Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Public Evaluation on Potential Social Impacts of Fully Autonomous Cybernetic Avatars for Physical Support in Daily-Life Environments: Large-Scale Demonstration and Survey at Avatar Land

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that 74.7% of 333 surveyed visitors to a public demonstration of fully autonomous cybernetic avatars expressed willingness to use them for daily-life physical support, with task reliability as the main concern.

desk verdict A genuinely useful large-scale perception dataset, but the paper's 'fully autonomous' claim runs ahead of a system that was partly scripted, and the headline reliability concern rests on only 8 respondents. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12741 v1 pith:EEWEDXVL submitted 2025-07-17 cs.HC cs.RO

Lotfi El Hafi , Kazuma Onishi , Shoichi Hasegawa , Akira Oyama , Tomochika Ishikawa , Masashi Osada , Carl Tornberg , Ryoma Kado
show 13 more authors
Kento Murata Saki Hashimoto Sebastian Carrera Villalobos Akira Taniguchi Gustavo Alfonso Garcia Ricardez Yoshinobu Hagiwara Tatsuya Aoki Kensuke Iwata Takato Horii Yukiko Horikawa Takahiro Miyashita Tadahiro Taniguchi Hiroshi Ishiguro
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.RO
keywords cyberneticavatarsfullyautonomousrobotspublicperceptionsurveyphysicaldaily-lifesupporthuman-robotinteractionobjectretrievallarge-scaledemonstrationAvatarLand
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish how the general public perceives fully autonomous cybernetic avatars—robotic stand-ins that carry out physical tasks like retrieving objects without a human teleoperator—when they are deployed for daily-life support. At a 19-day public event in Osaka, the authors set up a replicated home environment where three robots worked together to fetch objects based on a user's pointing gesture and spoken instruction, and surveyed 2,285 visitors overall, 333 of whom interacted with the fully autonomous system. The survey found that 74.7% of those 333 respondents said they would use such avatars in daily life (39.3% 'very likely' plus 35.4% 'use if conditions are right'), with the most desired settings being daily-life tasks (47.8%) and work (32.5%). Among the few who declined, the main reason (37.5%) was doubt about whether the robots could reliably complete tasks, while cost and human-like interaction were not dominant concerns, so the paper argues that improving task success and stability is the key to adoption.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a public field demonstration paired with a short multiple-choice survey. The demonstrated system was a household-like environment with three fully autonomous cybernetic avatars (robotic agents that act on a user's behalf without teleoperation): one Fetch mobile manipulator and two Kachaka shelf-carrying robots. The interaction pipeline started with the user pointing at an object and saying something like 'bring that'; the robot's camera tracked the user's eyes and wrists, speech was transcribed by Whisper, an exophora resolution model combined pointing direction, demonstrative words, and object-category context to infer the target object, and a GPT-4o-based planner allocated retrieval and disposal tasks among the three robots. For the survey, the load-bearing instrument was the four-question questionnaire (Q1 participation, Q2 usage likelihood, Q3 usage scenarios, Q4 usage aversions) administered to 2,285 visitors, with a subset of 333 responses tied to the fully autonomous demonstration.

What would settle it

A log audit of the Avatar Land event showing that every visitor instruction was replaced by pre-recorded transcriptions and every task allocation matched a precomputed template, with no novel input accepted by the system, would falsify the paper's 'fully autonomous' framing; conversely, evidence that previously unseen visitor instructions produced live exophora resolution and task planning in real time would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a large, non-expert public audience reacts positively to fully autonomous cybernetic avatars performing physical support, and that the main perceived obstacle is functional reliability, not cost or uncanniness. Of the 333 survey respondents who reported engaging with the daily-life support demonstration, 249 (74.7%) answered 'Very likely to use' or 'Use if conditions are right' when asked whether they would use the demonstrated CAs in their daily life. Asked where they would use them, 47.8% picked 'Daily life' and 32.5% picked 'Work.' Among the eight respondents who said they would not want to use them, 37.5% cited 'Could not use well,' 25.0% preferred human face-to-face interaction, and only one respondent said they seemed expensive. The authors read this as evidence that public acceptance is contingent on proven task reliability, with cost and human-like interaction playing secondary roles, and note that the under-50% figure for 'Daily life' scenarios reveals a perceived applicability gap for home use.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the visitors were actually experiencing fully autonomous operation, but Section III.A discloses that pose skeletons and transcribed instructions were preloaded offline and Section III.C that task allocations were precomputed, so the demonstration may have been effectively scripted rather than autonomous in real time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 74.7% willingness-to-use figure holds, there is measurable public demand for fully autonomous robotic avatars that fetch and deliver objects in the home and workplace.
  • The dominant aversion being 'could not use well' implies that field demonstrations and product development should prioritize consistent task success and recovery from failures over human-likeness or cost reduction.
  • The finding that 'Daily life' was chosen by under half of interested respondents, despite the demo being a daily-life scenario, points to a gap between the technology's intended setting and how applicable it feels at home.
  • The event format—public, open access, with a voluntary survey—can yield perception data from non-experts at scale even when the total visitor count is unknown.
  • If reliability concerns are the main barrier, then reporting objective success rates from such demonstrations could raise adoption expectations in future surveys.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the paper discloses that pose skeletons and instruction transcriptions were preloaded offline and task allocations were precomputed, the 74.7% willingness figure should be read as a reaction to a well-rehearsed demonstration rather than to real-time autonomous reasoning; a live system with frequent failures could yield lower willingness.
  • Editorial inference: with only eight 'Do not want to use' responses, the 37.5% reliability concern and the claim that cost is not dominant rest on very small counts; a targeted follow-up with a larger reluctant sample is needed before treating those proportions as stable.
  • Editorial inference: a natural extension is a controlled comparison where one group interacts with the genuinely live autonomy pipeline and another with the pre-scripted version, holding the visible behavior inside the replicated home constant, to isolate how much of the positive response comes from the idea of autonomy versus the actual working system.
  • Editorial inference: because the demonstration was ranked 8th out of 11 zones in participation (14.7% of survey respondents), self-selection may skew the sample toward visitors already curious about robots; the reported willingness may be an upper bound for the broader population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports on a public demonstration and survey conducted at the Avatar Land event in Osaka, Japan, in which a daily-life support zone featured three robotic cybernetic avatars (CAs) described as fully autonomous. Among 2,285 survey volunteers, 333 respondents reported participating in this zone. The central finding is that 74.7% of these 333 respondents expressed a positive attitude toward using the demonstrated CAs (39.3% 'Very likely' plus 35.4% 'Use if conditions are right'), with the most common intended use scenarios being daily life (47.8%) and work (32.5%). The paper further reports that among the 8 respondents who declined, the most frequently cited reason was 'Could not use well' (37.5%), leading to the conclusion that task-execution reliability is the primary public concern. The authors position the work as a large-scale evaluation of public perception of fully autonomous CAs for physical daily-life support.

Significance. If the demonstration truly reflected fully autonomous operation, this study would provide a rare and valuable large-scale data point on public acceptance and concerns for domestic service robots. The scale (2,285 visitors, with 333 for the target demonstration) is a genuine strength, and the authors are commendably transparent about many implementation details, including the use of offline components. The internally consistent reporting of percentages and sample sizes is also a positive. However, the paper's central claim—that the survey measured perceptions of fully autonomous CAs—is directly weakened by the authors' own disclosure that key autonomous components were preloaded or precomputed. Consequently, the significance of the result is contingent on a substantial revision of the claim's scope or on additional evidence that visitors experienced live autonomous processing. Even with that caveat, the survey data on a scripted or partially autonomous demonstration could still be useful if framed accurately.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.A and III.C] The characterization of the demonstrated system as 'fully autonomous' is contradicted by the disclosed implementation details. Section III.A states that 'we preloaded a user's pose skeleton and transcribed instruction data prepared offline, and manually recorded object locations as the model inputs,' and Section III.C states that 'we precomputed task allocations using a set of predefined user instructions.' These statements indicate that the exophora resolution model and the LLM-based multi-robot planner did not process live, arbitrary user inputs during the demonstration. The abstract, introduction, and conclusions generalize the survey results to 'fully autonomous CAs' that resolve novel instructions and plan accordingly. As written, the survey likely measured reactions to a pre-scripted or heavily constrained interaction, not to the autonomous interactive behavior claimed. The authors must either (a) clarify what each visitor actually experienced (e.g., whether they observed a scripted sequence or engaged in live interaction), and revise the claims to match that experience, or (b) provide evidence that preloaded data were only used as a fallback and that a substantial portion of interactions used live input. Without this clarification, the central claim that public perception of fully autonomous CAs is broadly positive is not supported.
  2. [IV, Q4 analysis and Conclusion] The conclusion that 'hesitation primarily centered on whether the robots could consistently complete tasks successfully' and that 'cost and human-like interaction were not dominant concerns' is based on only 8 respondents who selected 'Do not want to use' (n− = 8). Within this tiny sample, 'Could not use well' was chosen by 3 respondents (37.5%), 'Prefer human face-to-face interaction' by 2 (25%), and 'Seemed expensive' by 1 (12.5%). With such a small n, the margin of error is extremely large, and the relative ordering of reasons is not statistically robust. The paper should explicitly quantify this limitation (e.g., 95% confidence intervals) and temper the language in the Conclusion. The current statements overstate the precision with which the reasons for non-adoption are known.
  3. [II and IV] The survey's external validity is limited by its self-selected, open-event sampling. The paper acknowledges that the total number of visitors is unknown and that non-respondents likely outnumbered respondents by an order of magnitude, but it still draws general conclusions about 'public perception' and 'public interest' from the 333 self-selected respondents in the daily-life support zone. The paper should explicitly list this as a limitation and avoid framing the results as representative of the broader Japanese or global population. A discussion of potential self-selection bias (e.g., tech-enthusiastic visitors being more likely to participate and respond) would strengthen the interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV, first paragraph] The paper states that 74.7% of respondents had a positive attitude, but 249/333 = 74.77%, which rounds to 74.8%. Please ensure the reported percentage is consistent with the stated counts.
  2. [IV, Q3 analysis] The observation that 'Daily life' was selected by only 47.8% of respondents despite the demonstration focusing on daily-life assistance is interesting, but the paper does not provide the corresponding values for the other demonstrations. A brief comparison or a note on whether this gap is statistically meaningful would help interpret the claim.
  3. [Table I and Fig. 3] The figure labels in Fig. 3(Q1) include the notation '(n = 333)' on the bar for the daily-life support zone, which is the sample size for that zone but is visually similar to a participation rate. Please clarify in the caption or axis label that this is a count, not a percentage.
  4. [III.A] The sentence describing the preloading appears in the middle of a technical description without a transition. Consider moving this disclosure to a dedicated 'Demonstration limitations' subsection or integrating it explicitly into the discussion so readers immediately understand its implications.
  5. [IV, Q4] The paper reports 'No answer' as 25.0% in Q4 (2 respondents), which is not commented on. Since n=8 is already very small, the 2 'No answer' responses reduce the effective denominator further; please address this in the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: the survey's descriptive statistics are self-contained empirical findings, and self-citations are used only as implementation tools, not as evidence for the perception claims.

full rationale

This paper reports a public survey of perceptions of fully autonomous cybernetic avatars. The central claims are descriptive statistics: 74.7% of 333 respondents indicated willingness to use the demonstrated CAs, top scenarios were daily life (47.8%) and work (32.5%), and the main aversion among the 8 decliners was 'Could not use well' (37.5%). These claims are derived directly from questionnaire responses, not from any fitted parameter, equation, or theorem. There is no mathematical derivation chain that could collapse into its own inputs. The self-citations (e.g., exophora resolution model [14], LLM-based task allocation [20], SDE [10]) appear as descriptions of system components used in the demonstration, not as evidence supporting the perceptual or social-impact conclusions. Even the disclosed limitations—preloaded pose skeleton and transcribed instruction data (Section III.A) and precomputed task allocations (Section III.C)—undermine the external validity of the 'fully autonomous' label, but that is a construct-validity or correctness concern, not a circularity concern: the survey results are genuine measurements of visitor responses to the demonstration as implemented. The paper even acknowledges that positive responses may reflect initial impressions rather than long-term usability, further showing that conclusions are not forced by prior self-cited results. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted or exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented entities appear in this survey paper. The claims rest on two domain assumptions: sample representativeness and the validity of the 'fully autonomous' demonstration condition. The first is acknowledged by the authors; the second is disclosed in Section III but conflicts with the paper's framing.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Survey respondents are representative of the general public.
    The event was open and self-selected; non-respondents were likely an order of magnitude higher, and demographics were collected but not analyzed. This weakens generalizability but is a standard assumption in such field surveys.
  • domain assumption The demonstration approximated truly fully autonomous operation.
    Preloaded offline user data, manually recorded object locations, and precomputed task allocations (Section III.A, III.C) mean the system was not operating purely autonomously during visitor interactions. The survey results are interpreted as reactions to fully autonomous CAs, which depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Public Evaluation on Potential Social Impacts of Fully Autonomous Cybernetic Avatars for Physical Support in Daily-Life Environments: Large-Scale Demonstration and Survey at Avatar Land." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEWEDXVL

@misc{pith2026250712741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Public Evaluation on Potential Social Impacts of Fully Autonomous Cybernetic Avatars for Physical Support in Daily-Life Environments: Large-Scale Demonstration and Survey at Avatar Land},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEWEDXVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12741}
}
read the original abstract

Cybernetic avatars (CAs) are key components of an avatar-symbiotic society, enabling individuals to overcome physical limitations through virtual agents and robotic assistants. While semi-autonomous CAs intermittently require human teleoperation and supervision, the deployment of fully autonomous CAs remains a challenge. This study evaluates public perception and potential social impacts of fully autonomous CAs for physical support in daily life. To this end, we conducted a large-scale demonstration and survey during Avatar Land, a 19-day public event in Osaka, Japan, where fully autonomous robotic CAs, alongside semi-autonomous CAs, performed daily object retrieval tasks. Specifically, we analyzed responses from 2,285 visitors who engaged with various CAs, including a subset of 333 participants who interacted with fully autonomous CAs and shared their perceptions and concerns through a survey questionnaire. The survey results indicate interest in CAs for physical support in daily life and at work. However, concerns were raised regarding task execution reliability. In contrast, cost and human-like interaction were not dominant concerns. Project page: https://lotfielhafi.github.io/FACA-Survey/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the daily-life support CA R&D zone demonstration at Avatar Land, where visitors interacted with fully autonomous cybernetic avatars (CAs) in a replicated home environment. I. INTRODUCTION As birth rates decline and the population ages in developed societies, an increasing burden is expected to be placed on the working population to care for younger and elderly individuals while maintaining economic produ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. All data were anonymized, and visitors were informed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the implementation of the demonstrated system. The user provides instructions to the robot by pointing at the target object. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Consolidated survey questionnaire results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Realisation of an Avatar-Symbiotic Society Where Everyone can Perform Active Roles without Constraint,

    H. Ishiguro, “The Realisation of an Avatar-Symbiotic Society Where Everyone can Perform Active Roles without Constraint,” RSJ Advanced Robotics (AR) , vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 650–656, June 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Simultaneous Dialogue Services using Multiple Semiautonomous Robots in Multiple Locations by a Single Operator: A Field Trial on Souvenir Recommendation,

    K. Sakai, et al. , “Simultaneous Dialogue Services using Multiple Semiautonomous Robots in Multiple Locations by a Single Operator: A Field Trial on Souvenir Recommendation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 6280–6287, July 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Cybernetic Avatar Platform for Supporting Social Activities of All People,

    Y . Horikawa, et al. , “Cybernetic Avatar Platform for Supporting Social Activities of All People,” in Proc. of 2023 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII 2023) , Atlanta, United States, Jan. 2023, pp. 1–4. CG CA zone CA receptionist zone Communication training Caregiving support CA zone CA teleoperation zone Daily-life supportCA R&...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Dual Variational Generative Model and Auxiliary Retrieval for Rmpathetic Response Generation by Conversational Robot,

    Y . Fu, et al. , “Dual Variational Generative Model and Auxiliary Retrieval for Rmpathetic Response Generation by Conversational Robot,” RSJ Advanced Robotics (AR) , vol. 37, no. 21, pp. 1406–1418, Nov. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Octo: An Open-Source Generalist Robot Policy,

    D. Ghosh, et al. , “Octo: An Open-Source Generalist Robot Policy,” in Proc. of 2024 Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS XX) , Delft, Netherlands, July 2024, pp. 1–13

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Pi0: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control,

    K. Black, et al. , “Pi0: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control,” Oct. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.24164

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.24164 2024

  7. [7]

    Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models,

    A. O’Neill, et al. , “Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models,” in Proc. of 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2024) , Yokohama, Japan, May 2024, pp. 6892–6903

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    New Robot Technology Challenge for Convenience Store,

    K. Wada, “New Robot Technology Challenge for Convenience Store,” in Proc. of 2017 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII 2017) , Taipei, Taiwan, Dec. 2017, pp. 1086–1091

    work page 2017

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Towards General Purpose Service Robots: World Robot Summit - Partner Robot Challenge,

    L. Contreras, et al., “Towards General Purpose Service Robots: World Robot Summit - Partner Robot Challenge,” RSJ Advanced Robotics (AR), vol. 36, no. 17-18, pp. 812–824, Sept. 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Software Development Environment for Collaborative Research Workflow in Robotic System Integration,

    L. El Hafi, et al. , “Software Development Environment for Collaborative Research Workflow in Robotic System Integration,” RSJ Advanced Robotics (AR) , vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 533–547, June 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    ROS: An Open-Source Robot Operating System,

    M. Quigley, et al., “ROS: An Open-Source Robot Operating System,” in Proc. of 2009 IEEE Workshop on Open Source Software , Kobe, Japan, May 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision,

    A. Radford, et al. , “Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision,” in Proc. of 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2023) , vol. 202, Honolulu, United States, July 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    2023

  5. [13]

    MediaPipe: A Framework for Perceiving and Processing Reality,

    C. Lugaresi, et al. , “MediaPipe: A Framework for Perceiving and Processing Reality,” in Workshops of 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2019) , Long Beach, United States, June 2019, pp. 1–4

    2019

  6. [14]

    Exophora Resolution of Linguistic Instructions with a Demonstrative based on Real-World Multimodal Information,

    A. Oyama, et al. , “Exophora Resolution of Linguistic Instructions with a Demonstrative based on Real-World Multimodal Information,” in Proc. of 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2023) , Busan, South Korea, Aug. 2023, pp. 2617–2623

    2023

  7. [15]

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,

    T. Brown, et al. , “Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,” in Proc. of 2020 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2020) , vol. 33, (Virtual), Dec. 2020, pp. 1877–1901

    2020

  8. [16]

    Active Semantic Mapping for Household Robots: Rapid Indoor Adaptation and Reduced User Burden,

    T. Ishikawa, et al. , “Active Semantic Mapping for Household Robots: Rapid Indoor Adaptation and Reduced User Burden,” in Proceedings 2023 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC 2023) , Honolulu, United States, Oct. 2023, pp. 3116–3123

    2023

  9. [17]

    Detecting Twenty-Thousand Classes Using Image- Level Supervision,

    X. Zhou, et al. , “Detecting Twenty-Thousand Classes Using Image- Level Supervision,” in Proc. of 17th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV 2022) , S. Avidan, et al. , Eds., Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct. 2022, pp. 350–368

    2022

  10. [18]

    Grasping Strategy for Unknown Objects based on Real-Time Grasp-Stability Evaluation using Proximity Sensing,

    Y . Suzuki, et al. , “Grasping Strategy for Unknown Objects based on Real-Time Grasp-Stability Evaluation using Proximity Sensing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 8643–8650, Oct. 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Reflectance Estimation for Pre- grasping Distance Measurement using RGB and Proximity Sensing,

    G. A. Garcia Ricardez, et al. , “Reflectance Estimation for Pre- grasping Distance Measurement using RGB and Proximity Sensing,” in Proc. of 2023 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII 2023) , Atlanta, United States, Jan. 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  12. [20]

    Reducing cost of on-site learning by multi-robot knowledge integration and task allocation via large language models,

    S. Hasegawa, et al., “Reducing cost of on-site learning by multi-robot knowledge integration and task allocation via large language models,” Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan (JRSJ) , Jan. 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Human-Robot Collaborative High-Level Control with Application to Rescue Robotics,

    P. Schillinger, et al. , “Human-Robot Collaborative High-Level Control with Application to Rescue Robotics,” in Proc. of 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2016) , Stockholm, Sweden, May 2016, pp. 2796–2802

    2016

  14. [22]

    Teaching System for Multimodal Object Categorization by Human-Robot Interaction in Mixed Reality,

    L. El Hafi, et al. , “Teaching System for Multimodal Object Categorization by Human-Robot Interaction in Mixed Reality,” in Proc. of 2021 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII 2021), Iwaki, Japan (Virtual), Jan. 2021, pp. 320–324

    2021

  15. [23]

    Multimodal Object Categorization with Reduced User Load through Human-Robot Interaction in Mixed Reality,

    H. Nakamura, et al. , “Multimodal Object Categorization with Reduced User Load through Human-Robot Interaction in Mixed Reality,” in Proc. of 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2022) , Kyoto, Japan, Oct. 2022, pp. 2143–2150

    2022

  16. [24]

    Mixed Reality-based 6D-Pose Annotation System for Robot Manipulation in Retail Environments,

    C. Tornberg, et al. , “Mixed Reality-based 6D-Pose Annotation System for Robot Manipulation in Retail Environments,” in Proc. of 2024 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII 2024), Ha Long, Vietnam, Jan. 2024, pp. 1425–1432

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.