English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

<italic>Objective:</italic> The last decades have seen a surge of robots for physical training and work assistance. How to best control these interfaces is unknown, although arguably the interaction should be similar to human movement assistance. <italic>Methods:</italic> We compare the behaviour and assessment of subjects tracking a moving target with assistance from (i) trajectory guidance (as typically used in robots for physical training), (ii) a human partner, and (iii) the reactive robot partner of Takagi <italic>et al</italic>. <italic>Results:</italic> Trajectory guidance was recognised as robotic, while the robot partner was felt as human-like. However, trajectory guidance was preferred to assistance from a human partner, which was recognised as less predictable. The robot partner also was felt to be more predictable and helpful than a human partner, and was preferred. <italic>Conclusions:</italic> While subjects like to rely on predictable interaction, such as in trajectory guidance, the control reactivity of the robot partner is essential for perceiving an interaction as human-like.

For Motion Assistance Humans Prefer to Rely on a Robot Rather Than on an Unpredictable Human