez etal., 2011;
Cini etal., 2019). In a number of studies, the object properties were
systematically varied. is included the size of the object (Bekemeier
etal., 2019), the weight of the object (Hansen etal., 2017; Bekemeier
et al., 2019; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), or the type of object, i.e.,
dierent everyday objects were used (Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer
etal., 2013). In addition, one study manipulated the starting position
of the object (comfortable vs. uncomfortable; Gonzalez etal., 2011)
and another study varied the nal position of the object, i.e., a low,
medium, or high shelf (Meyer etal., 2013).
e handover position, i.e., the position of the object during the
phase in which both subjects had physical contact with the object, was
also systematically manipulated in two studies. ese manipulations
included the height of the handover position (Bekemeier etal., 2019)
and the distance between the actors (Hansen etal., 2017). e height
FIGURE1
PRISMA flow chart of the research process.

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org
was manipulated using a wooden obstacle that forced participants to
perform the handover task at a higher position than without
the obstacle.
Other studies manipulated the behavior of the actors. In two
studies, in which the experimenter took over the role of the receiver,
the reaching velocity to the handover position was varied (Controzzi
et al., 2018; Döhring et al., 2020). In another study, researcher
demonstrated the inuence of the behavior of both receivers and
givers by asking subjects to either remain stationary or move during
the handover (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005). When remaining
stationary, the subject placed their hand in the handover area at the
start of the trial. When moving, the subject’s hand was placed in a
starting position close to the subject’s body at the beginning of
the trial.
Manipulation of sensory input was used on both the giver and the
receiver in four studies. Two studies manipulated the giver’s visual
input through blindfolding (Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring et al.,
2020), while another study manipulated the giver’s haptic input
(Döhring etal., 2020) using gloves.
Overall, the experimental set-up varies signicantly between the
studies. Depending on the research question the individual studies
sought to address, two dierent types of data were recorded
(kinematics and/or grip forces), the focus was either on both actors or
only one actor (giver or receiver), and dierent elements of the
handover action were manipulated including object properties,
distance between the actors, behavior of the co-actor, etc.
3.5. Outcome parameters of kinematics
Eight studies recorded kinematic data, using dierent
measurement techniques, such as 3D motion tracking (Mason and
Mackenzie, 2005; Becchio etal., 2008; Hansen etal., 2017; Bekemeier
etal., 2019; Cini etal., 2019) and video cameras (Gonzalez etal., 2011;
Meyer etal., 2013; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020).
e study by Becchio etal. (2008) shows dierences between a
single and a joint action. Already while the giver is grasping the object,
there is a dierence between the two tasks. In the joint task, the giver
needs more time to enclose the object with the ngers than in the
single task. While the giver is transporting the object to the handover
position, the maximum height of the object is higher, as well as the
time to reach the maximum velocity is shorter in the joint task. is
indicates that accurate placement of the ngers on the object and more
accurate trajectory is necessary to ensure optimal handover. is is
also consistent with the result of Cini and colleagues. According to the
study by Cini etal. (2019), givers were more likely to use a precision
grip in a handover action than in single action tasks (e.g., the
replacement task). In addition, when objects had a handle, it was le
free for the receiver when possible (Cini etal., 2019). Furthermore, the
analyses of grasping patterns in three studies (Gonzalez etal., 2011;
Meyer etal., 2013; Cini etal., 2019) suggested that givers consider the
receiver’s beginning and end-state comfort (not exclusively their own).
is means that if the subsequent activity intended by the receiver was
known by the giver, they took this into account in their own grasping
behavior so that the receiver was able to perform their subsequent
activity in a comfortable manner. Contrary to the giver, there was no
discernable dierence in the receiver’s grasp in comparison to a single
action task (Cini etal., 2019).
Bekemeier etal. (2019), also analyzed the movement kinematics and
revealed that the trajectories in handover actions exhibited a high degree
of individuality. us, it was possible to identify a participant by
observing the movement trajectories. Furthermore, intrapersonal
variations in kinematics (i.e., changes in kinematics within a person)
were observed when the object properties or the role (giver vs. receiver)
were manipulated. Although the variance in the trajectories increased
when object properties were manipulated, the subjects could still
be classied based on the individuality of their movements. is
increased variation was mostly caused by the object weight, i.e., the
heavier the object, the larger the variation in the trajectories.
Furthermore, analysis of the trajectories could also beused to identify the
classication of the experimental manipulations (Bekemeier etal., 2019).
Two other studies tested the inuence of object weight on
kinematics (Hansen etal., 2017; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). Both
studies investigated whether the handover position was inuenced by
the object weight and one of the two studies investigated whether the
velocity proles were inuenced by the object weight (Sutiphotinun
et al., 2020). e velocity prole (Sutiphotinun et al., 2020) and
handover position were not aected by the object weight. However, it
was shown that the handover took place in a horizontal plane at the
center of the actors (both anterior–posterior and medio-lateral)
(Hansen et al., 2017). e height of the handover position was
inuenced by the distance between the two actors (the further away
they were, the lower the handover height) (Hansen etal., 2017) and
the height of the actors (the taller the actors, the higher the handover
height; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), but not by the object’s weight
(Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). However, while the object weight did not
inuence the handover position, it did in fact inuence the duration
of the transfer phase, with greater object mass yielding longer transfer
(Hansen etal., 2017).
Regarding the inuence of kinematics on handover actions, it can
beconcluded that the intention (i.e., why or for what purpose the
object is handed over; Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer etal., 2013; Cini
etal., 2019) and individuality (Bekemeier etal., 2019; Sutiphotinun
etal., 2020) of the actors inuenced the kinematics of a handover
action. In contrast, the inuence of object weight on the kinematics
seemed to beambiguous. While it has been shown that the hand
trajectory of the giver as they moved the object to the handover
position changed systematically in relation to object weight (became
more variable and took longer; Bekemeier etal., 2019), other studies
have shown that neither the velocity prole (which was contained in
the trajectory) nor the handover position (which was also contained
in the trajectory through spatial data) were inuenced by object
weight (Hansen etal., 2017; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020).
3.6. Outcome parameters of dynamics
Only four studies recorded the grip forces exerted on the handover
object (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring
etal., 2020; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). erefore, they focused on the
object transfer phase, meaning the part of the handover action where
both the giver and the receiver have physical contact with the handover
object. It was shown that the grip forces of the giver and receiver
synchronized in such a way that the rate of change in grip force was
similar in the giver (reduction of grip force) and receiver (increase of
grip force; Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Controzzi etal., 2018).

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 10 frontiersin.org
e duration of the transfer phase was not only aected by the
object weight (see Section “Outcome parameters of kinematics”), but
also by the availability of visual information from the giver (Controzzi
etal., 2018; Döhring etal., 2020). e removal of visual information
led to a delay in the giver’s grip force reduction, which resulted in a
longer transfer time. In contrast, if the haptic input was reduced
through the use of a glove, the transfer duration or the giver’s grip
force reduction was not aected (Controzzi etal., 2018).
e receiver’s reach-to-grasp velocity (prior to the actual object
transfer) aected the duration of the transfer as well. e faster the
receiver moved their hand to the handover position, the greater the
giver’s grip force release rate was (Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring etal.,
2020). e synchronization of the grip forces was maintained, even
when there were variations in the receiver’s reaching behavior (Mason
and Mackenzie, 2005; Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring etal., 2020).
3.7. Methodological quality
In relation to the risk of bias assessment, six studies were classied
as having a low risk of bias (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Meyer etal.,
2013; Hansen etal., 2017; Controzzi etal., 2018; Bekemeier etal.,
2019; Döhring etal., 2020), two as having a medium risk of bias
(Becchio etal., 2008; Cini etal., 2019), and two as having a high risk
of bias (Gonzalez etal., 2011; Sutiphotinun etal., 2020). In most cases,
the risk of bias was introduced by not reporting confounding factors
and considering how to deal with them.
4. Discussion
In this systematic review, provided an overview of studies on
handover actions and the characteristics derived from them. In total,
ten studies were found in which experiments were conducted on
handover actions between two human actors. Overall, only a small
number of human-human handover experiments have been
conducted to date that have sought to answer a broad spectrum of
dierent research questions. Accordingly, the methodology used to
conduct the experiments also diered signicantly. erefore, in order
to create a unifying language that will serve as a conceptual basis for
a synthesis of the results (as well as for future studies), a common
framework for handover actions is provided in the rst part of this
discussion section. is framework is then subsequently used to
interpret and discuss the results of the synthesized studies with respect
to the individual distinct phases of a handover action.
4.1. Creating a common framework
Handover actions, as an experimental paradigm, have been
researched in a range of dierent scientic disciplines (movement
science, psychology, informatics, and robotics). Consequently, the
theoretical embedding and research aims of the studies on human
handovers vary greatly and no uniform terminology has emerged-
until now. erefore, wepresent a common framework that has been
derived from the questions and results of the studies that were
presented in the results section. e intention is to make the
description in future studies simpler, shorter, and more precise.
A handover action is performed by two persons acting together.
At the beginning of the handover action, the rst acting person moves
their hand toward the object: is person is called the giver. e
person who accepts the object to betransferred from the giver is called
the receiver.
e actors perform successive actions, however, the actions of
each actor partially overlap in time (see Figure2). Based on distinct
temporal events within handover actions, they can bedivided into
clearly distinguishable phases. To achieve this, wehave considered the
dierent phase divisions of the studies described thus far, brought
them together, and attempted to separate them unambiguously into
the specic events within a handover action. e rst phase of a
handover action is the “reach and grasp phase.” In this phase, the giver
reaches out to the object, grasps it, and increases the grip force until
the required force is reached. e reach and grasp phase ends when
the necessary grip force is reached, that is immediately before the
object is moved and loses contact with the ground. is is followed by
the second “object transport phase” in which the giver moves the
object from its starting place to the handover position. Typically, the
receiver starts their action during the object transport phase when
they reach toward the handover position. e object transport phase
ends as soon as the receiver makes physical contact with the object.
is marks the beginning of the third “object transfer phase”, which is
the core phase of the handover action. In this phase, the receiver
builds up grip force until they alone hold the object in their hand,
while the giver simultaneously reduces their grip force until they lose
contact with the object. As soon as the giver loses physical contact
with the object, the object transfer phase is nished. e object
transfer phase is the end of the actual handover action. However,
another subsequent, fourth phase is described in this proposed
framework, the “end of handover” phase. e actions at the end of the
handover phase take place aer the handover action is complete but,
nevertheless, inuence the previous phases. us, whether or not an
object will beused by the receiver aer a handover action can beused
as a manipulation for an experimental setup. As this phase inuences
the previous actions, it is advisable to consider it in the common
framework. In this phase, the giver returns their hand to the rest
position and the receiver executes the intended action (e.g.,
repositioning or tool use).
4.2. The reach and grasp phase
At rst glance, the reach and grasp phase of a handover action
does not appear to dier signicantly from the reach and grasp phase
of a single action (e.g., an object manipulation action). During reach
and grasp., both the hand is moved toward the object and
simultaneously the hand is opened to grasp until the ngers wrap
around the object (Jeannerod, 1981, 1984). Dierent grip patterns are
possible, here we only distinguish between the two categories
“precision grip” and “power grip” (Napier, 1956). e precision grip is
characterized by the fact that the thumb and ngertips oppose each
other. In the power grip, the object is held between the thumb, nger
and palm; direct contact of the ngertips with the object is not
necessary. Both the choice of the grasp pattern and grasp location are
greatly inuenced by the object’s properties. e object’s size, shape,
weight, and orientation all play an important role (Napier, 1956; Feix
etal., 2014). However, another factor that inuences the choice of

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 11 frontiersin.org
grasp type and location is the intention with which the object is being
grasped (Napier, 1956).
When comparing single and joint actions with the same objects,
it was shown that individuals act more cautiously (Becchio etal., 2008)
and tended to choose a precision grip rather than a power grip when
they wanted to hand over an object (Cini etal., 2019). A precision grip
may have several advantages over a power grip. First, the ngertips
(mainly involved in precision grip, less involved in power grip)
represent the areas of the hand that have the highest density of
mechanoreceptors (Johansson and Vallbo, 1983; Vallbo and
Johansson, 1984). is means that by choosing a precision grip, there
is a higher sensitivity to the applied forces resulting in better
integration of feedback control mechanisms in comparison to a power
grip. is would allow for more accurate tactile perception. is could
be used to provide better feedback control in the transfer phase,
contributing to a smoother handover action. Furthermore, choosing
a precision grip has the advantage of covering less of the object’s
surface, thus providing more space for the receiver’s free choice of
grip. e receiver therefore has a greater choice of possibilities for
action, i.e., object aordances (Gibson, 1986). Furthermore, it should
benoted that by leaving the object surface free, the receiver has the
choice between mirrored and complimentary action (Sartori and
Betti, 2015). If exposing object surfaces is a reason for choosing the
precision grip, this indicates that the giver is engaged in third-order
planning, meaning that they are also considering the subsequent steps
that will be executed by the receiver and attempting to ensure a
convenient grasp pattern that facilitate the receiver’s subsequent steps
(Haggard, 1998).
e hypothesis that the giver considers the receiver’s subsequent
actions is further supported by ndings which have shown that givers
tend to grasp objects at the periphery (instead of at the center of mass)
and also tend, when the object has a handle, to leave the handle free
and exposed (Cini etal., 2019). is giver behavior, in fact, also oers
the receiver the opportunity to freely choose their own grasp pattern.
Another hypothesis that is supported by observing the reach and
grasp phase of handover actions is the idea of end-state comfort
(Rosenbaum and Jorgensen, 1992; Rosenbaum etal., 1993) and its
extension to joint actions (Herbort etal., 2012). To test this hypothesis
experimentally, one must again consider the end of handover phase.
Manipulating the end of handover phase can modify the receiver’s
intention. If this manipulation results in a change in the giver’s
behavior, this indicates that the giver is taking the receiver’s end-state
comfort into account. is would show that the choice and positioning
of the giver’s grasp were not only inuenced by the fact that a second
person is involved in a joint action (Gonzalez etal., 2011; Meyer etal.,
2013; Cini etal., 2019). e results indicate that the type of grasp also
depends on the action that the receiver will perform. Although the
giver seems to take into account their own end-state comfort as well,
FIGURE2
Exemplary, symbolic illustration of the kinematics (solid) and dynamics (dashed) of the giver (blue) and receiver (red) in a handover action based on
information from Controzzi etal. (2018), Döhring etal. (2020), Endo etal. (2012), and Mason and Mackenzie (2005). (A), marks the end of the reach and
grasp phase and the beginning of the object transport phase. (B), marks the end of the object transport phase and the beginning of the object transfer
phase. (C), marks the end of the handover.

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 12 frontiersin.org
the initial grasp action is still performed in such a way that the receiver
has the opportunity of beginning and end-state comfort (Gonzalez
etal., 2011).
4.3. The object transport phase
e handover position and the hand trajectories of the two actors
are directly related. e giver’s kinematic in a handover action has
strong similarities to a comparable single action task (e.g.,
replacement). us, the velocity prole of the giver’s hand during this
phase can bedescribed as the hand accelerating to a certain peak
velocity, followed by a deceleration immediately before entering the
handover position. is bell-shaped velocity prole is similar to that
in the transport phase of a replacement task with accuracy (i.e., a task
in which an object is to beplaced at a specic location; Sutiphotinun
et al., 2020). us, the hand trajectory of the giver in the object
transport phase is consistent with the minimum jerk theory (Flash
and Hogan, 1985). Nevertheless, deviations from single action tasks
in the trajectories of the object transport phase could also beshown.
is seems to bemainly attributed to a more careful action when the
object is handed over to a human than an inanimate, robust container.
Extended path and elevation of the wrist trajectory, prolongation of
the deceleration phase and lower peak velocity (Becchio etal., 2008)
have been shown in human handover actions. ese changes in the
trajectory of object transport indicates similarities with the changes in
a single action task in which subjects were asked to place objects in a
fragile container (Marteniuk etal., 1987). Accordingly, this behavior
indicates more careful handling in a joint handover action.
While it could beshown that object weight did not inuence on
the handover position (and thus hand trajectories; Hansen etal., 2017;
Sutiphotinun etal., 2020), spatial factors such as the actor’s body size
(Sutiphotinun etal., 2020) and distance (Hansen etal., 2017) seemed
to aect kinematics in the object transport phase, however, handover
height was the only spatial dimension aected. If the distance between
the actors is small, it is sucient for them to mainly use the elbow
joint, only moving the shoulder joint enough to reach the handover
position. However, the greater the distance between the actors, the
more movement of the shoulder joint becomes necessary. e
involvement of the shoulder joint presumably results in this increased
handover height at greater distances. e actors seem to tend to adjust
the handover height to the minimum height of the shared workspace,
which of course depends on body size. is would speak in favor of a
strategy based on minimal energy consumption (Alexander, 1997).
e giver and receiver put a similar amount of eort into the joint
handover action while keeping the overall eort minimal. It should
be noted, however, that the studies cited here only tested young,
healthy adults. It has already been shown that people take into account
both environmental and individual constraints of co-actors in joint
actions (Schmitz etal., 2017). us, if the goal of the actors is to
minimize the overall eort of a joint action, a change in handover
position should beobserved when one of the two actors is constrained
in some way. In a handover action between a young, healthy adult
person and an adversely hindered person (e.g., toddler, elderly, or
physically impaired person), it is to beexpected that the handover
height would be adjusted to the comfort height of the impaired
person. Furthermore, it would beconceivable that the familiarity of
the two persons, their gender, and cultural dierences may also
inuence the handover action in the object transport phase. It is
known that peripersonal space varies between cultures (Làdavas and
Serino, 2010; Brozzoli etal., 2012) and genders (Wabnegger etal.,
2016). Accordingly, it can beassumed that the distance for a handover
action also diers across cultures, which could bean inuencing
factor for the actors’ hand trajectories.
In the object transport phase, the coordination of the giver and
receiver in time and space plays a major role. A smooth and seamless
handover action is only possible if the two actors synchronize properly.
Studies have shown that the giver is primarily responsible for the
timing in a handover action and that the receiver tends to adjust to the
giver in this regard (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Sutiphotinun etal.,
2020). is means that the receiver, based on the observation of the
giver’s kinematics, predicts the position and time at which the object
is to begrasped and adapts their own kinematic strategy to it.
Focusing on the giver’s grip forces in this phase of a handover
action, showed that these are less accurately matched to the object
mass and the inertial force associated with transport than during
single action tasks (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005; Endo etal., 2012).
Adjustment of grip forces across trials came to dierent results in the
studies depending on whether grip forces could beadjusted and
increased (Endo etal., 2012) with repetition of the task (Mason and
Mackenzie, 2005). As one study in which grip forces were adjusted
over the course of the experiment included a total of 140 trials (Endo
etal., 2012) and the other 80 trials (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005), it is
possible that the number of trials performed per experiment was
decisive for the dierent results in grip force adjustment. In
replacement tasks, it is known that the grip forces are precisely
adapted to the uctuations of the inertia force during the transport
phase anticipatorily (Flanagan and Wing, 1993; Nowak, 2004). e
absence of this precise anticipatory control in handover actions could
bedue to the fact that many more factors have to beconsidered in a
handover action than in single action tasks. ese additional factors
include, for example, anticipating and coordinating the location and
timing of the handover with the receiver, and the strength of the
collision between the object and the receiver at the end of the object
transport phase. Given this complexity, it is conceivable that the
number of trials in these studies may not besucient to adapt the
model as accurately as observed in single action tasks. Another
explanation could also bethat handover actions are more open and,
thus, more variable and less predictable in comparison to single action
tasks. It is possible that this reduced predictability makes it impossible
to adjust grip forces accurately. us, the giver does not even try to
execute a precise grip force adjusted throughout the action, rather the
giver’s priority is to choose a grip force that is sucient for all events
that may inuence the necessary grip forces (e.g., transport of the
object, collision between object and receiver). is supports a
previously observed task-dependent decoupling of grip and load force
(Serrien and Wiesendanger, 2001; Nowak and Hermsdörfer, 2004).
4.4. The object transfer phase
e object transfer phase represents the core of a handover action
and lasts on average about 500 ms with an object weight of 90 g
(Mason and Mackenzie, 2005) or about 640 ms for an object weight of
1.8 kg (Döhring etal., 2020). It begins with the initial contact between
object and receiver and ends as soon as the giver disconnects from the

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 13 frontiersin.org
object. A smooth and seamless object transfer phase is achieved when
the giver and receiver synchronize their rate in change of grip force.
is means that from the beginning of this phase, the giver reduces
their grip force while the receiver increases their grip force. e results
show that although givers have a lower grip force rate of change, the
timing of the grip force rate peak is the same for both actors (Mason
and Mackenzie, 2005). is suggests that the start of the grip force
release is triggered by visual information, i.e., feedforward control
is used.
Aer the collision, haptic feedback is again used to synchronize
the grip force scaling (hence grip force rate peaks at the same time).
is explanation was tested by manipulating the sensory input of the
actors in a handover action. ese involved manipulations of haptics
(through a glove; Endo etal., 2012; Döhring etal., 2020) as well as
restricting visual information (blindfolding; Controzzi etal., 2018;
Döhring etal., 2020). In addition, the reaching velocity of the receiver
was varied in the object transport phase (Mason and Mackenzie, 2005;
Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring et al., 2020), which aected both
feedforward (through visual observation) and feedback mechanisms
(through a change in the magnitude of the collision).
e results consistently indicate that the object transfer phase lasts
longer when the subjects have no (blindfolded) or little (no movement
of the receiver in the object transfer phase (Mason and Mackenzie,
2005)) visual information. is longer duration can beattributed to
the fact that there is a delay from the collision to the grip force release
that matches the time span for feedback mechanisms (Johansson and
Westling, 1984, 1987, 1988a,b). is supports the assumption that the
giver’s grip force release is visually triggered and, thus,
feedforward controlled.
As the receiver’s reaching velocity does not inuence on the
timing of the release of grip force in normal vision, it can beconcluded
that receivers do not make their collision-time prediction by distance-
to-contact, but by time-to-contact. is is analogous to catching tasks
at varying velocities (Lacquaniti and Maioli, 1989; Savelsbergh etal.,
1992). If no visual information is available to the receiver, the
coordination of the actors’ movements diminishes and the grip force
release must betriggered exclusively by haptic input and, consequently,
befeedback-controlled.
When the receiver’s reaching velocity was manipulated in the
no-vision condition, this also had an eect on the grip force release.
e higher the receiver’s reaching velocity, the shorter the delay until
the grip force release began and the higher the grip force rate
(Controzzi etal., 2018; Döhring etal., 2020). is response to object-
receiver collision is similar to the impulsive catch-up response (Cole
and Abbs, 1988; Johansson etal., 1992; Cole and Johansson, 1993).
is impulsive catch-up response is indicated by the observation that
the greater the collision-induced perturbation, the shorter the delay
to the onset of grip force onset and the higher the grip force rate. e
eect reversed for the giver in a handover action. is can beexplained
by the fact that the goal of the giver is to release the object, whereas,
in a catch task, the goal is to stabilize the object in the hand. is eect,
comparable to the impulsive catch-up response, suggests that the
neural system involves a fast feedback mechanism when visual
information is missing.
e results of manipulating receiver reaching velocity with normal
giver vision showed that givers set their initial grip force release rate
by the receiver’s reaching velocity. is suggests that by observing the
movement, inferences are made about the receiver’s intention (Kilner
etal., 2007; Pster etal., 2013; Quesque and Coello, 2015; Cavallo
etal., 2016; Di Cesare etal., 2016; Quesque etal., 2016; Lelonkiewicz
etal., 2020) and the dynamics of the subsequent object transfer phase
are derived as a result. ese results are consistent with the motor
resonance hypothesis, which states that while observing a person’s
movements, an internal motor simulation occurs in the brain to
interpret that person’s intention and, thus, make a prediction about the
following action (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004; Springer etal., 2012).
Under normal conditions (no gloves or blindfolds), haptic input
was used for feedback control only. Accordingly, in handover actions,
haptics was used exclusively for monitoring (Mason and Mackenzie,
2005; Controzzi etal., 2018). is means that the predicted actions of
the co-actor are compared with the incoming haptic information and,
if necessary, one’s motor planning/execution is adjusted.
To learn more about the relevance of haptic information,
experiments were conducted in which gloves were worn (Endo etal.,
2012; Döhring etal., 2020). When using gloves in this context, it
should always bekept in mind that this manipulation not only aects
the haptics but also the frictional properties during the grasping task.
It was shown that wearing a glove does not delay the onset of grip
force release, which is consistent with the assumption that haptics is
used exclusively in feedback control, but grip force release is
feedforward controlled. Nevertheless, the duration of the object
transfer phase was prolonged by wearing gloves. is could indicate
that reducing the amount of haptic information caused uncertainty in
the actors’ monitoring process. In one of the studies, generally
increased grip forces were found when gloves were worn (Döhring
etal., 2020). e reason for this could bethat one eect of reduced
haptic input is that a larger safety margin is generally required to
ensure that the object does not slip. However, there could also bea
more general reason for these increased grip forces, namely, the
reduced friction between the object and the hand (thus, more force is
needed to keep the object from slipping). A prolongation of the object
transfer phase was also observed in this experiment (Döhring etal.,
2020) and, when the grip force is higher, it can beassumed that the
duration of grip force reduction and development would also
belonger.
Furthermore, it was also shown that the mass of an object
inuenced the duration of the object transfer phase (Hansen etal.,
2017). e greater the object’s mass, the greater the required grip force.
When the grip force rate remains constant in this scenario, it leads to
a prolongation of the object transfer phase.
4.5. The end of handover
With the onset of the fourth phase, the process of handover
itself is completed. During the end of handover phase, the receiver
uses the object in line with their intention. us, this phase
primarily inuences the selection of the giver’s grasp pattern and
grasp location. As explained in the previous subsections (see Reach
and grasp phase), the giver’s assumptions and predictions (and
thus knowledge) about the receiver’s intentions inuence the
giver’s motor planning. If the giver knows what action will
be performed in the end of handover phase, this can lead to
inuencing the giver’s execution of the movement. Hence, this
phase can bemanipulated to specically test hypotheses such as
engagement in third-order planning.

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 14 frontiersin.org
5. Conclusion
is systematic review has demonstrated that only few original
studies exist that investigated the kinematic or dynamic characteristics
of handover actions in human dyads. In addition, these studies stem
from various research disciplines and focus on dierent research
questions. Consequently, a common framework to investigate human
handover actions is currently lacking. Wehave therefore developed
such a framework providing a distinct terminology and classication
scheme into distinct phases that may beused for future studies.
Wesuggest to dierentiate between four phases: (1.) Reach and grasp.,
(2.) object transport, (3.) object transfer, and (4.) end of handover.
e studies surveyed here have shown that each actor’s action
planning and execution are inuenced by both knowledge of the
co-actor’s intentions and assumptions about their intentions generated
through observation of the co-actor. e focus was primarily on the
behavior of the givers. It could beshown that givers control their
action execution in such a way that the receiver is able to have a
comfortable starting position for their planned action. In most studies,
although the receiver’s behavior was used as a manipulation, the
receiver’s behavior was not the focus of research. erefore, the
question arises whether receivers also adjust their own behavior based
on observation of the giver and predictions based on this. To clarify
this point, further research is needed.
Furthermore, the results indicate that several concepts known
from studies of single action tasks (e.g., replacement) can also
begeneralized and revisited in the context of joint handover actions.
For example, the concept of beginning and end-state comfort is
relevant for the entire action sequence and not only at the level of the
individual. Action planning also follows the principle of minimum
energy consumption for the entire sequence of the handover task,
rather than for each individual actor. is should beconsidered more
deeply in further research. It is recommended that handover actions
should bestudied in dyads with signicantly dierent constraints. Due
to the dierences between the subjects, the individual activity typically
diers in the joint actions, so that the jointly expended energy remains
minimal. In contrast, if the individual activity of both actors is not
aected by the constraints of one actor, it must beassumed that there
isno common concept of action.
Results from the included studies indicate that the grip force
release of the giver is feedforward controlled by visual cues and
feedback mechanisms are used during the transfer phase to monitor
and control the successful transfer of the object. To investigate the role
of feedforward and feedback control in more detail, wesuggest that
further experiments should beconducted in which the availability of
sensory input is manipulated. Future studies should also increasingly
consider the role of the receiver. In particular, the role of feedforward
and feedback control mechanisms on the side of the receiver is poorly
understood to date.
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article, further inquiries can bedirected to the corresponding
author.
Author contributions
LK designed the concept and layout of the review, with JR and
CV-R acting in an advisory capacity. e search formula was proposed
by LK and revised and dened together with JR. e literature search
and organization was carried out by LK. LK wrote the rst dra of the
manuscript. JR and CV-R gave repeated feedback on the structure and
content of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript
revision, read, and approved the submitted version.
Funding
is research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinscha
(DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project-ID 416228727 – SFB
1410, subproject A01.
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Alexander, R. M. N. (1997). A minimum energy cost hypothesis for human arm
trajectories. Biol. Cybern. 76, 97–105. doi: 10.1007/s004220050324
Becchio, C., Sartori, L., Bulgheroni, M., and Castiello, U. (2008). e case of Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde: A kinematic study on social intention. Conscious. Cogn. 17, 557–564. doi:
10.1016/j.concog.2007.03.003
Bekemeier, H., Maycock, J., and Ritter, H. (2019). What does a hand-over tell?
Individuality of short motion sequences. Biomimetics 4:E55. doi: 10.3390/
biomimetics4030055
Brozzoli, C., Makin, T. R., Cardinali, L., Holmes, N. P., and Farnè, A. (2012).
“Peripersonal space: A multisensory Interface for body–object interactions” in e
neural bases of multisensory processes. eds. M. M. Murray and M. T. Wallace (Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis)
Carfì, A., Foglino, F., Bruno, B., and Mastrogiovanni, F. (2019). A multi-sensor
dataset of human-human handover. Data Brief 22, 109–117. doi: 10.1016/j.
dib.2018.11.110
Castro, A., Silva, F., and Santos, V. (2021). Trends of human-robot collaboration in
industry contexts: handover, learning, and metrics. Sensors 21:4113. doi: 10.3390/
s21124113
Cavallo, A., Koul, A., Ansuini, C., Capozzi, F., and Becchio, C. (2016). Decoding
intentions from movement kinematics. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8. doi: 10.1038/srep37036
Chan, W. P., Pan, M. K. X. J., Croft, E. A., and Inaba, M. (2020). An affordance
and distance minimization based method for computing object orientations for
robot human handovers. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 12, 143–162. doi: 10.1007/
s12369-019-00546-7

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 15 frontiersin.org
Cini, F., Ortenzi, V., Corke, P., and Controzzi, M. (2019). On the choice of grasp type
and location when handing over an object. Sci. Robot. 4:eaau9757. doi: 10.1126/
scirobotics.aau9757
Cole, K. J., and Abbs, J. H. (1988). Grip force adjustments evoked by load force
perturbations of a grasped object. J. Neurophysiol. 60, 1513–1522. doi: 10.1152/
jn.1988.60.4.1513
Cole, K. J., and Johansson, R. S. (1993). Friction at the digit-object interface scales the
sensorimotor transformation for grip responses to pulling loads. Exp. Brain Res. 95,
523–532. doi: 10.1007/BF00227146
Controzzi, M., Singh, H., Cini, F., Cecchini, T., Wing, A., and Cipriani, C. (2018).
Humans adjust their grip force when passing an object according to the observed speed
of the partner’s reaching out movement. Exp. Brain Res. 236, 3363–3377. doi: 10.1007/
s00221-018-5381-5
Costanzo, M., De Maria, G., and Natale, C. (2021). Handover control for human-robot
and robot-robot collaboration. Front. Robot. AI 8:672995. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.672995
Di Cesare, G., Valente, G., Di Dio, C., Rualdi, E., Bergamasco, M., Goebel, R., et al.
(2016). Vitality forms processing in the insula during action observation: A multivoxel
pattern analysis. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10:267. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00267
Döhring, F. R., Müller, H., and Joch, M. (2020). Grip-force modulation in human-to-
human object handovers: eects of sensory and kinematic manipulations. Sci. Rep.
10:22381. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79129-w
Domino, S. E., Smith, Y. R., and Johnson, T. R. B. (2007). Opportunities and challenges
of interdisciplinary research career development: implementation of a Women’s Health
Research training program. J. Womens Health 16, 256–261. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0129
Eastough, D., and Edwards, M. G. (2007). Movement kinematics in prehension are
aected by grasping objects of dierent mass. Exp. Brain Res. 176, 193–198. doi: 10.1007/
s00221-006-0749-3
Endo, S., Pegman, G., Burgin, M., Toumi, T., and Wing, A.M. (2012). “Haptics in
between-person object transfer,” in Haptics: Perception, Devices, Mobility, and
Communication. EuroHaptics 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. eds. P. Isokoski
and J. Springare (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 7282, 103–111.
Feix, T., Bullock, I. M., and Dollar, A. M. (2014). Analysis of human grasping behavior:
correlating tasks, objects and grasps. IEEE Transact. Hapt. 7, 430–441. doi: 10.1109/
TOH.2014.2326867
Flanagan, J. R., and Wing, A. M. (1993). Modulation of grip force with load force
during point-to-point arm movements. Exp. Brain Res. 95, 131–143. doi: 10.1007/
BF00229662
Flash, T., and Hogan, N. (1985). e coordination of arm movements: an
experimentally conrmed mathematical model. J. Neurosci. 5, 1688–1703. doi: 10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.05-07-01688.1985
Gibson, J. J. (1986). e ecological approach to visual perception 127–137). Boston
Psychology Press.
Gonzalez, D. A., Studenka, B. E., Glazebrook, C. M., and Lyons, J. L. (2011). Extending
end-state comfort eect: do weconsider the beginning state comfort of another? Acta
Psychol. 136, 347–353. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.12.009
Hagendorf, H., Krummenacher, J., Müller, H.-J., and Schubert, T. (Eds.). (2011).
Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit: Allgemeine Psychologie für Bachelor (1st, pp. 24–
25). Berlin Springer.
Haggard, P. (1998). Planning of action sequences. Acta Psychol. 99, 201–215. doi:
10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00011-0
Hansen, C., Arambel, P., Ben Mansour, K., Perdereau, V., and Marin, F. (2017).
Human–human handover tasks and how distance and object mass matter. Percept. Mot.
Skills 124, 182–199. doi: 10.1177/0031512516682668
Herbort, O., Koning, A., van Uem, J., and Meulenbroek, R. G. J. (2012). e end-state
comfort eect facilitates joint action. Acta Psychol. 139, 404–416. doi: 10.1016/j.
actpsy.2012.01.001
Jeannerod, M. (1981). Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual
objects. Available at: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10016835252/en
Jeannerod, M. (1984). e timing of natural prehension movements. J. Mot. Behav. 16,
235–254. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1984.10735319
Johansson, R. S., Häger, C., and Riso, R. (1992). Somatosensory control of precision
grip during unpredictable pulling loads. Exp. Brain Res. 89, 192–203. doi: 10.1007/
BF00229016
Johansson, R. S., and Vallb o, Å. B. (1983). Tactile sensory coding in the glabrous skin
of the human hand. Trends Neurosci. 6, 27–32. doi: 10.1016/0166-2236(83)90011-5
Johansson, R. S., and Westling, G. (1984). Roles of glabrous skin receptors and
sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when liing rougher or
more slippery objects. Exp. Brain Res. 56, 550–564. doi: 10.1007/BF00237997
Johansson, R. S., and Westling, G. (1987). Signals in tactile aerents from the ngers
eliciting adaptive motor responses during precision grip. Exp. Brain Res. 66, 141–154.
doi: 10.1007/BF00236210
Johansson, R. S., and Westling, G. (1988a). Co ordinated isometric muscle commands
adequately and erroneously programmed for the weight during liing task with
precision grip. Exp. Brain Res. 71, 59–71. doi: 10.1007/BF00247522
Johansson, R. S., and Westling, G. (1988b). Programmed and triggered actions to rapid
load changes during precision grip. Exp. Brain Res. 71, 72–86. doi: 10.1007/BF00247523
Kato, S., Yamanobe, N., Venture, G., Yoshida, E., and Ganesh, G. (2019). e where of
handovers by humans: eect of partner characteristics, distance and visual feedback.
PLoS One 14:e0217129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217129
Kilner, J. M., Friston, K. J., and Frith, C. D. (2007). Predictive coding: an account of
the mirror neuron system. Cogn. Process. 8, 159–166. doi: 10.1007/s10339-007-0170-2
Korkiakangas, T., Weldon, S.-M., Bezemer, J., and Kneebone, R. (2014). Nurse-
surgeon object transfer: video analysis of communication and situation awareness in the
operating theatre. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 51, 1195–1206. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.01.007
Kourtis, D., Knoblich, G., Woźniak, M., and Sebanz, N. (2014). Attention allocation
and task representation during joint action planning. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 26, 2275–2286.
doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00634
Kovacs, A. J., Wang, Y., and Kennedy, D. M. (2020). Accessing interpersonal and
intrapersonal coordination dynamics. Exp. Brain Res. 238, 17–27. doi: 10.1007/
s00221-019-05676-y
Lacquaniti, F., and Maioli, C. (1989). e role of preparation in tuning anticipatory
and reex responses during catching. J. Neurosci. O. J. Soc. Neurosci. 9, 134–148. doi:
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.09-01-00134.1989
Làdavas, E., and Serino, A. (2010). “Peripersonal space representation in humans:
proprieties, functions, and plasticity,” in Advances in Cognitive Science. SAGE
Publications India Pvt Ltd, 1, 97–103.
Lastrico, L., Carfì, A., Vignolo, A., Sciutti, A., Mastrogiovanni, F., and Rea, F. (2021).
Careful with that! Observation of human movements to estimate objects properties.
Hum. Friend. Robot. 18, 127–141. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-71356-0_10
Lelonkiewicz, J. R., Gambi, C., Weller, L., and Pster, R. (2020). Action–eect
anticipation and temporal adaptation in social interactions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum.
Percept. Perform. 46, 335–349. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000717
Liu, D., Wang, X., Cong, M., Du, Y., Zou, Q., and Zhang, X. (2021). Object transfer
point predicting based on human comfort model for human-robot handover. IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70, 1–11. doi: 10.1109/TIM.2021.3089227
Loehr, J. D., Kourtis, D., Vesper, C., Sebanz, N., and Knoblich, G. (2013). Monitoring
individual and joint action outcomes in duet music performance. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 25,
1049–1061. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00388
Ma, L.-L., Wang, Y.-Y., Yang, Z.-H., Huang, D., Weng, H., and Zeng, X.-T. (2020).
Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical
studies: what are they and which is better? Mil. Med. Res. 7:7. doi: 10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8
Marteniuk, R. G., Mackenzie, C. L., Jeannerod, M., Athenes, S., and Dugas, C. (1987).
Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can. J. Psychol. 41, 365–378. doi:
10.1037/h0084157
Mason, A. H., and Mackenzie, C. L. (2005). Grip forces when passing an object to a
partner. Exp. Brain Res. 163, 173–187. doi: 10.1007/s00221-004-2157-x
McEllin, L., Knoblich, G., and Sebanz, N. (2018). Distinct kinematic markers of
demonstration and joint action coordination? Evidence from virtual xylophone playing.
J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 44, 885–897. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000505
Mellor, D., Esposito, J., DeHaven, A., Stodden, V., and Lowrey, O. (2022). TOP
resources—evidence and practices. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KGNVA
Meyer, M., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., and Hunnius, S. (2013). Higher-order action
planning for individual and joint object manipulations. Exp. Brain Res. 225, 579–588.
doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3398-8
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzla, J., and Altman, D. G.e PRISMA Group (2009).
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA
statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Moola, S., Munn, Z., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., et al. (2017).
“Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk,” in JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI,
2020. eds. E. Aromataris and Z. Munn. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
Napier, J. R. (1956). e prehensile movements of the human hand. J. Bone Joint Surg.
38-B, 902–913. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.38B4.902
Neranon, P. (2020). Implicit force control approach for safe physical robot-to-human
object handover. Indones. J. Electr. Engin. Comput. Sci. 17, 615–628. doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.
v17.i2.pp615-628
Nowak, D. A. (2004). Dierent modes of grip force control: voluntary and externally
guided arm movements with a hand-held load. Clin. Neurophysiol. 115, 839–848. doi:
10.1016/j.clinph.2003.11.031
Nowak, D. A., and Hermsdörfer, J. (2004). Predictability inuences nger force control
when catching a free-falling object. Exp. Brain Res. 154, 411–416. doi: 10.1007/
s00221-003-1754-4
Parastegari, S., Noohi, E., Abbasi, B., and Žefran, M. (2018). Failure recovery in robot–
human object handover. IEEE Trans. Robot. 34, 660–673. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2018.
2819198
Pezzulo, G., and Dindo, H. (2011). What should I do next? Using shared
representations to solve interaction problems. Exp. Brain Res. 211, 613–630. doi:
10.1007/s00221-011-2712-1

Kopnarski et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147296
Frontiers in Psychology 16 frontiersin.org
Pezzulo, G., Donnarumma, F., and Dindo, H. (2013). Human sensorimotor
communication: A theory of signaling in online social interactions. PLoS One 8:e79876.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079876
Pster, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., and Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate:
anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2117–2121. doi:
10.1177/0956797613489139
Quesque, F., and Coello, Y. (2015). Perceiving what youintend to do from what
youdo: evidence for embodiment in social interactions. Socioaect. Neurosci. Psychol.
5:28602. doi: 10.3402/snp.v5.28602
Quesque, F., Delevoye-Turrell, Y., and Coello, Y. (2016). Facilitation eect of observed
motor deviants in a cooperative motor task: evidence for direct perception of social
intention in action. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 69, 1451–1463. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1083596
Rizzolatti, G., and Craighero, L. (2004). e mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev.
Neurosci. 27, 169–192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
Rosenbaum, D. A., Engelbrecht, S. E., Bushe, M. M., and Loukopoulos, L. D. (1993).
Knowledge model for selecting and producing reaching movements. J. Mot. Behav. 25,
217–227. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1993.9942051
Rosenbaum, D. A., and Jorgensen, M. J. (1992). Planning macroscopic aspects of manual
control. Hum. Mov. Sci. 11, 61–69. doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(92)90050-L
Salleh, A. F., Ikeura, R., Hayakawa, S., and Sawai, H. (2011). Cooperative object
transfer: eect of observing dierent part of the object on the cooperative task
smoothness. J. Biomech. Sci. Eng. 6, 343–360. doi: 10.1299/JBSE.6.343
Sartori, L., and Betti, S. (2015). Complementary actions. Front. Psychol. 6:557. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00557
Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Whiting, H. T. A., Burden, A. M., and Bartlett, R. M. (1992). e
role of predictive visual temporal information in the coordination of muscle activity in
catching. Exp. Brain Res. 89, 223–228. doi: 10.1007/BF00229019
Schmitz, L., Vesper, C., Sebanz, N., and Knoblich, G. (2017). Co-representation of
others’ task constraints in joint action. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43,
1480–1493. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000403
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., and Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds
moving together. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
Sebanz, N., and Knoblich, G. (2021). Progress in joint-action research. Curr. D ir.
Psychol. Sci. 30, 138–143. doi: 10.1177/0963721420984425
Serrien, D. J., and Wiesendanger, M. (2001). Bimanual organization of manipulative
forces: evidence from erroneous feedforward programming of precision grip. Eur. J.
Neurosci. 13, 1825–1832. doi: 10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01548.x
Springer, A., de C. Hamilton, A. F., and Cross, E. S. (2012). Simulating and predicting
others’ actions. Psychol. Res. 76, 383–387. doi: 10.1007/s00426-012-0443-y
Sutiphotinun, T., Neranon, P., Vessakosol, P., Romyen, A., Hiransoog, C., and
Sookgaew, J. (2020). A human-inspired control strategy: A framework for seamless
human-robot handovers. J. Mechan. Eng. Res. Dev. 43, 235–245.
omaz, A., Homan, G., and Cakmak, M. (2016). Computational human-robot
interaction. Found. Trends Robot. 4, 104–223. doi: 10.1561/2300000049
Vallbo, A. B., and Johansson, R. S. (1984). Properties of cutaneous mechanoreceptors
in the human hand related to touch sensation. Hum. Neurobiol. 3, 3–14.
Vesper, C., Schmitz, L., and Knoblich, G. (2017). Modulating action duration to
establish nonconventional communication. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 146, 1722–1737. doi:
10.1037/xge0000379
Wabnegger, A., Leutgeb, V., and Schienle, A. (2016). Dierential amygdala activation
during simulated personal space intrusion by men and women. Neuroscience 330, 12–16.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.05.023
Wear, D. N. (1999). Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems 2, 299–301.
doi: 10.1007/s100219900080
Xie, B., and Zhao, J. (2015). Handing over objects to human in a friendly and comfortable
manner. Int. J. Humanoid Robot. 12:1550012. doi: 10.1142/S0219843615500127
Yamamoto, S., Shiraki, Y., Uehara, S., and Kushiro, K. (2016). Motor control of
downward object-transport movements with precision grip by object weight.
Somatosens. Mot. Res. 33, 130–136. doi: 10.1080/08990220.2016.1203304