A comprehensive review and bibliometric analysis on collaborative robotics for industry: safety emerging as a core focus

Abstract

Research organizations and academics often seek to map the development of scientific fields, identify research gaps, and guide the direction of future research. In cobot-related research, the scientific literature consulted does not propose any comprehensive research agenda. Moreover, cobots, industrial robots inherently designed to collaborate with humans, bring with them emerging issues. To solve them, interdisciplinary research is often essential (e.g., combination of engineering, ergonomics and biomechanics expertise to handle safety challenges). This paper proposes an exhaustive study that employs a scoping review and bibliometric analysis to provide a structured macro perspective on the developments, key topics, and trends in cobot research for industry. A total of 2,195 scientific publications were gained from the Web of Science database, and a thorough selection process narrowed them down to 532 papers for comprehensive analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze bibliometric measures, highlighting publication trends, leading journals, the most productive institutions, engaged countries, influential authors, and prominent research topics. Co-authorship and bibliographic couplings were also examined. Through a co-occurrence analysis of terms, the content and research objectives of the papers were systematically reviewed and lead to a univocal categorization framework. That categorization can support organizations or researchers in different cobotics (collaborative robotics) fields by understanding research developments and trends, identifying collaboration opportunities, selecting suitable publication venues, advancing the theoretical and experimental understanding of automatic collaborative systems, and identifying research directions and predicting the evolution of publication quantity in cobotics.

1 Introduction

Human-Robot collaboration is a current industrial trend following the development of new enabling technologies in the scope of Industry 4.0 (Bortolini et al., 2017; Rosin et al., 2020; Vysocky and Novak, 2016). Humans and robots can work jointly if sufficient safety is guaranteed, leading to the concept of cobots first introduced in (Colgate et al., 1996). Initially, that word “cobot” referred to intrinsically passive manipulators (Colgate et al., 1996). Nowadays, the term “cobot” refers to active manipulators that are industrial robots in the sense of ISO 10218-1:2025 (ISO, 2025a), inherently designed to physically interact with humans or share a same workspace, thanks to one or more of the three following methods: 1) hand-guided control (HGC), 2) speed and separation monitoring (SSM), or 3) power and force limiting (PFL) as described in ISO 10218-2:2025 (ISO, 2025b). That interaction or that space sharing is possible if the risks assessed, associated with the collaborative application, are deemed acceptable for the humans in the vicinity of the cobot. When that collaboration is possible, one can benefit from the advantages of both, thereby transcending the conventional division of labor that often mandates robots to be confined in safety cages, away from human workers. In a collaborative system, humans contribute flexibility, intelligence, cognitive skills, and the capacity to tackle unforeseen challenges, whereas cobots excel in executing repetitive and monotonous tasks with accuracy, agility, and strength (Paliga, 2022). This new technology, cobot, presents an opportunity to reinvent manufacturing systems, leading to better efficiency while improving working conditions (Schmidtler et al., 2015), and possibly even offering benefits for environmental considerations. For example, Alvarez-de-los-Mozos et al. (2020) utilized a cobot for recycling electrical and electronic waste.

As shown in the two subsequent paragraphs below, various papers have been dedicated to reviewing and discussing the existing literature on human-robot interaction in general or on cobots specifically. The aim of these papers is to provide valuable insights into specific topics such as safety in workspaces where humans and cobots interact with each other (Bi et al., 2022; Bi et al., 2021; Bogue, 2017; Broum and Simon, 2020; Chemweno et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2020; Li et al., 2023; Valori et al., 2021), terminology in the safety of cobotics (Vicentini, 2020), human awareness during collaboration (Grushko et al., 2021), physical and cognitive ergonomics in cobotic workstations (Cardoso et al., 2021), collaborative robotics applications (Montini et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2024a), developments in gripper technologies for cobots (Bogue, 2016a), task planning and programming (El Zaatari et al., 2019; Tsarouchi et al., 2016), designing workplaces where humans and cobots interact with each other (Simoes et al., 2022), and learning methodologies for human-robot collaboration (Mukherjee et al., 2022).

For example, Gualtieri et al. (2021a) conducted a systematic literature review on both safety and ergonomics in cobotics for industry. Similarly, Patil et al. (2023) systematically reviewed safety and ergonomics in cobotics and classified the literature into four sub-categories: contact avoidance and contact detection and mitigation for safety category and physical ergonomics and cognitive ergonomics for ergonomics category. Storm et al. (2022) reviewed safety along with the mental health and wellbeing of workers near cobots. Lu L. et al. (2022) utilized a systematic literature review methodology to identify robot-related factors affecting cobot-related workers’ mental stress or safety awareness. They discussed methods to measure mental stress and safety awareness during human-robot collaboration. Berx et al. (2022a) reviewed literature on cobotics to identify and classify risk factors in human-robot collaboration. Vicentini (2021) provided an extensive review on cobotics, focusing on safety and task planning. Also, valuable information on sensors and actuators for cobots can be found in Bogue et al. (2015), Ogenyi et al. (2021). Villani et al. (2018) carried out a review on cobots, focusing on issues related to physical and cognitive interaction. The issues related to safety, robot programming, sensing technologies for human-robot interaction, and industrial applications of cobotics are explicitly discussed in that paper. While those studies focused on specific topics or challenges in cobotics, the current paper covers scientific articles dealing with all kinds of topics and challenges related to cobotics.

Hentout et al. (2019) studied literature on human-robot interaction in cobotics for industry from 2008 to 2017. They attempted to classify the content of the published works, resulting in a stimulating classification with seven categories, each broken down into several subcategories. Similarly, Matheson et al. (2019) did a practical study on human-robot collaboration in manufacturing from 2009 until 2018, including a remarkable cobot market analysis. They classified the publications into three topics categories (i.e., productivity, safety, human-robot interaction), pointed out some limitations of their equivocal categories. Proia et al. (2022) carried out a systematic review of the control techniques used in cobotics. They classified research works into three main categories: safety, ergonomics, and efficiency. They further discussed and categorized them into sub-categories within each main category to highlight the types of control systems. In addition, Borregan-Alvarado et al. (2024) proposed a model to identify and predict of research topics in collaborative robotics and human-robot interaction technologies. That model is based on scientific articles on human-robot interaction for the 2020–2021 period. The current paper not only covers a broader and more recent time frame (1996–2022), but also provides a clear and consistent univocal categorization framework based on key topics identified through an in-depth bibliometric analysis. Also, given the need to support cobotics researchers in identifying the most active research areas, and relevant journals for publication, as well as opportunities for collaboration to tackle the emerging challenges associated with cobotics, this paper performs a bibliometric analysis on two levels: (1) all cobot-related publications, and (2) specific research fields within cobotics.

By providing both a structured understanding of existing research and insights into future trends, this work equips scholars and practitioners with the necessary guidance to drive advancements in cobotics.

Besides this introductory section, this paper is organized as follows: the methodology is presented in Section 2, while the results and discussions of quantitative and qualitative analysis of cobot-related research for industrial settings derived from the literature are presented in Sections 3, 4. The final section presents the conclusions and agenda for future research.

2 Methodology

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018) guided this scoping review in the following steps.

2.1 Research questions

This paper aims to address the following main research questions: (i) What are the predominant research interests from the first cobot, i.e., 1996, to the end of 2022, and how can these be systematically classified?; (ii) which research topics in cobotics have garnered the most attention, and which studies and journals are considered most influential in this field?; (iii) who are the leading authors and which countries have made the most significant contributions to cobotics research?; (iv) how has the publication quantity in cobotics evolved over the years, and what trends can be predicted for future research output in this field?; and (v) what are the existing research gaps in cobotics, and what future research directions can be identified through a comprehensive scoping review and bibliometric analysis?

2.2 Identifying relevant studies

First, a comprehensive search strategy was formulated to access a diverse array of articles for consideration. This search was carried out in the ISI Web of Science (WoS), recognized as one of the premier repositories in research, covering the earliest date available in the database up to, and including, December 2022. The search string used was “collaborative robot*” OR cobot * in either the title, abstract, or author keywords fields. Due to the extensive nature of the research conducted, our objective was to identify as many relevant papers (including journal articles, reviews, and conference proceedings) as possible, focusing solely on cobots, totaling 2,195 records. That two-word search string was chosen after trying broader strategies leading to more records. Those broader strategies, including for example, the additional terms OR “human robot interaction” OR HRI multiplied the number of records by at least 40. However, a significant portion of those records was not related to cobots, as per its meaning presented in Section 1. Indeed, research on human-robot interaction or collaboration is also dealt with in the literature for industrial robots that are not inherently designed to interact with humans or for service robots for example. Adding other keywords made the amount of articles to screen impossible to assess humanly in a timely manner by the research assistants, due to limited staff, as well as time and budget constraints. Because of that, and to minimize the number of papers not related to cobots in an industrial context, the paper focuses only on the two-keyword strategy. Analyzing the papers started in 2023 and finished in 2024. The writing of the paper followed in 2025. Figure 1 illustrates the process of the PRISMA-ScR guideline for selecting the relevant literature and the number of papers handled at each part for the chosen strategy.

FIGURE 1

2.3 Selecting studies

After this screening process, 532 articles were validated for final analysis in this research.

2.4 Charting the data

In this paper, MS Excel and VOSviewer were used for the bibliometric analysis of the 532 retrieved papers. VOSviewer employs the VOS (Visualization of Similarities) mapping method to create networks where the distances between items indicate their degree of similarity. The VOS clustering technique categorizes topics into distinct clusters, each marked with a different color (van Eck and Waltman, 2010; van Eck and Waltman, 2007). These techniques allow for the analysis of papers in terms of co-authorship, co-occurrence of terms in the titles, abstracts, and keywords, as well as the bibliographic couplings of research institutions, countries, or publication sources. Thanks to these features, VOSviewer has been widely applied in the bibliometric analysis in various robotics fields (Wu et al., 2024; Wang J. et al., 2023; Mudhivarthi and Thakur, 2022; Long et al., 2024; Liu and Son, 2024; Li W-S. et al., 2021; Chu et al., 2021). Based on the key topics identified through the bibliometric analysis, a univocal categorization framework was proposed. Two team members reviewed the papers, classifying each to a category based on its main research objective. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

2.5 Synthesizing and reporting the results

The research topic categories were formed and organized by reviewing the papers and their research topics. Furthermore, MS Excel and VOSviewer were used again for bibliometric analysis on each category to gain more specific results for each research topics.

3 Bibliometric analysis–Results and discussions

In this section, we present and discuss the results from the bibliometric analysis of the 532 retrieved papers. In general, the visualizations are interpreted as follows: the size of the spheres and the font of the labels represent the number of occurrences, the colors represent clusters (i.e., a set of closely related items), and the distance between two spheres indicate their relatedness and similarity.

3.1 Publication trends

The number of publications is an important indicator for measuring the development trends within a research domain. By analyzing the number of publications over time, one can easily infer research activity levels and trends, which in turn allows for the estimation of future activity levels (Yang et al., 2019). Figure 2 presents the annual and cumulative number of publications focused on the topic of cobotics for industry. It shows that there were only 14 publications before or in 2015. This period can be considered the initial stage, where little research explicitly focused on cobot in industrial settings. Since 2016, the number of publications in this field has increased significantly. Furthermore, the cumulative number of publications approximately follows an exponential growth pattern, as calculated by Equation 1:where is the year for which we want to predict the cumulative number of papers, and and are coefficients estimated to be 0.02632 and 0.4514, respectively. Therefore, the cumulative number of papers in this field in a specific year can be calculated using Equation 2:

FIGURE 2

The Coefficient of Determination () is used to measure the fitting degree and can be calculated using Equation 3:where is the number of observations. An value closer to 1 indicates a better fit of the regression model, while a value closer to 0 indicates a poorer fit. Also, to measure the prediction error, the Root Mean Squared Error () is used, as shown in Equation 4:

The model demonstrates a high goodness-of-fit with an value of 0.995, indicating that the cumulative number of published papers in this field is growing exponentially, and that continued development in cobotics research is anticipated. The is 9.15, suggesting that the average prediction error is around 10 papers. The predicted cumulative number of publications is listed in Table 1. The number of publications is expected to reach approximately 2000 by 2025, and about 20000 by 2030.

3.2 Geographical and institutional distribution and cooperation

The geographical span of a research field indicates its versatility and global popularity. The more institutions/countries involved, the more significant the research field. This aspect is explored in the following subsections.

3.2.1 Contributing countries

The 532 retrieved papers come from 59 distinct countries (see Table 2; Figure 3). Figure 3 illustrates the bibliographic coupling among these countries. Bibliographic coupling occurs when publications from two countries reference works from a third country. Each country is represented by a sphere, with the size of the sphere and its label indicating the magnitude of the contribution; larger spheres and labels denote greater contributions. The thickness of the arcs connecting spheres represents bibliographic connections while the colors indicate collaboration clusters of countries.

FIGURE 3

Table 2 shows that Italy leads in the number of publications with 105, accounting for approximately 15 percent, followed by the PRC with 77 publications, or about 11 percent. It also indicates that 19 countries have contributed to the advancement of the cobotics field with at least 10 publications each. All Group of Seven (G7) countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, England, and the USA—are active in this research area. Among BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, the PRC, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)— the PRC is the leading contributor. Also, articles from Thailand, Switzerland, and Egypt have garnered significant attention in the cobot research community, with average citation counts of 112, 52.5, and 39.5, respectively, despite having only 2, 8, and 2 publications. The high average citation rates, combined with the relatively few publications from these countries, highlight the sensitivity of this metric; a small number of highly cited papers can significantly influence the average citation counts when the total number of publications is low.

To more effectively assess a country’s research productivity in a specific area, the number of articles per capita, , and the number of articles per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), , can be used (see Equations 5 and 6) (Amin et al., 2019; Alauddin et al., 2018).where GDP per capita is given by Equation 7.

The reflects the proportion of a country’s population engaged in research, while the indicates how effectively a country’s financial resources are utilized for research. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 4, Denmark has the highest , with 3.03 articles per million people, followed by Portugal at 2.28 and Slovakia at 2.03 articles per million. In contrast, the PRC and Brazil have the lowest scores, both at 0.05 articles per million. Regarding financial support, the PRC leads with an score of 6.1 articles per thousand USD, followed by Italy at 2.74 articles per thousand USD, and Brazil at 1.1 articles per thousand USD.

FIGURE 4

3.2.2 Research institutions

An analysis reveals that 570 research institutions have contributed to the 532 retrieved articles advancing the field of cobotics for industry. Among these, 21 institutions have published six or more papers. As shown in Table 3, the most productive institution in cobot research is the Politecnico di Milano, with 16 publications. This is followed by the Politecnico di Torino with 12 publications, and the University of Padua and the University of Coimbra, each with 11 publications. Among the 21 institutions publishing six or more papers, the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia stands out, having attracted the most attention from scholars based on both the total number of citations and the average number of citations. Notably, 7 of the top 21 institutions are from Italy, highlighting the country’s dominance in this research area. Figure 5 represents the bibliographic coupling among research institutions. Bibliographic coupling occurs when publications from two institutions reference works from a third common institution. Each research institution is represented by a sphere, with the size of the sphere and its label indicating the magnitude of the institution’s contribution. The larger the sphere and label, the greater the contribution. The colors represent clusters of institutions, while the thickness of the arcs between spheres represents the strength of the bibliographic coupling.

FIGURE 5

3.3 Potential sources

The analysis of publication sources is essential to identify the main journals in a research field, to help researchers find relevant literature and select the right journals for their work. The analysis of 532 selected papers revealed that they came from 156 different journals. Table 4 lists journals that have published more than 10 papers on cobotics for industry. The journal “Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing” is the leading source, with 35 publications, followed by “IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters” with 33 papers, “Applied Sciences-Basel” with 29 papers, and the “International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology” with 26 papers. Regarding citations, “Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing” ranks first with 1,602 citations, followed by the “International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology” with 760 citations, and “IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters” with 734 citations. However, papers published in “Mechatronics” attracted the most attention on average, with 62.09 citations per paper, while “Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing” ranks second with 45.77 average citations. Figure 6 illustrates the bibliographic coupling among various publication sources active in the cobotics with at least 10 papers. The size of each sphere indicates the journal’s relative strength in publishing cobotics papers, the color represents clusters of journals, and the thickness of the arcs between journals indicates the strength of their bibliographic coupling.

FIGURE 6

3.4 The most productive and influential authors and their cooperation network

Analyzing the number of publications and citations of authors, and mapping co-authorship relationship, allows for the identification of the most productive and influential authors and the most prominent research groups in the field, according to the PRISMA-ScR process applied for literature selection (see Figure 1). This information is invaluable for researchers seeking collaboration and insights from leading experts. The 532 retrieved papers were contributed by 1704 authors, with 26 authors having at least 5 publications, and 26 authors having a minimum of 200 citations (see Table 5). Understanding authors’ contributions to the cobotics research field requires evaluating both the number of articles and citations, and authors are ranked based on these metrics in Table 5. Even though this paper reviewed as many relevant papers as possible, the results are limited to documents retrieved through the PRISMA-ScR process described in Figure 1. For example, some publications may not be indexed in the WoS database, may have been missed due to the chosen search string, may have been excluded based on criteria such as being conference proceedings. These limitations could introduce inaccuracies. Another potential source of bias is the inability to distinguish between authors with identical names. Likewise, authors who publish under different names may not be correctly linked. To address this issue, it is strongly recommended that researchers be assigned a unique, persistent identifier, such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), upon publishing their first paper. This would help resolve such issues, regardless of how a researcher’s name appears across different publications (van Nunen et al., 2018; Chiu and Ho, 2007).

Vidoni, R., and Vanderborght, B. lead the ranking in terms of the number of articles, with 8 papers each. Vidoni, a professor at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (Bolzano, Italy), specializes in high-performance (energy, vibration, safety, collaborative) automatic machines. Vanderborght, a professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Brussels, Belgium), focuses on cognitive and physical human-robot interaction, robot-assisted therapy, humanoids, and rehabilitation robotics using variable impedance actuators. In terms of citations, Secchi, C. leads with 600 citations. Secchi is a professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, known for his work in human-robot collaboration, multi-robot systems, and medical robotics.

Figure 7 illustrates co-authorship in the cobotics research field for industry, with spheres representing authors, colors indicating clusters of authors, and arcs showing co-authorship strength. It reveals that the international community actively engaged in cobotic research remains limited.

FIGURE 7

3.5 Prominent research topics

Analyzing the frequency of terms in the 532 retrieved papers offers valuable insights into the main research topics within the field of cobotics for industry. To identify the most prominent topics, a terms co-occurrence density map was constructed. Terms appearing in at least five papers were included, while general terms such as “work”, “model”, or “methodology”, as well as cobot-specific terms like “robot”, “collaboration”, “collaborative robot”, or “cobot”, were excluded. This process identified a total of 71 relevant terms, with their co-occurrence density visualized in Figure 8.

FIGURE 8

4 Content analysis–Results and discussions

In this section, we provide the results and discussions of the content review. The content analysis of the paper resulted into a univocal categorization framework, along with a bibliometric analysis for each category. A thorough analysis of the terms on the map (Figure 8) led to creating 25 sub-categories of research topics. Afterwards, those sub-categories have been grouped into six categories, as shown in Figure 9. The categories are: 1) deployment of cobots, 2) safety in cobotics for industry, 3) human-robot tasks allocation, 4) human-robot interaction, 5) performance of actuating systems, and 6) robot program generation. In this section, we provide a high-level overview of existing viewpoints by categorizing and discussing them using the categorization framework. A brief discussion of the research topics (i.e., categories) is presented in the following subsections.

FIGURE 9

4.1 Deployment of cobots

The category “Deployment of cobots” is how to deploy cobots in an industrial organization. Methodologies for deployment are studied to optimize cobots’ integration. Furthermore, comparing traditional robots versus cobots (Faccio et al., 2019), maximizing with other enabling technologies (e.g., virtual reality and digital twins) are some examples of research outputs. For instance, using a digital twin, which is a virtual replica (model) of a real system, can guide and enhance the performance of the actual system. Several researchers put efforts to explore the application of digital twins (Gallala et al., 2022; Lima et al., 2019; Malik and Brem, 2021; Ronzoni et al., 2021), virtual reality (Badia et al., 2022), mixed reality (Ostanin et al., 2021), or a combination of them (Pérez et al., 2020; Wolfartsberger et al., 2019), to address complexities in workspaces where humans and cobots interact with each other.

Growing interests on cobots in commercial markets has been investigated in the literature. These papers presented here explore the market potential and future prospects of cobots. For example, scholars have predicted that the significance of cobots will continue to grow (Bogue, 2022; Bogue, 2016b; Bloss, 2016). Although the cobotic is a relatively new research topic in the industrial robotics, the applications of cobots are rapidly expanding in industrial sectors such as assembly, packaging, and surface treatment. This category also covers the papers that use cases explained how to deploy efficiently cobots for studied applications. Table 6 presents an outline of the deployment of collaborative applications.

Despite increasing cobot-related applications, their adoption remains inadequate in real environments. Therefore, researchers investigate on effective parameters on cobots’ adoption such as trust between operator and cobot. Styles of human-robot symbiosis are modelled or experienced to improve trust and operators’ satisfaction as well as performance (Lambrechts et al., 2021; Zemlyak et al., 2022; Baumgartner et al., 2022; Quintana et al., 2022; Mateus et al., 2019; Andersson et al., 2021; Liu and Cao, 2022; Simoes et al., 2020; Bagheri et al., 2022; Kopp et al., 2022; Maurtua et al., 2017a; Sauer et al., 2021). Clearly enough, successfully deploying a cobot in a system depends on various factors and can have both positive and negative impacts. Therefore, evaluating the cobot’s impacts (e.g., economic, social, environmental impacts) before deployment is crucial. This category can contain works that investigate the impacts of cobots, as well as those that develop models at improving these impacts (Alvarez-de-los-Mozos et al., 2020; Ronzoni et al., 2021; Colim et al., 2021a; Palomba et al., 2021; Realyvásquez-Vargas et al., 2019; Chiriatti et al., 2022; Colim et al., 2021b; Zhang YJ. et al., 2021; Ojstersek et al., 2022; Calvo and Gil, 2022; Navas-Reascos et al., 2022; Javernik et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2021; El Makrini et al., 2022; Liu and Wang, 2020; Gualtieri et al., 2020; Ibáñez et al., 2021).

As discussed above, one of the advantages of implementing cobots is the reduction of health, ergonomic, and environmental risks (which is a social consideration), such as biomechanical overload. Industrial workers face to various ergonomic hazards such as improper postures, repetitive motions, heavy lifting, and vibrations. Several techniques are available to assess ergonomic risk factors, including observational, tool-based, and questionnaire-based methods (Cheraghi et al., 2019). Among these, observational methods like Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) (McAtamney and Corlett, 1993), Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) (Hignett and McAtamney, 2000), Posture, Activity, Tools and Handling (PATH) (Buchholz et al., 1996), and the Ovako Working Posture Analysing System (OWAS) (Karhu et al., 1977) are widely used. These methods have been extensively applied for ergonomic evaluation of collaborative systems, including RULA (Colim et al., 2021a; Palomba et al., 2021; Chiriatti et al., 2022; Colim et al., 2021b; Navas-Reascos et al., 2022; Gualtieri et al., 2020; Ibáñez et al., 2021; Colim et al., 2021c), the Strain Index (SI) (Colim et al., 2021b; Zhang YJ. et al., 2021), NIOSH indices (Ronzoni et al., 2021), REBA (El Makrini et al., 2019), KIM-MHO (Colim et al., 2021b; Colim et al., 2020), EAWS (Maurice et al., 2019), JSI (Navas-Reascos et al., 2022), and OCRA (Ronzoni et al., 2021; Gualtieri et al., 2020). Despite their popularity, conventional techniques for evaluating ergonomic conditions in cobot-related workspaces have limitations: they may not cover all types of activities in a collaborative environment, and they are incapable of addressing dynamic phenomena, such as fast motions. Consequently, it is more accurate to employ a technique specifically designed for assessing ergonomic risks of collaborative jobs. To address this need, researchers can be attracted to propose methods specifically developed for evaluating ergonomic risks associated with collaborative activities (Maurice et al., 2017).

Grippers are the most widely adopted end-effectors in collaborative industrial applications. They are essential for tasks requiring precision and versatility like human-hand capabilities, making them an interesting research topic in the field of cobotics. Grippers must be designed to be cost-effective and capable of handling a wide range of objects that vary in size, shape, and stiffness. In addition, they should ensure operator safety by limiting contact forces and avoiding sharp edges and pinch points. This sub-category has been attracted a lot of attentions of the cobotic researchers (Bogue, 2016a; Birglen, 2019; Iqbal et al., 2021; Anwar et al., 2019).

4.2 Safety in cobotics for industry

This category represents how to guarantee the safety of the operator while optimizing the performance of the cobot. It is mainly dedicated to the risk of an unwanted collision between the cobot and the operator. This category comprises papers discussing standards for cobot safety and how to meet them. According to those papers, the main safety standards related to robotic are Section IV of Chapter 4 of OSHA Technical Manual (OSHA, 2017), ANSI/RIA R15.06 (Association, 2012), ISO 10218-1 (ISO, 2011a), and ISO 10218-2 (ISO, 2011b). Among these standards, the most relevant standard addressing cobots in addition to conventional industrial robots is ISO 10218, Parts 1 and 2. While the papers analyzed regarding the safety category used the 2011 version of ISO 10218, a recent version of that standard was issued in 2025, i.e., after the publication of those papers. The 2011 version of part 2 introduced the concept of “collaborative robots”, which is no longer used in its 2025 version (ISO, 2025a; ISO, 2025b). The latter focuses more on the collaborative aspect of the robot application. However, to design a safe collaborative workspace, a technical specification ISO/TS 15066 (ISO, 2016), that complements the former version of ISO 10218 was needed. Now, most of that TS is available and updated in the 2025 version of ISO 10218.

The ISO 10218:2011 and ISO/TS 15066:2016 cited in the papers introduced four safety methods for a collaborative application: (i) safety-rated monitored stop (SRMS), (ii) hand guiding (HG), (iii) SSM, and (iv) PFL. The 2025 version of ISO 10218 now only considers methods (ii) to (iv) for collaborative applications. Even though SRMS is not in the 2025 version, the following paragraph describes succinctly each of the four methods for better understanding of their meaning.

In the SRMS method, both the operator and cobot could not operate simultaneously within the shared space. To avoid an unwanted collision, the cobot would have been stopped when it detects an operator inside the shared space. In the HG method, the operator directly teaches the cobot by physically moving it. In the SSM method, the cobot’s speed adjusts based on the separation distance between the operator and the cobot. The PFL method is prone to unintentional collisions. It limits the quasi-static contact (i.e., contact between an operator and part of a robot system, where the operator body part can be clamped between a moving part of a robot system and another fixed or moving part of the robot cell) and transient contact (i.e., contact between an operator and part of a robot system, where the operator body part is not clamped and can recoil or retract from the moving part of the robot system) forces below specific thresholds to mitigate human injuries. Achieving that involves active safety measures like compliance control and passive safety measures like edge smoothing during the cobot’s design stage. Based on ISO 10218-2:2025, hazard identification and risk analysis is needed to identify the hazards and assess the risks of both the cobot system and the collaborative environment and then select the proper safety measures (ISO, 2011a).

The developed methodologies in the literature related to the risk of collision between a cobot and an operator can be classified into two main groups: (i) pre-collision (collision prevention), and (ii) post-collision (collision mitigation). The pre-collision approach aims to ensure the safety of operators by detecting potential collisions between the cobot and the operator. This detection is achieved through safety sensor systems such as proximity and visual sensors, or by predicting unintended collisions using stochastic or machine learning methods. Once a potential collision is identified, preventive measures are implemented to avoid it (Li et al., 2023; Gualtieri et al., 2021a; Zorman et al., 2023). In the context of pre-collision strategies, the former SRMS, as well as the actual HG, and SSM safety methods played a key role in the papers analyzed.

Dynamic monitoring allows to know where are located the robot and the operator in unstructured and time-varying environment using advanced sensing technologies. Various approaches have been developed, including the use of virtual reality, Internet of Things (IoT), and sensing technologies to monitor humans in robot workspaces, aiming to prevent collisions (Tsuji and Kohama, 2019; Farsoni et al., 2022; Guerra et al., 2016; Gradolewski et al., 2020; Geiger and Waldschmidt, 2019; Ferraguti et al., 2020; Costanzo et al., 2022; Bin Islam et al., 2019; Barbosa et al., 2022; Safeea and Neto, 2019; Benli et al., 2019; Kianoush et al., 2021). Effective collision avoidance and path optimization are crucial for maintaining safety and productivity in collaborative applications. Therefore, several studies have focused on pre-collision algorithms and dynamic path planning to minimize collision risks and improve cycle times (Scimmi et al., 2021; Kot et al., 2022; Scalera et al., 2022; Chiriatti et al., 2021; Zanchettin et al., 2022; Chan and Tsai, 2020). In addition, the visibility of the robot to the human operator can significantly impact both the operator’s comfort and the probability of collisions. This critical factor has been examined in several research papers with the aim of enhancing the safety of collaborative application (Tarbouriech and Suleiman, 2020; Dufour et al., 2020; Najmaei et al., 2010). Readers interested in further exploration of collision avoidance can find successful efforts in (Simas et al., 2022; Scoccia et al., 2021; Safeea et al., 2019; Elguea-Aguinaco et al., 2022).

On the contrary, the post-collision approach focuses on operator safety through the detection of unintended collisions and then mitigation of energy transfer during these collisions that can lead to human injuries or even fatalities (Li et al., 2023; Gualtieri et al., 2021a; Zorman et al., 2023). In the context of post-collision strategies, the PFL method is employed. As mentioned above, although the PFL method allows unintentional collisions, it is required to include contact force measurements to validate safety (Zimmermann et al., 2022). Therefore, techniques (such as statistical models) to determine contact force thresholds for using in PFL method has been proposed (Behrens et al., 2022). Additionally, several testing procedures for validating safety in PFL method have been developed (DGUV, 2017; ANSI, 2018), and the reliability of such tests have been examined (Scibilia et al., 2021).

Soft cobots (i.e., cobots that can deform and yield in a collision) are often equipped with a protective covering, known as “skin”, to offer both active protection (detecting collisions and initiating cobot reactions) and passive protection (providing a cushioning effect to mitigate the consequences of collisions). Therefore, developing cobot skins take a great apportion of studies in this category (Runge and Raatz, 2017; Ye et al., 2022; Svarny et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Ge et al., 2022; Ye ZQ. et al., 2020; O'Neill et al., 2018; Tsuji and Kohama, 2020; Heng et al., 2021). Furthermore, to reduce cobot production costs, sensor-less collision detection methods (e.g., neural network-based approaches) have gained attention (Kwon et al., 2021; Lee and Song, 2016; Heo et al., 2019; Sharkawy et al., 2020a; Ma et al., 2020; Czubenko and Kowalczuk, 2021; Le and Kang, 2022; Yen et al., 2019; Kim, 2022). Many other studies have contributed to the field of collision detection, including (Heo et al., 2019; Abu Al-Haija and Al-Saraireh, 2022; Amin et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2019; Li W. et al., 2020; Long et al., 2022; Lu SN. et al., 2022; Nguyen and Case, 2022; Park et al., 2022; Ren et al., 2018; Rodrigues et al., 2023; Shin et al., 2019; Strazdas et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2018; Yun A. et al., 2022; Zhang ZJ. et al., 2021), providing valuable information for researchers. To ensure the operator’s safety in a collaborative workspace, in addition to measuring and controlling the interaction force, other parameters like its direction, the point of application, and the time required to measure these parameters are also important and can form the research objective of a study (Popov et al., 2021).

Several techniques have been developed for identifying and evaluating system hazards, such as Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), Job Safety Analysis (JSA), and Fault tree analysis (FTA), as well as for assessing human reliability, including Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) and Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM). These generic techniques can be applied to cobotics. However, due to the unique challenges inherent in cobotic applications, some researchers have worked on developing safety metrics and risk assessment tools specifically for these systems (Askarpour et al., 2019; Marvel et al., 2015; Pantano et al., 2022; Vemula et al., 2018; Vicentini et al., 2020). A safety metric or risk assessment tool for cobotics should be able to consider various parameters, such as the uncertainty associated with human operator behaviors, the potential severity of physical contact between the cobot and the operator, and changes within the system. Last but not least, one of the key factors that can impact safe collaboration in cobotics is the threat of cyber-attacks. Defense strategies to protect workers against cyber-attacks have been also investigated (Khalid et al., 2018).

4.3 Human-robot tasks allocation

“Human-robot tasks allocation” aims to distribute the tasks between humans and cobots. This involves determining the sequence of tasks and deciding which agent (cobot or human) should perform each task. With shorter product life cycles and high-mix production, the job splitting between the agents is becoming increasingly important. Research in this field has focused on optimizing task allocation to enhance efficiency, ergonomics, and economic factors. Optimization models aim to minimize makespan and production costs while considering ergonomic risks and worker wellbeing (El Makrini et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018; Nourmohammadi et al., 2022; Mura and Dini, 2022; Liu et al., 2024b; Liau and Ryu, 2022a; Gjeldum et al., 2022; Cai et al., 2023; Ferreira et al., 2021; Kinast et al., 2022; Almasarwah et al., 2022; Stecke and Mokhtarzadeh, 2022; Mura and Dini, 2019; Li ZX. et al., 2021; Weckenborg et al., 2022; Pearce et al., 2018; Boschetti et al., 2021a).

As revealed in the above-reviewed papers, optimal human-robot task allocation involves balancing objectives like minimizing cycle time, costs, and ergonomic risks. Selecting the best approach is challenging due to conflicting requirements. For instance, minimizing production costs by assigning more tasks to cheaper work cells may delay deliveries, while minimizing makespan may increase costs. Additionally, relying solely on these objectives may lead to assigning high-risk tasks to human workers. Thus, the collaborative applications designers should comprehensively consider economic, social, and environmental aspects to ensure sustainable task allocation in collaborative applications.

These approaches are powerful in a deterministic collaborative environment, where both the operator and the cobot must adhere to a pre-planned task sequence. However, in real collaborative task-allocation problems, various uncertain parameters, especially those related to the operator, should be considered. For example, the operator may deviate from the task sequence, either by mistake or based on personal preference. Such deviations may not yield the predefined optimal solution but could have a negligible impact on the objectives of the system. In such scenarios, the process may halt if the cobot cannot adapt to new conditions or human actions. Therefore, a cobot should be capable of finding alternative solutions while still maintaining the original objectives. To address these uncertainties, dynamic task allocation models have been developed (Antonelli et al., 2021; Pupa et al., 2021; Petzoldt et al., 2022; Chacón et al., 2021; Messeri et al., 2022; Casalino et al., 2021; Antonelli and Bruno, 2019; Bruno and Antonelli, 2018; Pupa et al., 2022).

4.4 Human-robot interaction

“Human-robot interaction” gathers research on the way that the human and the robot interact themselves (co-working) in order to perform their allocated industrial actions. In the collaborative application, the operator often defines the objective of collaborative work and the cobot assists the operator to achieve this objective. The cobot must therefore be able to learn from the operator and estimate his intentions. Various input interaction modes are explored to instruct the cobot about the state of humans or their intentions such as gesture visual recognition and force sensing.

Gesture (e.g., hand, body, and head) visual recognition is one of the most powerful communication mode which can be developed by techniques such as wearable sensors, inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors surface electromyography (EMG) signals (Mukherjee et al., 2022; Papanagiotou et al., 2021; El Aswad et al., 2021; Coupeté et al., 2019; Mendes, 2022; Cornak et al., 2022; Tang et al., 2015; Shukla et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2022). Besides vision-based systems, wearable systems capable of measuring joint rotation can easily capture an operator’s gestures. However, a primary limitation of such systems is their potential interference with the operator’s work. In addressing this challenge, wireless wearable system designed to determine the orientation of the operator’s upper body parts has been developed (Skulj et al., 2021). Tactile sensing allows cobots to detect and interpret pressure and force exerted by human operators (Olivares-Alarcos et al., 2019; Bauer et al., 2008). Cobotics leveraging tactile sensors can dynamically determine human grasp positions and intentions being able to ability to adapt to human actions and improve overall interaction efficiency (Li TJ. et al., 2021; Ansari et al., 2020). Overall, numerous papers in this category focus on designing and developing new sensors to improve cobotic systems and increasing their cost-effectiveness (Zaid et al., 2022; Long et al., 2021; Fu and Cai, 2022; Castano-Cano et al., 2022). In human-robot interactions, relying solely on mechanical force-torque sensors to measure forces can sometimes lead to the unintentional measurement of additional forces arising from the robot’s contact with an unpredictable environment. This can potentially introduce inconsistencies in human-robot interactions (Ajoudani et al., 2018). As an alternative approach, bio-signals, like EMG signals, can be used to directly measure the forces exerted by the human operator (Bednarczyk et al., 2022).

In a collaborative application, communication methods extend beyond gesture recognition and force sensing to include natural speech, gaze, graphical signage, and physiological signals (e.g., electroencephalographic (EEG)) (Dmytriyev et al., 2022; Eimontaite et al., 2022; Eimontaite et al., 2019). Natural speech and gaze are also crucial for effective human-robot interaction. Speech control systems allow operators to command multiple robots in different languages (Hofer and Strohmeier, 2019). Also, using EEG signals, emotional states (e.g., fearful) of operators can be assessed in a cobotic system (Buerkle et al., 2021; Borboni et al., 2022; Eyam et al., 2021). In addition, to enhance communication reliability, some researchers have adopted multimodal interaction modes to provide complementary or redundant input options (Tsuji and Kohama, 2022).

4.5 Performance of actuating systems

“Performance of actuating systems” is how to improve the actuating system of a cobot through its logical or physical equipment. The control of trajectory and motion is addressed in this category. To achieve high efficiency, precision, and safety in cobotics, numerous researchers have made efforts to develop trajectory and motion planning methods. These methods aim to balance performance with psychological and physical safety of the operator (Zhao et al., 2022; Ye L. et al., 2020; Wittmann and Rixen, 2022; Vysocky et al., 2020a; Sidobre and Desornneaux, 2019; Magyar et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Krämer and Bertram, 2022; Kraemer et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2022a; Rojas et al., 2019; Rojas et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2022; Palleschi et al., 2021).

Force control was originally developed for applications where the robot’s end-effector comes into direct physical contact with its environment, often involving tasks like surface treatments, such as polishing and grinding (Ochoa and Cortesao, 2022; Ubeda et al., 2021; Gracia et al., 2019; Lakshminarayanan et al., 2021; Perez-Vidal et al., 2019). These scenarios require precise force management to achieve the desired quality of work. Due to the safety concerns, force control and its variants, such as impedance control and admittance control, become increasingly significant in a collaborative system. Impedance control involves computing the robot’s resistance to motion when external forces are applied, while admittance (i.e., the inverse of the impedance) control focuses on adjusting the robot’s trajectory in response to external forces (Siciliano and Villani, 1999; Khan et al., 2014). Impedance/admittance control is commonly employed in cobotics for physical interactions among humans, cobots, and the environment (Aydin et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020c; Kim and Yang, 2021; Dou et al., 2022). Compliance (the opposite of stiffness), i.e., the ability to yield or adapt to external forces, can be achieved through (i) active compliance, and (ii) passive compliance. Active compliance is a software-based approach, allowing the robot to dynamically respond to external forces. Passive compliance, on the other hand, is designed into the robot’s mechanical structure, allowing it to naturally respond to external forces. Both approaches have been extensively investigated in the literature (Huang et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2021; Zhang SL. et al., 2021; Zeng F. et al., 2019).

The ability to vary stiffness is crucial in cobotics. High stiffness is employed for regular operational routines, while reduced stiffness can minor contact forces or even be a detector of collisions (Ayoubi et al., 2019; Ayoubi et al., 2020; Liu YW. et al., 2021). In addition, variable stiffness enables the cobot to perform diverse tasks (Ren et al., 2019a). Clearly enough, accuracy is a critical performance characteristic of a cobotic system, particularly in applications that demand precise positioning, manipulation, or sensing. Calibration is the process that guarantees the cobotic system achieves the desired accuracy. Research in this area focuses on improving metrology system and calibration techniques (Pagani et al., 2021; Yun HT. et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022; Pollák et al., 2020; Kolyubin et al., 2019).

In the literature, some concepts of novel architecture of cobots are explored, such as modular components between cobots, two armed cobot, or extra components to reduce inertia. For instance, the integration of two cobotic arms significantly enhances the potential of cobotics for industrial applications, allowing for tasks such as handling bulky and heavy objects (Liu LY. et al., 2021; Cherubini et al., 2019). In addition, as discussed above, one of the most significant advantages of cobots over traditional industrial robots is their adaptability to a wide range of tasks. However, achieving this flexibility requires more than just reprogramming; the hardware components also need to be reconfigured (Romiti et al., 2022; Smrcek et al., 2022; Schou and Madsen, 2017; Wojtynek et al., 2019).

4.6 Robot program generation

“Robot program generation” is how to generate the program for the cobot, by benefiting of the collaboration with humans. It is useful to enable a fast and easy-to-attain cobot task reconfiguration, even for inexperienced operators. Programming by demonstration develops a manual physical guiding of the cobot by its end-effector. System records waypoints, force inside joints or gripper. This method has been widely applied in the literature (Canfield et al., 2021; Ochoa and Cortesao, 2022; Wang et al., 2019a; Wang LK. et al., 2022; Wang LK. et al., 2023; Tadese et al., 2021; Svejda et al., 2022; Stenmark et al., 2018; Rozo et al., 2016; Müller et al., 2020; Iturrate et al., 2021; De Winter et al., 2019; Carfi et al., 2020; Al-Yacoub et al., 2021a; Ajaykumar et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Soares et al., 2021; El et al., 2022; Halim et al., 2022; Safeea and Neto, 2022). While “programming by demonstration” requires a lower level of knowledge from the operator, a cobot’s functionality is typically limited to replaying recorded actions. To overcome this limitation, teaching the cobot from visual input through demonstrations has been developed in the literature (De Coninck et al., 2020).

Skill-based programming reaches the same objective of quick and easy programming, enabling cobots to handle a wide range of tasks. In skill-based programming, robots follow a hierarchy that involves lower-level entities called “robot skills”. These skills represent specific actions that the robot is capable of executing. A task (e.g., removing a specific object from a table) is a sequence of the skills (e.g., pick up object) along with specified parameters (e.g., the object to pick up). Skills are pre-defined by the robotics programmer. The sequence of skills and their associated parameters, required to complete a task, is explicitly programmed by non-expert robot operators in the factory (Schou et al., 2018; Pedersen et al., 2016). Skill-based programming has gained the attention of several research studies (Giberti et al., 2022; Polverini et al., 2019; Herrero et al., 2017).

4.7 Bibliometric analysis of research topics

Each of the 532 retrieved papers was classified according to its main research objective. Figure 10 displays both the annual and cumulative number of publications for each research topic. The trends observed conclude that the exponential growth previously identified in Figure 2 is consistent across all research topics. It is evident that publications across all research topics have become more regular since 2016. Also, Table 7 provides the number of papers for each research topic, along with citation analysis and details on the most productive authors, institutions, countries, and leading journals. The most popular research topics are “safety in cobotics for industry” with 151 papers, followed by “deployment of cobots” with 141 papers and “performance of actuating systems” with 102 papers.

FIGURE 10

4.8 Advances for 2023 and 2024

Being aware that this paper presents an analysis of the scientific literature up to the end of 2022 in a fast-growing field, due to the constraints explained in Section 2.2, we present in this section some references, that give an idea of the trends in that domain for 2023 and 2024.

The International Federation of Robotics (IFR) (IFR, 2024) stated the top five global robotics trends in 2024: 1) AI and machine learning, 2) cobots in new applications, 3) mobile manipulators, 4) digital twins, and 5) humanoids. While trend 2 is about cobotics expanding in areas such as welding, trends 1, 3, and 4 can serve collaborative applications. Indeed, according to IFR, further cognitive collaboration with humans will be possible thanks to AI. Semeraro et al. (Semeraro et al., 2023) agree that machine learning has a great potential in HRI since it is a new way to develop cognitive models and behavioural blocks. IFR thinks that the possibility of mounting cobots onto mobile platforms generates new opportunities that will increase the demand for cobots. As shown in (Zafar et al., 2024), digital twins can serve collaborative applications by making them safer, through testing and optimizing the approach for HRI thanks to real-time data.

5 Conclusion and future research agenda

In cobot-related research, as the consulted scientific literature does not propose a comprehensive research agenda and lacks an extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the current state-of-the-art in cobotics, this paper has presented a scoping review and bibliometric analysis of the literature to investigate and reveal the development of cobotic research. Based on an analysis of 532 publications, retrieved from 2,195 records from the WoS database between 1996 and 2022, the study examined publication trends, leading journals, productive institutions, engaged countries, influential authors, and key topics. The study provides a macro-level guideline for cobotics researchers. The results demonstrate that, although the term “cobot” was first introduced in 1996 designating a passive manipulator, documented research activity in the field of industrial robots designed for collaboration with humans has become more regular from 2016 and has experienced exponential growth since then. The “Politecnico di Milano” is identified as the leading institution in terms of the number of publications, and the journal “Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing” is the primary source of publications. Professors Vidoni and Vanderborght are recognized as the most productive authors based on publication count. The contribution of countries was evaluated using two additional indices: the number of articles per capita and the number of articles per capita GDP. While Italy leads in total publications, Denmark has the highest proportion of its population engaged in cobotics research, and the PRC ranks first in terms of financial support for cobotics research. Furthermore, this paper provides a univocal categorization that includes deployment of cobots, safety in cobotics for industry, human-robot tasks allocation, human-robot interaction, performance of actuating systems, and robot program generation. This classification helps cobotic researchers in different fields understand research developments and trends, identify opportunities for collaboration, and select appropriate journals for publication. The most active research topic categories are, in order of importance: “safety in cobotics for industry”, “deployment of cobots”, and “performance of actuating systems.” In the latter, the “actuator, motion and trajectory control” sub-category was found to be the most popular among cobotic researchers.

Although this paper reviewed as many relevant papers as possible, the results are limited to documents indexed in the WoS database. Consequently, there may be other publications not indexed in this database, which could introduce inaccuracies in the results. Nonetheless, despite cobotics being a highly multidisciplinary research field, the co-authorship analysis reveals that there is still a limited international collaborative community actively engaged in cobotic research. Further research in the cobotics field could benefit from more international collaboration with multidisciplinary experts. Also, although the results showed that deploying cobots is one of the most prominent research topics in the field of cobotics, and cobot applications are rapidly increasing in industrial sectors such as assembly, packaging, and surface treatment, there remains significant potential for exploring other opportunities. Designing, and deploying cobots in new use cases can greatly advance the field of cobotics research. As clearly presented in this paper, there is an increase in research activity but not a diversification of research topics. It may be time to explore new research topics aligned with current industry challenges and societal needs: for example, social responsibility is not effectively addressed, which could be an important future research direction. Literature on cobots can also be reviewed and analyzed through emerging trends such as sustainability and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Therefore, conducting systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses on sustainability in cobots or the application of AI to cobots could be a promising avenue for future research.

References

• 1

  AbdallahM.ChenA.Campeau-LecoursA.GosselinC. (2022). How to reduce the impedance for pHRI: admittance control or underactuation?Mechatronics84, 102768. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2022.102768

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AbdelrahmanA. A.StrazdasD.KhalifaA.HintzJ.HempelT.Al-HamadiA. (2022). Multimodal engagement prediction in multiperson human-robot interaction. IEEE Access10, 61980–61991. 10.1109/access.2022.3182469

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  Abu Al-HaijaQ.Al-SarairehJ. (2022). Asymmetric identification model for human-robot contacts via supervised learning. Symmetry-Basel14 (3), 591. 10.3390/sym14030591

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AdriaensenA.BerxN.PintelonL.CostantinoF.Di GravioG.PatriarcaR. (2022). Interdependence Analysis in collaborative robot applications from a joint cognitive functional perspective. Int. J. Ind. Ergon.90, 103320. 10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AjaykumarG.StiberM.HuangC. M. (2021). Designing user-centric programming aids for kinesthetic teaching of collaborative robots. Robot. Auton. Syst.145, 103845. 10.1016/j.robot.2021.103845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AjoudaniA.ZanchettinA. M.IvaldiS.Albu-SchäfferA.KosugeK.KhatibO. (2018). Progress and prospects of the human–robot collaboration. Auton. Robot.42, 957–975. 10.1007/s10514-017-9677-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AlauddinM.KhanF.ImtiazS.AhmedS. (2018). A bibliometric review and analysis of data-driven fault detection and diagnosis methods for process systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.57 (32), 10719–10735. 10.1021/acs.iecr.8b00936

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  AleottiJ.BaldassarriA.BonfèM.CarricatoM.ChiaravalliD.Di LevaR.et al (2021). Toward future automatic warehouses: an autonomous depalletizing system based on mobile manipulation and 3D perception. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (13), 5959. 10.3390/app11135959

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  AlessioA.AlievK.AntonelliD. (2022). Multicriteria task classification in human-robot collaborative assembly through fuzzy inference. J. Intell. Manuf.35, 1909–1927. 10.1007/s10845-022-02062-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  AlhaddadA. Y.CabibihanJ. J.HayekA.BonariniA. (2019). A low-cost test rig for impact experiments on a dummy head. Hardwarex6, e00068. 10.1016/j.ohx.2019.e00068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  AlhajiB.PrillaM.RauschA. (2021). Trust dynamics and verbal assurances in human robot physical collaboration. Front. Artif. Intell.4, 703504. 10.3389/frai.2021.703504

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  AlievK.AntonelliD. (2021). Proposal of a monitoring system for collaborative robots to predict outages and to assess reliability factors exploiting machine learning. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (4), 1621. 10.3390/app11041621

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  AlmasarwahN.AbdelallE.SuerG. A.PaganJ.YouY. Q. (2022). Collaborative robots' assembly system in the manufacturing area, assembly system 4.0. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.122 (2), 1069–1081. 10.1007/s00170-022-09932-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  Alpízar-CambroneroA. (2020). 3D scanning and detection of objects for a subsequent manipulation by a collaborative robot. Tecno Marcha33, 128–140. 10.18845/tm.v33i7.5488

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  Alvarez-de-los-MozosE.Rentería-BilbaoA.Díaz-MartínF. (2020). WEEE recycling and circular economy assisted by collaborative robots. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (14), 4800. 10.3390/app10144800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  Al-YacoubA.FlanaganM.BuerkleA.BamberT.FerreiraP.HubbardE. M.et al (2021b). Data-Driven modelling of human-human Co-manipulation using force and muscle surface electromyogram activities. Electronics10 (13), 1509. 10.3390/electronics10131509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  Al-YacoubA.ZhaoY. C.EatonW.GohY. M.LohseN. (2021a). Improving human robot collaboration through Force/Torque based learning for object manipulation. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.69, 102111. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  AminF. M.RezayatiM.van de VennH. W.KarimpourH. (2020). A mixed-perception approach for safe human-robot collaboration in industrial automation. Sensors20 (21), 6347. 10.3390/s20216347

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  AminM. T.KhanF.AmyotteP. (2019). A bibliometric review of process safety and risk analysis. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.126, 366–381. 10.1016/j.psep.2019.04.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  AnderssonS. K. L.GranlundA.BruchJ.HedelindM. (2021). Experienced challenges when implementing collaborative robot applications in assembly operations. Int. J. Autom. Technol.15 (5), 678–688. 10.20965/ijat.2021.p0678

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  AndronasD.ArkouliZ.ZacharakiN.MichalosG.SardelisA.PapanikolopoulosG.et al (2022). On the perception and handling of deformable objects - a robotic cell for white goods industry. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.77, 102358. 10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102358

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  AngleraudA.SefatA. M.NetzevM.PietersR. (2021). Coordinating shared tasks in human-robot collaboration by commands. Front. Robot. AI8, 734548. 10.3389/frobt.2021.734548

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  AnsariR. J.GiordanoG.SjöbergJ.KarayiannidisY. (2020). Human grasp position estimation for human-robot cooperative object manipulation. Robot. Auton. Syst.131, 103600. 10.1016/j.robot.2020.103600

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  ANSI (2018). Technical report—industrial robots and robot systems—safety requirements—testing methods for power & force limited collaborative applications, document ANSI RIA TR r15.806-2018. American National Standards Institute.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  AntonelliD.BrunoG. (2019). Dynamic distribution of assembly tasks in a collaborative workcell of humans and robots. FME Trans.47 (4), 723–730. 10.5937/fmet1904723a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  AntonelliD.ZengQ. F.AlievK.LiuX. M. (2021). Robust assembly sequence generation in a human-robot collaborative workcell by reinforcement learning. FME Trans.49 (4), 851–858. 10.5937/fme2104851a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  AnwarM.Al KhawliT.HussainI.GanD. M.RendaF. (2019). Modeling and prototyping of a soft closed-chain modular gripper. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.46 (1), 135–145. 10.1108/ir-09-2018-0180

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  ArntzA.StrassmannC.VölkerS.EimlerS. C. (2022). Collaborating eye to eye: effects of workplace design on the perception of dominance of collaboration robots. Front. Robot. AI9, 999308. 10.3389/frobt.2022.999308

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  ArraisR.CostaC. M.RibeiroP.RochaL. F.SilvaM.VeigaG. (2021). On the development of a collaborative robotic system for industrial coating cells. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.115 (3), 853–871. 10.1007/s00170-020-06167-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  AskarpourM.LestingiL.LongoniS.IannacciN.RossiM.VicentiniF. (2021). Formally-based model-driven development of collaborative robotic applications. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.102 (3), 59. 10.1007/s10846-021-01386-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  AskarpourM.MandrioliD.RossiM.VicentiniF. (2019). Formal model of human erroneous behavior for safety analysis in collaborative robotics. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.57, 465–476. 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  AssociationR. I. (2012). ANSI/RIA R15. 06: 2012 Safety Requirements for industrial robots and robot systems. Ann Arbor.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  AvalleG.De PaceF.FornaroC.ManuriF.SannaA. (2019). An augmented reality system to support fault visualization in industrial robotic tasks. IEEE Access7, 132343–132359. 10.1109/access.2019.2940887

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  AydinY.SirintunaD.BasdoganC. (2021). Towards collaborative drilling with a cobot using admittance controller. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control.43 (8), 1760–1773. 10.1177/0142331220934643

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  AyoubiY.LaribiM. A.ArsicaultM.ZeghloulS. (2020). Safe pHRI via the variable stiffness safety-oriented mechanism (V2SOM): simulation and experimental validations. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (11), 3810. 10.3390/app10113810

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  AyoubiY.LaribiM. A.CourrègesF.ZeghloulS.ArsicaultM. (2018). Complete design methodology of biomimetic safety device for cobots' prismatic joints. Robot. Auton. Syst.102, 44–53. 10.1016/j.robot.2018.01.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  AyoubiY.LaribiM. A.ZeghloulS.ArsicaultM. (2019). V2SOM: a novel safety mechanism dedicated to a cobot's rotary joints. Robot8 (1), 18. 10.3390/robotics8010018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  AyvaciÖ.SzulczynskiP.KielczewskiM. (2022). Identifying dynamic parameters with a novel software design for the M-DOF collaborative robot. IEEE Access10, 24627–24637. 10.1109/access.2022.3151070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  BadiaS. B. I.SilvaP. A.BrancoD.PintoA.CarvalhoC.MenezesP.et al (2022). Virtual reality for safe testing and development in collaborative robotics: challenges and perspectives. Electronics11 (11), 1726. 10.3390/electronics11111726

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  BagheriE.De WinterJ.VanderborghtB. (2022). Transparent interaction based learning for human-robot collaboration. Front. Robot. AI9, 754955. 10.3389/frobt.2022.754955

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  BalattiP.FusaroF.VillaN.LamonE.AjoudaniA. (2020). A collaborative robotic approach to autonomous pallet jack transportation and positioning. IEEE Access8, 142191–142204. 10.1109/access.2020.3013382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  BarbosaG.LedebourC.De OliveiraA. T.RodriguesI. R.SadokD.KelnerJ.et al (2022). HOSA: an end-to-end safety system for human-robot interaction. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.105 (4), 95. 10.1007/s10846-022-01701-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  BauerA.WollherrD.BussM. (2008). Human–robot collaboration: a survey. Int. J. Humanoid Robot.5 (01), 47–66. 10.1142/s0219843608001303

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  BaumgartnerM.KoppT.KinkelS. (2022). Analysing factory workers' acceptance of collaborative robots: a web-based tool for company representatives. Electronics11 (1), 145. 10.3390/electronics11010145

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  BdiwiM.AlN. I.HalimJ.BauerS.EichlerP.IhlenfeldtS. (2022). Towards safety4.0: a novel approach for flexible human-robot-interaction based on safety-related dynamic finite-state machine with multilayer operation modes. Front. Robot. AI9, 1002226. 10.3389/frobt.2022.1002226

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  BednarczykM.OmranH.BayleB. (2022). EMG-based variable impedance control with passivity guarantees for collaborative robotics. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (2), 4307–4312. 10.1109/lra.2022.3149575

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  BehrensR.PliskeG.UmbreitM.PiatekS.WalcherF.ElkmannN. (2022). A statistical model to determine biomechanical limits for physically safe interactions with collaborative robots. Front. Robot. AI8, 667818. 10.3389/frobt.2021.667818

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  BenliE.SpidalieriR. L.MotaiY. (2019). Thermal multisensor fusion for collaborative robotics. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf.15 (7), 3784–3795. 10.1109/tii.2019.2908626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  BergerT.BonteT.SantinJ. J.SallezY. (2020). The concept of “safety bubble” for reconfigurable assembly systems. Manuf. Lett.24, 77–81. 10.1016/j.mfglet.2020.03.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  BerxN.AdriaensenA.DecréW.PintelonL. (2022b). Assessing system-wide safety readiness for successful human-robot collaboration adoption. Safety8 (3), 48. 10.3390/safety8030048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  BerxN.DecréW.MoragI.ChemwenoP.PintelonL. (2022a). Identification and classification of risk factors for human-robot collaboration from a system-wide perspective. Comput. Ind. Eng.163, 107827. 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107827

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  BhartiS.McGibneyA. (2022). CoRoL: a reliable framework for computation offloading in collaborative robots. IEEE Internet Things J.9 (19), 18195–18207. 10.1109/jiot.2022.3155587

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  BiZ. M.ChenB.XuL. D.WuC.MalottC.ChamberlinM.et al (2022). Security and safety assurance of collaborative manufacturing in industry 4.0. Enterp. Inf. Syst.16 (12). 10.1080/17517575.2021.2008512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  BiZ. M.LangS. Y. T.WangL. H. (2008). Improved control and simulation models of a tricycle collaborative robot. J. Intell. Manuf.19 (6), 715–722. 10.1007/s10845-008-0122-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  BiZ. M.LuoC. M.MiaoZ. H.ZhangB.ZhangW. J.WangL. H. (2021). Safety assurance mechanisms of collaborative robotic systems in manufacturing. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.67, 102022. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Bin IslamS. O.LughmaniW. A.QureshiW. S.KhalidA.MariscalM. A.Garcia-HerreroS. (2019). Exploiting visual cues for safe and flexible cyber-physical production systems. Adv. Mech. Eng.11 (12). 10.1177/1687814019897228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  BirglenL. (2019). Design of a partially-coupled self-adaptive robotic finger optimized for collaborative robots. Auton. Robot.43 (2), 523–538. 10.1007/s10514-018-9802-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  BlossR. (2016). Collaborative robots are rapidly providing major improvements in productivity, safety, programing ease, portability and cost while addressing many new applications. Ind. Robot. Int. J.43 (5), 463–468. 10.1108/ir-05-2016-0148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  BogatajD.BattiniD.CalzavaraM.PersonaA. (2019). The ageing workforce challenge: investments in collaborative robots or contribution to pension schemes, from the multi-echelon perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ.210, 97–106. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.12.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  BogueR. (2015). Sensors for robotic perception. Part one: human interaction and intentions. Ind. Robot. Int. J.42 (5), 386–391. 10.1108/ir-05-2015-0098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  BogueR. (2016a). Flexible and soft robotic grippers: the key to new markets? Ind Robot. Int. J.43 (3), 258–263. 10.1108/ir-01-2016-0027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  BogueR. (2016b). Europe continues to lead the way in the collaborative robot business. Int. J.43 (1), 6–11. 10.1108/ir-10-2015-0195

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  BogueR. (2017). Robots that interact with humans: a review of safety technologies and standards. Ind. Robot. Int. J.44 (4), 395–400. 10.1108/ir-04-2017-0070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  BogueR. (2022). The changing face of the automotive robotics industry. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.49 (3), 386–390. 10.1108/ir-01-2022-0022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  BorboniA.ElamvazuthiI.CusanoN. (2022). EEG-based empathic safe cobot. Machines.10 (8), 603. 10.3390/machines10080603

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  BorgesG. D.ReisA. M.NetoR. A.de MattosD. L.CardosoA.GoncalvesH.et al (2021). Decision-making framework for implementing safer human-robot collaboration workstations: system dynamics modeling. Safety7 (4), 75. 10.3390/safety7040075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Borregan-AlvaradoJ.Alvarez-MeazaI.Cilleruelo-CarrascoE.Rio-BelverR. M. (2024). Human–robot interaction: predicting research agenda by long short-term memory. PeerJ Comput. Sci.10, e2335. 10.7717/peerj-cs.2335

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  BortoliniM.FerrariE.GamberiM.PilatiF.FaccioM. (2017). Assembly system design in the Industry 4.0 era: a general framework. IFAC-Papersonline50 (1), 5700–5705. 10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  BoschettiG.BottinM.FaccioM.MintoR. (2021b). Multi-robot multi-operator collaborative assembly systems: a performance evaluation model. J. Intell. Manuf.32 (5), 1455–1470. 10.1007/s10845-020-01714-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  BoschettiG.FaccioM.MilaneseM.MintoR. (2021a). C-ALB (Collaborative Assembly Line Balancing): a new approach in cobot solutions. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.116 (9-10), 3027–3042. 10.1007/s00170-021-07565-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  BounouarM.BeareeR.SiadatA.BenchekrounT. H. (2022). On the role of human operators in the design process of cobotic systems. Cogn. Technol. Work24 (1), 57–73. 10.1007/s10111-021-00691-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  BoyE. S.BurdetE.TeoC. L.ColgateJ. E. (2007). Investigation of motion guidance with scooter cobot and collaborative learning. IEEE Trans. Robot.23 (2), 245–255. 10.1109/tro.2006.889488

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  BroumT.SimonM. (2020). Safety requirements related to collaborative robots in the czech republic. MM Sci. J.2020, 3852–3856. 10.17973/mmsj.2020_03_2019136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  BrunoG.AntonelliD. (2018). Dynamic task classification and assignment for the management of human-robot collaborative teams in workcells. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.98 (9-12), 2415–2427. 10.1007/s00170-018-2400-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  BuchholzB.PaquetV.PunnettL.LeeD.MoirS. (1996). PATH: a work sampling-based approach to ergonomic job analysis for construction and other non-repetitive work. Appl. Ergon.27 (3), 177–187. 10.1016/0003-6870(95)00078-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  BuerkleA.BamberT.LohseN.FerreiraP. (2021). Feasibility of detecting potential emergencies in symbiotic human-robot collaboration with a mobile EEG. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.72, 102179. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102179

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  CacaceJ.CaccavaleR.FinziA.GriecoR. (2023). Combining human guidance and structured task execution during physical human-robot collaboration. J. Intell. Manuf.34 (7), 3053–3067. 10.1007/s10845-022-01989-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  CaiM.LiangR. S.LuoX. G.LiuC. L. (2023). Task allocation strategies considering task matching and ergonomics in the human-robot collaborative hybrid assembly cell. Int. J. Prod. Res.61 (21), 7213–7232. 10.1080/00207543.2022.2147234

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  CallegariM.CarbonariL.CostaD.PalmieriG.PalpacelliM. C.PapettiA.et al (2022). Tools and methods for human robot collaboration: case studies at i-LABS. Machines10 (11), 997. 10.3390/machines10110997

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  CalvoR.GilP. (2022). Evaluation of collaborative robot sustainable integration in manufacturing assembly by using process time savings. Materials15 (2), 611. 10.3390/ma15020611

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  CanfieldS. L.OwensJ. S.ZuccaroS. G. (2021). Zero moment control for lead-through teach programming and process monitoring of a collaborative welding robot. J. Mech. Robot. Trans. ASME13 (3). 10.1115/1.4050102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  CardosoA.ColimA.BichoE.BragaA. C.MenozziM.ArezesP. (2021). Ergonomics and human factors as a requirement to implement safer collaborative robotic workstations: a literature review. Safety7 (4), 71. 10.3390/safety7040071

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  CarfiA.VillalobosJ.CoronadoE.BrunoB.MastrogiovanniF. (2020). Can human-inspired learning behaviour facilitate human-robot interaction?Int. J. Soc. Robot.12 (1), 173–186. 10.1007/s12369-019-00548-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  CarmichaelM. G.LiuD. K.WaldronK. J. (2017). A framework for singularity-robust manipulator control during physical human-robot interaction. Int. J. Robot. Res.36 (5-7), 861–876. 10.1177/0278364917698748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  CaruanaL.FrancalanzaE. (2021). Safety 4.0 for collaborative robotics in the factories of the future. FME Trans.49 (4), 842–850. 10.5937/fme2104842c

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  CasalinoA.ZanchettinA. M.PiroddiL.RoccoP. (2021). Optimal scheduling of human-robot collaborative assembly operations with time petri nets. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.18 (1), 70–84. 10.1109/tase.2019.2932150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Castano-CanoD.GrossardM.HubertA. (2022). Resonant sensors for multi-axis force and torque estimation in collaborative robotics. Mechatronics82, 102703. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2021.102703

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  CencenA.VerlindenJ. C.GeraedtsJ. M. P. (2018). Design methodology to improve human-robot coproduction in small- and medium-sized enterprises. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatronics23 (3), 1092–1102. 10.1109/tmech.2018.2839357

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  ChacónA.PonsaP.AnguloC. (2021). Cognitive interaction analysis in human-robot collaboration using an assembly task. Electronics10 (11), 1317. 10.3390/electronics10111317

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  ChanC. C.TsaiC. C. (2020). Collision-Free speed alteration strategy for human safety in human-robot coexistence environments. IEEE Access8, 80120–80133. 10.1109/access.2020.2988654

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  ChemwenoP.PintelonL.DecreW. (2020). Orienting safety assurance with outcomes of hazard analysis and risk assessment: a review of the ISO 15066 standard for collaborative robot systems. Saf. Sci.129, 104832. 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104832

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  ChenN.HuangN. J.RadwinR.LiJ. S. (2022). Analysis of assembly-time performance (ATP) in manufacturing operations with collaborative robots: a systems approach. Int. J. Prod. Res.60 (1), 277–296. 10.1080/00207543.2021.2000060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  ChenQ. L.HeydariB.MoghaddamM. (2021). Leveraging task modularity in reinforcement learning for adaptable industry 4.0 automation. J. Mech. Des.143 (7). 10.1115/1.4049531

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  ChenS. X.LuoM. Z.JiangG. W.AbdelazizO. (2018). Collaborative robot zero moment control for direct teaching based on self-measured gravity and friction. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.15 (6). 10.1177/1729881418808711

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  ChengC. A.MukadamM.IssacJ.BirchfieldS.FoxD.BootsB.et al (2021). RMPflow: a geometric framework for generation of multitask motion policies. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.18 (3), 968–987. 10.1109/tase.2021.3053422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  CheraghiM.Shahrabi-FarahaniM.Moussavi-NajarkolaS. A. (2019). Ergonomic risk factors evaluation of work-related musculoskeletal disorders by PATH and MMH in a construction industry. Iran. J. Health Saf. Environ.6 (1), 1175–1189.

  • Google Scholar

• 97

  CherubiniA.PassamaR.CrosnierA.LasnierA.FraisseP. (2016). Collaborative manufacturing with physical human-robot interaction. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.40, 1–13. 10.1016/j.rcim.2015.12.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  CherubiniA.PassamaR.NavarroB.SorourM.KhelloufiA.MazharO.et al (2019). A collaborative robot for the factory of the future: BAZAR. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.105 (9), 3643–3659. 10.1007/s00170-019-03806-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  ChiriattiG.CiccarelliM.ForliniM.FranchiniM.PalmieriG.PapettiA.et al (2022). Human-Centered design of a collaborative robotic system for the shoe-polishing process. Machines10 (11), 1082. 10.3390/machines10111082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  ChiriattiG.PalmieriG.ScocciaC.PalpacelliM. C.CallegariM. (2021). Adaptive obstacle avoidance for a class of collaborative robots. Machines9 (6), 113. 10.3390/machines9060113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  ChiuW.-T.HoY.-S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics73 (1), 3–17. 10.1007/s11192-005-1523-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  ChromjakovaF.TrentesauxD.KwartengM. A. (2021). Human and cobot cooperation ethics: the process management concept of the production workplace. J. Compet.13 (3), 21–38. 10.7441/joc.2021.03.02

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  ChuX.YanP.ZhangN.FengL.GuoK.LuC.et al (2021). A bibliometric analysis of overall and top 100 most-cited studies about robotic surgery versus open surgery. Surg. Innov.29 (2), 203–214. 10.1177/15533506211026411

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  ChuangY. J.ChangH.SunY. T.TsungT. T. (2022). Stick-slip in hand guidance of palletizing robot as collaborative robot. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.19 (5), 172988062211311. 10.1177/17298806221131138

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  CohenY.ShovalS.FaccioM.MintoR. (2022). Deploying cobots in collaborative systems: major considerations and productivity analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res.60 (6), 1815–1831. 10.1080/00207543.2020.1870758

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  ColgateJ. E.WannasuphoprasitW.PeshkinM. A. (1996). Cobots: robots for collaboration with human operators. ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition (American Society of Mechanical Engineers).

  • Google Scholar

• 107

  ColimA.FariaC.BragaA. C.SousaN.RochaL.CarneiroP.et al (2020). Towards an ergonomic assessment framework for industrial assembly workstations-A case study. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (9), 3048. 10.3390/app10093048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  ColimA.FariaC.CunhaJ.OliveiraJ.SousaN.RochaL. A. (2021c). Physical ergonomic improvement and safe design of an assembly workstation through collaborative robotics. Safety7 (1), 14. 10.3390/safety7010014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  ColimA.MorgadoR.CarneiroP.CostaN.FariaC.SousaN.et al (2021b). Lean manufacturing and ergonomics integration: defining productivity and wellbeing indicators in a human-robot workstation. Sustainability13 (4), 1931. 10.3390/su13041931

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  ColimA.PortugalR. M.Dinis-CarvalhoJ.SousaN. (2021a). An empirical study of the work conditions and productive performance after collaborative robotics implementation in a manufacturing assembly process. FME Trans.49 (4), 859–866. 10.5937/fme2104859C

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  ComariS.Di LevaR.CarricatoM.BadiniS.CarapiaA.CollepalumboG.et al (2022). Mobile cobots for autonomous raw-material feeding of automatic packaging machines. J. Manuf. Syst.64, 211–224. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.06.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  ContiC. J.VardeA. S.WangW. T. (2022). Human-robot collaboration with commonsense reasoning in smart manufacturing contexts. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.19 (3), 1784–1797. 10.1109/tase.2022.3159595

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  CornakM.ToelgyessyM.HubinskyP. (2022). Innovative collaborative method for interaction between a human operator and robotic manipulator using pointing gestures. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (1). 10.3390/app12010258

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  CostanzoM.De MariaG.LetteraG.NataleC. (2022). A multimodal approach to human safety in collaborative robotic workcells. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.19 (2), 1202–1216. 10.1109/tase.2020.3043286

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  CoupetéE.MoutardeF.ManitsarisS. (2019). Multi-users online recognition of technical gestures for natural human-robot collaboration in manufacturing. Auton. Robot.43 (6), 1309–1325. 10.1007/s10514-018-9704-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  CourregesF.LaribiM. A.ArsicaultM.AbsiJ.ZeghloulS. (2019). In vivo and in vitro comparative assessment of the log-linearized Hunt-Crossley model for impact-contact modeling in physical human-robot interactions. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I J. Syst. Control Eng.233 (10), 1376–1391. 10.1177/0959651819834750

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  CramerM.KellensK.DemeesterE. (2021). Probabilistic decision model for adaptive task planning in human-robot collaborative assembly based on designer and operator intents. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (4), 7325–7332. 10.1109/lra.2021.3095513

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  CuiZ. Y.RahmanM. A.HaiT.YaoL.DuP. X.YaseenZ. M. (2021). Need for developing a security robot-based risk management for emerging practices in the workplace using the Advanced Human-Robot Collaboration Model. Work A J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil.68 (3), 825–834. 10.3233/wor-203416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  CusanoN. (2023). Cobot and sobot: for a new ontology of collaborative and social robots. Found. Sci.28 (4), 1143–1155. 10.1007/s10699-022-09860-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  CzubenkoM.KowalczukZ. (2021). A simple neural network for collision detection of collaborative robots. Sensors21 (12), 4235. 10.3390/s21124235

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  DahlM.BengtssonK.FalkmanP. (2021). Application of the sequence planner control framework to an intelligent automation system with a focus on error handling. Machines9 (3), 59. 10.3390/machines9030059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  DahlM.ErosE.BengtssonK.FabianM.FalkmanP. (2022a). Sequence planner: a framework for control of intelligent automation systems. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (11), 5433. 10.3390/app12115433

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  DahlM.LarsenC.ErosE.BengtssonK.FabianM.FalkmanP. (2022b). Interactive formal specification for efficient preparation of intelligent automation systems. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol.38, 129–138. 10.1016/j.cirpj.2022.04.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  DarvishK.SimettiE.MastrogiovanniF.CasalinoG. (2021). A hierarchical architecture for human-robot cooperation processes. IEEE Trans. Robot.37 (2), 567–586. 10.1109/tro.2020.3033715

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  DarvishK.WanderlinghF.BrunoB.SimettiE.MastrogiovanniF.CasalinoG. (2018). Flexible human-robot cooperation models for assisted shop-floor tasks. Mechatronics51, 97–114. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  da SilvaE. R.SchouC.HjorthS.TryggvasonF.SorensenM. S. (2022). Plug & Produce robot assistants as shared resources: a simulation approach. J. Manuf. Syst.63, 107–117. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.03.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  De ConinckE.VerbelenT.Van MolleP.SimoensP.DhoedtB. (2020). Learning robots to grasp by demonstration. Robot. Auton. Syst.127, 103474. 10.1016/j.robot.2020.103474

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  DehioN.SmithJ.WigandD. L.MohammadiP.MistryM.SteilJ. J. (2022). Enabling impedance-based physical human-multi-robot collaboration: experiments with four torque-controlled manipulators. Int. J. Robot. Res.41 (1), 68–84. 10.1177/02783649211053650

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  De WinterJ.De BeirA.El MakriniI.van de PerreG.NowéA.VanderborghtB. (2019). Accelerating interactive reinforcement learning by human advice for an assembly task by a cobot. Robot8 (4), 104. 10.3390/robotics8040104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  DguvGSAI (2017). “‘DGUV-information—collaborative robot systems. Design of systems with ‘power and force limiting’ function,” in Fachbereich Holz und Metall (Germany: German Social Accident Insurance), 11–12.

  • Google Scholar

• 131

  DigoE.AntonelliM.CornagliottoV.PastorelliS.GastaldiL. (2020). Collection and analysis of human upper limbs motion features for collaborative robotic applications. Robot9 (2), 33. 10.3390/robotics9020033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  DmytriyevY.InseroF.CarnevaleM.GibertiH. (2022). Brain-Computer interface and hand-guiding control in a human-robot collaborative assembly task. Machines10 (8), 654. 10.3390/machines10080654

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  DongS. Q.PanX. A.WangH. G. (2022). An improved equivalent impact model of human thorax for human-robot collaboration. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl.6 (3), 426–436. 10.1007/s41315-021-00213-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  dos SantosM. C.PaláciosR. H. C.MendonçaM.FabriJ. A.GodoyW. F. (2022). A neural autonomous robotic manipulator with three degrees of freedom. Int. J. Intell. Syst.37 (9), 5597–5616. 10.1002/int.22803

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  DouS. X.XiaoJ. L.ZhaoW.YuanH.LiuH. T. (2022). A robot skill learning framework based on compliant movement primitives. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.104 (3), 53. 10.1007/s10846-022-01605-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  DouthwaiteJ. A.LesageB.GleirscherM.CalinescuR.AitkenJ. M.AlexanderR.et al (2021). A modular digital twinning framework for safety assurance of collaborative robotics. Front. Robot. AI8, 758099. 10.3389/frobt.2021.758099

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  D'SouzaF.CostaJ.PiresJ. N. (2020). Development of a solution for adding a collaborative robot to an industrial AGV. Ind Robot. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.47 (5), 723–735. 10.1108/IR-01-2020-0004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  DufourK.Ocampo-JimenezJ.SuleimanW. (2020). Visual-spatial attention as a comfort measure in human-robot collaborative tasks. Robot. Auton. Syst.133, 103626. 10.1016/j.robot.2020.103626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  DzedzickisA.Subaciute-ZemaitieneJ.SutinysE.Samukaite-BubnieneU.BucinskasV. (2022). Advanced applications of industrial robotics: new trends and possibilities. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (1). 10.3390/app12010135

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  EberleH.NasutoS. J.HayashiY. (2020). Synchronization-based control for a collaborative robot. R. Soc. Open Sci.7 (12), 201267. 10.1098/rsos.201267

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  EbrahimzadehA.ChowdhuryM.MaierM. (2019). Human-agent-robot task coordination in FiWi-based tactile Internet infrastructures using context- and self-awareness. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag.16 (3), 1127–1142. 10.1109/tnsm.2019.2922904

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  EimontaiteI.CameronD.RolphJ.MokaramS.AitkenJ. M.GwiltI.et al (2022). Dynamic graphical instructions result in improved attitudes and decreased task completion time in human-robot Co-working: an experimental manufacturing study. Sustainability14 (6), 3289. 10.3390/su14063289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  EimontaiteI.GwiltI.CameronD.AitkenJ. M.RolphJ.MokaramS.et al (2019). Language-free graphical signage improves human performance and reduces anxiety when working collaboratively with robots. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.100 (1-4), 55–73. 10.1007/s00170-018-2625-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  ElZ. S.WangY. Q.HuY. D.LiW. D. (2022). An improved approach of task-parameterized learning from demonstrations for cobots in dynamic manufacturing. J. Intell. Manuf.33 (5), 1503–1519. 10.1007/s10845-021-01743-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  ElZ. S.WangY. Q.LiW. D.PengY. Q. (2021). iTP-LfD: improved task parametrised learning from demonstration for adaptive path generation of cobot. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.69, 102109. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  El AswadF.DjogdomG. V. T.OtisM. J. D.AyenaJ. C.MezianeR. (2021). Image generation for 2D-CNN using time-series signal features from foot gesture applied to select cobot operating mode. Sensors21 (17), 5743. 10.3390/s21175743

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  Elguea-AguinacoI.Serrano-MuñozA.ChrysostomouD.Inziarte-HidalgoI.BoghS.Arana-ArexolaleibaN. (2022). Goal-conditioned reinforcement learning within a human-robot disassembly environment. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (22), 11610. 10.3390/app122211610

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  El MakriniI.MathijssenG.VerhaegenS.VerstratenT.VanderborghtB. (2022). A virtual element-based postural optimization method for improved ergonomics during human-robot collaboration. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.19 (3), 1772–1783. 10.1109/tase.2022.3147702

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  El MakriniI.MerckaertK.De WinterJ.LefeberD.VanderborghtB. (2019). Task allocation for improved ergonomics in human-robot collaborative assembly. Interact. Stud.20 (1), 102–133. 10.1075/is.18018.mak

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  El MakriniI.Rodriguez-GuerreroC.LefeberD.VanderborghtB. (2017). The variable boundary layer sliding mode control: a safe and performant control for compliant joint manipulators. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.2 (1), 1–92. 10.1109/lra.2016.2587059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  El ZaatariS.LiW. D.UsmanZ. (2021). Ring Gaussian mixture modelling and regression for collaborative robots. Robot. Auton. Syst.145, 103864. 10.1016/j.robot.2021.103864

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  El ZaatariS.MareiM.LiW. D.UsmanZ. (2019). Cobot programming for collaborative industrial tasks: an overview. Robot. Auton. Syst.116, 162–180. 10.1016/j.robot.2019.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  EyamA. T.MohammedW. M.LastraJ. L. M. (2021). Emotion-Driven analysis and control of human-robot interactions in collaborative applications. Sensors21 (14), 4626. 10.3390/s21144626

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  FaccioM.BottinM.RosatiG. (2019). Collaborative and traditional robotic assembly: a comparison model. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.102 (5-8), 1355–1372. 10.1007/s00170-018-03247-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  FaccioM.MintoR.RosatiG.BottinM. (2020). The influence of the product characteristics on human-robot collaboration: a model for the performance of collaborative robotic assembly. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.106 (5-6), 2317–2331. 10.1007/s00170-019-04670-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  FagerP.CalzavaraM.SgarbossaF. (2020). Modelling time efficiency of cobot-supported kit preparation. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.106 (5-6), 2227–2241. 10.1007/s00170-019-04679-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  FagerP.SgarbossaF.CalzavaraM. (2021). Cost modelling of onboard cobot-supported item sorting in a picking system. Int. J. Prod. Res.59 (11), 3269–3284. 10.1080/00207543.2020.1854484

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  FaibishT.KshirsagarA.HoffmanG.EdanY. (2022). Human preferences for robot eye gaze in human-to-robot handovers. Int. J. Soc. Robot.14 (4), 995–1012. 10.1007/s12369-021-00836-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  FarsoniS.FerragutiF.BonfèM. (2019). Safety-oriented robot payload identification using collision-free path planning and decoupling motions. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.59, 189–200. 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.04.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  FarsoniS.RizziJ.UfonduG. N.BonfèM. (2022). Planning collision-free robot motions in a human-robot shared workspace via mixed reality and sensor-fusion skeleton tracking. Electronics11 (15), 2407. 10.3390/electronics11152407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  FaulringE. L.ColgateJ. E.PeshkinM. A. (2006). The cobotic hand controller: design, control and performance of a novel haptic display. Int. J. Robot. Res.25 (11), 1099–1119. 10.1177/0278364906072094

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  FaulringE. L.LynchK. M.ColgateJ. E.PeshkinM. A. (2007). Haptic display of constrained dynamic systems via admittance displays. IEEE Trans. Robot.23 (1), 101–111. 10.1109/tro.2006.886837

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  FernándezJ. D.YuB. B.BargstenV.ZipperM.SprengelH. (2020). Design, modelling and control of novel series-elastic actuators for industrial robots. Actuators9 (1), 6. 10.3390/act9010006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  FerragutiF.BertulettiM.LandiC. T.BonfeM.FantuzziC.SecchiC. (2020). A control barrier function approach for maximizing performance while fulfilling to ISO/TS 15066 regulations. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.5 (4), 5921–5928. 10.1109/lra.2020.3010494

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  FerreiraC.FigueiraG.AmorimP. (2021). Scheduling Human-Robot Teams in collaborative working cells. Int. J. Prod. Econ.235, 108094. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108094

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  FischerH.VulliezM.LaguillaumieP.VulliezP.GazeauJ. P. (2019). RTRobMultiAxisControl: a framework for real-time multiaxis and multirobot control. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.16 (3), 1205–1217. 10.1109/tase.2018.2889813

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  FogliD.GargioniL.GuidaG.TampaliniF. (2022). A hybrid approach to user-oriented programming of collaborative robots. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.73, 102234. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102234

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  FournierÉ.KilgusD.LandryA.HmedanB.PellierD.FiorinoH.et al (2022). The impacts of human-cobot collaboration on perceived cognitive load and usability during an industrial task: an exploratory experiment. IISE Trans. Occup. Ergon. Hum. Factors10 (2), 83–90. 10.1080/24725838.2022.2072021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  Fraga-LamasP.BarrosD.LopesS. I.Fernández-CaramésT. M. (2022). Mist and edge computing cyber-physical human-centered systems for industry 5.0: a cost-effective IoT thermal imaging safety system. Sensors22 (21), 8500. 10.3390/s22218500

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  FuB.CaiG. W. (2022). Design and optimization of a joint torque sensor with small crosstalk error for robots. Meas. (. Mahwah. N. J).200, 111629. 10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111629

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  FuL.ZhaoJ. (2020). Maxwell model-based null space compliance control in the task-priority framework for redundant manipulators. IEEE Access8, 35892–35904. 10.1109/access.2020.2975125

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  GajsekB.StradovnikS.HaceA. (2020). Sustainable move towards flexible, robotic, human-involving workplace. Sustainability12 (16), 6590. 10.3390/su12166590

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  GallalaA.KumarA. A.HichriB.PlapperP. (2022). Digital twin for human-robot interactions by means of industry 4.0 enabling technologies. Sensors22 (13), 4950. 10.3390/s22134950

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  GandariasJ. M.WangY. J.StilliA.García-CerezoA. J.Gómez-de-GabrielJ. M.WurdemannH. A. (2020). Open-loop position control in collaborative, modular variable-stiffness-link (VSL) robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.5 (2), 1772–1779. 10.1109/lra.2020.2969943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  GaussL.LacerdaD. P.Cauchick-MiguelP. A.SellittoM. A. (2022). Market-driven modularity: an empirical application in the design of a family of autonomous mobile palletizers. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.123 (3-4), 1377–1400. 10.1007/s00170-022-10128-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  GeC. Y.WangZ. L.LiuZ.WuT. H.WangS.RenX. Y.et al (2022). A capacitive and piezoresistive hybrid sensor for long-distance proximity and wide-range force detection in human-robot collaboration. Adv. Intell. Syst.4 (3). 10.1002/aisy.202100213

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  GeigerM.WaldschmidtC. (2019). 160-GHz radar proximity sensor with distributed and flexible antennas for collaborative robots. IEEE Access7, 14977–14984. 10.1109/access.2019.2891909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  GervasiR.MastrogiaconnoL.FranceschiniF. (2020). A conceptual framework to evaluate human-robot collaboration. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.108 (3), 841–865. 10.1007/s00170-020-05363-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  GhadirzadehA.ChenX.YinW. J.YiZ. R.BjörkmanM.KragicD. (2021). Human-Centered collaborative robots with deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (2), 566–571. 10.1109/lra.2020.3047730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  GhidiniS.BeschiM.PedrocchiN. (2020). A robust linear control strategy to enhance damping of a series elastic actuator on a collaborative robot. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.98 (3-4), 627–641. 10.1007/s10846-019-01071-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  GibertiH.AbbattistaT.CarnevaleM.GiaguL.CristiniF. (2022). A methodology for flexible implementation of collaborative robots in smart manufacturing systems. Robot11 (1), 9. 10.3390/robotics11010009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  GideoniR.HonigS.Oron-GiladT. (2022). Is it personal? The impact of personally relevant robotic failures (PeRFs) on humans' trust, likeability, and willingness to use the robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot.16, 1049–1067. 10.1007/s12369-022-00912-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  GillespieR. B.ColgateJ. E.PeshkinM. A. (2001). A general framework for cobot control. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom.17 (4), 391–401. 10.1109/70.954752

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  Girbés-JuanV.SchettinoV.GraciaL.SolanesJ. E.DemirisY.TorneroJ. (2022). Combining haptics and inertial motion capture to enhance remote control of a dual-arm robot. J. Multimodal User Interfaces16 (2), 219–238. 10.1007/s12193-021-00386-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  GjeldumN.AljinovicA.ZizicM. C.MladineoM. (2022). Collaborative robot task allocation on an assembly line using the decision support system. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.35 (4-5), 510–526. 10.1080/0951192x.2021.1946856

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  GleirscherM.CalinescuR.DouthwaiteJ.LesageB.PatersonC.AitkenJ.et al (2022). Verified synthesis of optimal safety controllers for human-robot collaboration. Sci. Comput. Program218, 102809. 10.1016/j.scico.2022.102809

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  GraciaL.SolanesJ. E.Muñoz-BenaventP.MiroJ. V.Perez-VidalC.TorneroJ. (2018). Adaptive sliding mode control for robotic surface treatment using force feedback. Mechatronics52, 102–118. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.04.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  GraciaL.SolanesJ. E.Muñoz-BenaventP.MiroJ. V.Perez-VidalC.TorneroJ. (2019). Human-robot collaboration for surface treatment tasks. Interact. Stud.20 (1), 148–184. 10.1075/is.18010.gra?locatt=mode:legacy

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  GradolewskiD.MaslowskiD.DziakD.JachimezykB.MundlamuriS. T.PrakashC. G.et al (2020). A distributed computing real-time safety system of collaborative robot. Elektron. Elektrotech.26 (2), 4–14. 10.5755/j01.eie.26.2.25757

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  GrushkoS.VysockyA.SuderJ.GlogarL.BobovskyZ. (2021). Improving human awareness during collaboration with robot: review. MM Sci. J.2021, 5475–5480. 10.17973/mmsj.2021_12_2021181

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  GualtieriL.FraboniF.De MarchiM.RauchE. (2022a). Development and evaluation of design guidelines for cognitive ergonomics in human-robot collaborative assembly systems. Appl. Ergon.104, 103807. 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103807

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  GualtieriL.PalombaI.MeratiF. A.RauchE.VidoniR. (2020). Design of human-centered collaborative assembly workstations for the improvement of operators' physical ergonomics and production efficiency: a case study. Sustainability12 (9), 3606. 10.3390/su12093606

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  GualtieriL.RauchE.VidoniR. (2021a). Emerging research fields in safety and ergonomics in industrial collaborative robotics: a systematic literature review. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.67, 101998. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.101998

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  GualtieriL.RauchE.VidoniR. (2021b). Methodology for the definition of the optimal assembly cycle and calculation of the optimized assembly cycle time in human-robot collaborative assembly. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.113 (7-8), 2369–2384. 10.1007/s00170-021-06653-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  GualtieriL.RauchE.VidoniR. (2022b). Development and validation of guidelines for safety in human-robot collaborative assembly systems. Comput. Ind. Eng.163, 107801. 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107801

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  GudaV.MugishaS.ChevallereauC.ZoppiM.MolfinoR.ChablatD. (2022). Motion strategies for a cobot in a context of intermittent haptic interface. J. Mech. Robot. Trans. ASME.14 (4). 10.1115/1.4054509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  GuerraE.MunguiaR.BoleaY.GrauA. (2016). Human collaborative localization and mapping in indoor environments with non-continuous stereo. Sensors16 (3), 275. 10.3390/s16030275

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  GuidiS.MarchigianiE.RoncatoS.ParlangeliO. (2021). Human beings and robots: are there any differences in the attribution of punishments for the same crimes?Behav. Inf. Technol.40 (5), 445–453. 10.1080/0144929x.2021.1905879

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  HalimJ.EichlerP.KruscheS.BdiwiM.IhlenfeldtS. (2022). No-code robotic programming for agile production: a new markerless-approach for multimodal natural interaction in a human-robot collaboration context. Front. Robot. AI9, 1001955. 10.3389/frobt.2022.1001955

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  HannaA.LarssonS.GotvallP. L.BengtssonK. (2022). Deliberative safety for industrial intelligent human–robot collaboration: regulatory challenges and solutions for taking the next step towards industry 4.0. Comput. Integr. Manuf.78, 102386. 10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102386

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  HavardV.JeanneB.LacomblezM.BaudryD. (2019). Digital twin and virtual reality: a co-simulation environment for design and assessment of industrial workstations. Prod. Manuf. Res. Open Access J.7 (1), 472–489. 10.1080/21693277.2019.1660283

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  HayakawaS.WanW. W.KoyamaK.HaradaK. (2022). A dual-arm robot that autonomously lifts up and tumbles heavy plates using crane pulley blocks. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.19 (4), 3444–3458. 10.1109/tase.2021.3121586

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  HengW. Z.YangG.PangG. Y.YeZ. Q.LvH. H.DuJ.et al (2021). Fluid-Driven soft CoboSkin for safer human-robot collaboration: fabrication and adaptation. Adv. Intell. Syst.3 (3). 10.1002/aisy.202170030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  HentoutA.AouacheM.MaoudjA.AkliI. (2019). Human-robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: a literature review of the decade 2008-2017. Adv. Robot.33 (15-16), 764–799. 10.1080/01691864.2019.1636714

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  HeoY. J.KimD.LeeW.KimH.ParkJ.ChungW. K. (2019). Collision detection for industrial collaborative robots: a deep learning approach. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.4 (2), 740–746. 10.1109/lra.2019.2893400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  HerediaJ.SchletteC.KjaergaardM. B. (2021). Data-Driven energy estimation of individual instructions in user-defined robot programs for collaborative robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (4), 6836–6843. 10.1109/lra.2021.3094781

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  HerreroH.Abou MoughlbayA.OutónJ. L.SalléD.de IpiñaK. L. (2017). Skill based robot programming: assembly, vision and Workspace Monitoring skill interaction. Neurocomputing255, 61–70. 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.09.133

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  HignettS.McAtamneyL. (2000). Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl. Ergon.31 (2), 201–205. 10.1016/s0003-6870(99)00039-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  HoferD. P.StrohmeierF. (2019). Multilingual speech control for ROS-driven robots. Elektrotech. Inf. Tech.136 (7), 334–340. 10.1007/s00502-019-00739-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  HopkoS. K.KhuranaR.MehtaR. K.PagillaP. R. (2021). Effect of cognitive fatigue, operator sex, and robot assistance on task performance metrics, workload, and situation awareness in human-robot collaboration. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (2), 3049–3056. 10.1109/lra.2021.3062787

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  HopkoS. K.MehtaR. K. (2024). Trust in shared-space collaborative robots: shedding light on the human brain. Hum. Factors.66 (2), 490–509. 10.1177/00187208221109039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  HostettlerD.MayerS.HildebrandC. (2022). Human-like movements of industrial robots positively impact observer perception. Int. J. Soc. Robot.15, 1399–1417. 10.1007/s12369-022-00954-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  HuM. W.WangH. G.PanX. N. (2020a). Multi-objective global optimum design of collaborative robots. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.62 (3), 1547–1561. 10.1007/s00158-020-02563-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  HuM. W.WangH. G.PanX. N. (2020b). Optimal configuration selection for stiffness identification of 7-Dof collaborative robots. Intell. Serv. Robot.13 (3), 379–391. 10.1007/s11370-020-00322-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  HuM. W.WangH. G.PanX. N.TianY. (2019). Optimal synthesis of pose repeatability for collaborative robots based on the ISO 9283 standard. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.46 (6), 812–818. 10.1108/ir-03-2019-0056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  HuangJ.PhamD. T.LiR. Y.QuM.WangY. J.KerinM.et al (2021). An experimental human-robot collaborative disassembly cell. Comput. Ind. Eng.155, 107189. 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  HuangJ.PhamD. T.WangY. J.JiC. Q.XuW. J.LiuQ.et al (2019). A strategy for human-robot collaboration in taking products apart for remanufacture. FME Trans.47 (4), 731–738. 10.5937/fmet1904731h

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  HuangJ.PhamD. T.WangY. J.QuM.JiC. Q.SuS. Z.et al (2020). A case study in human-robot collaboration in the disassembly of press-fitted components. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf.234 (3), 654–664. 10.1177/0954405419883060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  HuangS. F.GaoM.LiuL.ChenJ. H.ZhangJ. W. (2022). Collision detection for cobots: a back-input compensation approach. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatronics.27 (6), 4951–4962. 10.1109/tmech.2022.3169084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  HusingE.WeidemannC.LorenzM.CorvesB.HüsingM. (2021). Determining robotic assistance for inclusive workplaces for people with disabilities. Robot10 (1), 44. 10.3390/robotics10010044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  IbáñezV. R.PujolF. A.OrtegaS. G.PerpiñánJ. M. S. (2021). Collaborative robotics in wire harnesses spot taping process. Comput. Ind.125, 103370. 10.1016/j.compind.2020.103370

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  IbargurenA.EimontaiteI.OutónJ. L.FletcherS. (2020). Dual arm Co-manipulation architecture with enhanced human-robot communication for large Part Manipulation. Sensors20 (21), 6151. 10.3390/s20216151

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  IFR. The trends & technologies driving the industry in 2024 (2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 224

  InoueS.UrataA.KodamaT.HuwerT.MaruyamaY.FujitaS.et al (2021). High-precision mobile robotic manipulator for reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Int. J. Autom. Technol.15 (5), 651–660. 10.20965/ijat.2021.p0651

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  IonescuT. B.SchlundS. (2022). Programming cobots by voice: a pragmatic, web-based approach. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.36, 86–109. 10.1080/0951192x.2022.2148754

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  IqbalZ.PozziM.PrattichizzoD.SalviettiG. (2021). Detachable robotic grippers for human-robot collaboration. Front. Robot. AI8, 644532. 10.3389/frobt.2021.644532

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  IslamS. O. B.LughmaniW. A. (2022). A connective framework for social collaborative robotic system. Machines10 (11), 1086. 10.3390/machines10111086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  ISO. ISO 10218-1: 2011 - robots and robotic devices — safety requirements for industrial robots —Part 1: robots (2011a).

  • Google Scholar

• 229

  ISO. ISO 10218-2: 2011 - robots and robotic devices — safety requirements for industrial robots — Part 2: robot systems and integration (2011b).

  • Google Scholar

• 230

  ISO (2016). ISO/TS 15066: 2016: robots and robotic devices–collaborative robots. Geneva, Switzerland.

  • Google Scholar

• 231

  ISO. ISO 10218-1:2025 - robotics — safety requirements — Part 1: industrial robots (2025a).

  • Google Scholar

• 232

  ISO. ISO 10218-2:2025 - robotics — safety requirements — Part 2: industrial robot applications and robot cells (2025b).

  • Google Scholar

• 233

  IturrateI.KrambergerA.SlothC. (2021). Quick setup of force-controlled industrial gluing tasks using learning from demonstration. Front. Robot. AI8, 767878. 10.3389/frobt.2021.767878

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  JavernikA.BuchmeisterB.OjstersekR. (2022). Impact of Cobot parameters on the worker productivity: optimization challenge. Adv. Prod. Eng. Manag.17 (4), 494–504. 10.14743/apem2022.4.451

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  JezierskiE.LuczakP.SmyczynskiP.ZarychtaD. (2019). Human-robot cooperation in sorting of randomly distributed objects. Arch. Control Sci.29 (4), 603–615. 10.24425/acs.2019.131228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  KanaS.LakshminarayananS.MohanD. M.CampoloD. (2021). Impedance controlled human-robot collaborative tooling for edge chamfering and polishing applications. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.72, 102199. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102199

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237

  KanazawaA.KinugawaJ.KosugeK. (2019). Adaptive motion planning for a collaborative robot based on prediction uncertainty to enhance human safety and work efficiency. IEEE Trans. Robot.35 (4), 817–832. 10.1109/tro.2019.2911800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  KarhuO.KansiP.KuorinkaI. (1977). Correcting working postures in industry: a practical method for analysis. Appl. Ergon.8 (4), 199–201. 10.1016/0003-6870(77)90164-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 239

  KhalidA.KirisciP.KhanZ. H.GhrairiZ.ThobenK. D.PannekJ. (2018). Security framework for industrial collaborative robotic cyber-physical systems. Comput. Ind.97, 132–145. 10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 240

  KhanS. G.HerrmannG.Al GrafiM.PipeT.MelhuishC. (2014). Compliance control and human–robot interaction: Part 1—survey. Int. J. Humanoid Robot.11 (03), 1430001. 10.1142/s0219843614300013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 241

  KianoushS.SavazziS.BeschiM.SiggS.RampaV. (2021). A multisensory edge-cloud platform for opportunistic radio sensing in cobot environments. IEEE Internet Things J.8 (2), 1154–1168. 10.1109/jiot.2020.3011809

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 242

  KimE.KirschnerR.YamadaY.OkamotoS. (2020). Estimating probability of human hand intrusion for speed and separation monitoring using interference theory. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.61, 101819. 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101819

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 243

  KimH.ChoiY. (2022). Lab scale model experiment of smart hopper system to remove blockages using machine vision and collaborative robot. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (2), 579. 10.3390/app12020579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 244

  KimH.YangW. (2021). Variable admittance control based on human-robot collaboration observer using frequency analysis for sensitive and safe interaction. Sensors21 (5), 1899. 10.3390/s21051899

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 245

  KimJ. (2022). Collision detection and reaction for a collaborative robot with sensorless admittance control. Mechatronics84, 102811. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2022.102811

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246

  KimW.PeternelL.LorenziniM.BabicJ.AjoudaniA. (2021). A human-robot collaboration framework for improving ergonomics during dexterous operation of power tools. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.68, 102084. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 247

  KimY. S.DagalakisN. G.MarvelJ.CheokG. (2022). Design and testing of wireless motion gauges for two collaborative robot arms. Meas. Sci. Rev.22 (2), 84–91. 10.2478/msr-2022-0011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248

  KinastA.BrauneR.DoernerK. F.Rinderle-MaS.WeckenborgC. (2022). A hybrid metaheuristic solution approach for the cobot assignment and job shop scheduling problem. J. Ind. Inf. Integr.28, 100350. 10.1016/j.jii.2022.100350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 249

  KolyubinS.ShiriaevA.JubienA. (2019). Consistent kinematics and dynamics calibration of lightweight redundant industrial manipulators. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.101 (1-4), 243–259. 10.1007/s00170-018-2868-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250

  KoppT.BaumgartnerM.KinkelS. (2021). Success factors for introducing industrial human-robot interaction in practice: an empirically driven framework. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.112 (3-4), 685–704. 10.1007/s00170-020-06398-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 251

  KoppT.BaumgartnerM.KinkelS. (2022). How linguistic framing affects factory workers' initial trust in collaborative robots: the interplay between anthropomorphism and technological replacement. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.158, 102730. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252

  KotT.BobovskyZ.BrandstötterM.KrysV.VirgalaI.NovakP. (2021). Finding optimal manipulator arm shapes to avoid collisions in a static environment. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (1). 10.3390/app11010064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 253

  KotT.WierbicaR.OscadalP.SpurnyT.BobovskyZ. (2022). Using elastic bands for collision avoidance in collaborative robotics. IEEE Access10, 106972–106987. 10.1109/access.2022.3212407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254

  KraemerM.RoesmannC.HoffmannF.BertramT. (2020). Model predictive control of a collaborative manipulator considering dynamic obstacles. Optim. Control Appl. Methods41 (4), 1211–1232. 10.1002/oca.2599

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 255

  KrämerM.BertramT. (2022). Improving local trajectory optimization by enhanced initialization and global guidance. IEEE Access10, 29633–29645. 10.1109/access.2022.3159233

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 256

  KrügerJ.BernhardtR.SurdilovicD.SpurG. (2006). Intelligent assist systems for flexible assembly. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol.55 (1), 29–32. 10.1016/s0007-8506(07)60359-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 257

  KshirsagarA.HoffmanG.BiessA. (2021). Evaluating guided policy search for human-robot handovers. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (2), 3933–3940. 10.1109/lra.2021.3067299

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 258

  KumarS.SavurC.SahinF. (2020). Survey of human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: awareness, intelligence, and compliance. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. Syst.51 (1), 280–297. 10.1109/tsmc.2020.3041231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 259

  KunicA.NaboniR.KrambergerA.SchletteC. (2021). Design and assembly automation of the robotic reversible timber beam. Autom. Constr.123, 103531. 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103531

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 260

  KwonW.JinY.LeeS. J. (2021). Uncertainty-aware knowledge distillation for collision identification of collaborative robots. Sensors21 (19), 6674. 10.3390/s21196674

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 261

  LakshminarayananS.KanaS.MohanD. M.ManyarO. M.ThenD.CampoloD. (2021). An adaptive framework for robotic polishing based on impedance control. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.112 (1-2), 401–417. 10.1007/s00170-020-06270-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 262

  LalibertéT.GosselinC. (2022). Low-impedance displacement sensors for intuitive physical human-robot interaction: motion guidance, design, and prototyping. IEEE Trans. Robot.38 (3), 1518–1530. 10.1109/tro.2021.3121610

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 263

  LambrechtsW.KlaverJ. S.KoudijzerL.SemeijnJ. (2021). Human factors influencing the implementation of cobots in high volume distribution centres. Logistics-Basel.5 (2), 32. 10.3390/logistics5020032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 264

  LanJ. Y.XieY. G.LiuG. J.CaoM. X. (2020). A multi-objective trajectory planning method for collaborative robot. Electronics9 (5), 859. 10.3390/electronics9050859

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 265

  LangloisK.Rodriguez-CiancaD.SerrienB.De WinterJ.VerstratenT.Rodriguez-GuerreroC.et al (2021). Investigating the effects of strapping pressure on human-robot interface dynamics using a soft robotic cuff. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics.3 (1), 146–155. 10.1109/tmrb.2020.3042255

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 266

  LasotaP. A.ShahJ. A. (2015). Analyzing the effects of human-aware motion planning on close-proximity human-robot collaboration. Hum. Factors.57 (1), 21–33. 10.1177/0018720814565188

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 267

  LeQ. D.KangH. J. (2022). Implementation of sensorless contact force estimation in collaborative robot based on adaptive third-order sliding mode observer. Syst. Sci. Control Eng.10 (1), 507–516. 10.1080/21642583.2022.2063201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 268

  LeeH.KimS. D.AminM. (2022). Control framework for collaborative robot using imitation learning-based teleoperation from human digital twin to robot digital twin. Mechatronics85, 102833. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2022.102833

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 269

  LeeH. S.LiauY. Y.KimS.RyuK. (2020). Model-based human robot collaboration system for small batch assembly with a virtual fence. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Green Technol.7 (3), 609–623. 10.1007/s40684-020-00214-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 270

  LeeS. D.AhnK. H.SongJ. B. (2019). Subspace projection-based collision detection for physical interaction tasks of collaborative robots. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.20 (7), 1119–1126. 10.1007/s12541-019-00130-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 271

  LeeS. D.SongJ. B. (2016). Sensorless collision detection based on friction model for a robot manipulator. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.17 (1), 11–17. 10.1007/s12541-016-0002-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 272

  LeeW. B.ParkH. C.AhnK. H.SongJ. B. (2018). Safe robot joint brake based on an elastic latch module. Mechatronics56, 67–72. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.10.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 273

  LemasurierG.BejeranoG.AlbaneseV.ParrilloJ.YancoH. A.AmersonN.et al (2021). Methods for expressing robot intent for human-robot collaboration in shared workspaces. ACM Trans. Hum. Robot. Interact.10 (4), 1–27. 10.1145/3472223

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 274

  LeonoriM.GandariasJ. M.AjoudaniA. (2022). MOCA-S: a sensitive mobile collaborative robotic assistant exploiting low-cost capacitive tactile cover and whole-body control. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (3), 7920–7927. 10.1109/lra.2022.3186053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 275

  LiH. Y.DharmawanA. G.ParanawithanaI.YangL. J.TanU. X. (2020c). A control scheme for physical human-robot interaction coupled with an environment of unknown stiffness. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.100 (1), 165–182. 10.1007/s10846-020-01176-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 276

  LiH. Y.YangL. J.TanU. X. (2020d). A control scheme for smooth transition in physical human-robot-environment between two modes: augmentation and autonomous. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.5 (4), 5803–5810. 10.1109/lra.2020.3010450

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 277

  LiR. Y.PhamD. T.HuangJ.TanY. G.QuM.WangY. J.et al (2020a). Unfastening of hexagonal headed screws by a collaborative robot. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.17 (3), 1455–1468. 10.1109/TASE.2019.2958712

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 278

  LiT. J.ZhangY.ZhouJ. X. (2019). Trajectory planning of high precision collaborative robots. CMES-Comput Model Eng. Sci.118 (3), 583–598. 10.31614/cmes.2018.04891

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 279

  LiT. J.ZhengK. W.LiuJ. Y.JiaX. H.FengJ. B. (2021c). Research on operation intention based on flexible tactile sensing handle. IEEE Access9, 12362–12373. 10.1109/access.2021.3050991

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 280

  LiW.HanY.WuJ. H.XiongZ. H. (2020b). Collision detection of robots based on a force/torque sensor at the bedplate. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatronics.25 (5), 2565–2573. 10.1109/tmech.2020.2995904

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 281

  LiW.HuY.ZhouY.PhamD. T. (2023). Safe human–robot collaboration for industrial settings: a survey. J. Intell. Manuf.35, 2235–2261. 10.1007/s10845-023-02159-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 282

  LiW.-S.YanQ.ChenW.-T.LiG.-Y.CongL. (2021a). Global research trends in robotic applications in spinal medicine: a systematic bibliometric analysis. World Neurosurg.155, e778–e785. 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.08.139

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 283

  LiZ. X.JanardhananM. N.TangQ. H. (2021b). Multi-objective migrating bird optimization algorithm for cost-oriented assembly line balancing problem with collaborative robots. Neural Comput. Appl.33 (14), 8575–8596. 10.1007/s00521-020-05610-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 284

  LiangC. D.WangL. M.YaoX. Y.LiuZ. W.GeM. F. (2019). Multi-target tracking of networked heterogeneous collaborative robots in task space. Nonlinear Dyn.97 (2), 1159–1173. 10.1007/s11071-019-05038-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 285

  LiauY. Y.RyuK. (2022a). Genetic algorithm-based task allocation in multiple modes of human-robot collaboration systems with two cobots. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.119 (11-12), 7291–7309. 10.1007/s00170-022-08670-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 286

  LiauY. Y.RyuK. (2022b). Application framework of collaborative robot to mold assembly processes. Ind. Eng. Manag. Syst.21 (4), 658–669. 10.7232/iems.2022.21.4.658

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 287

  LimaF.de CarvalhoC. N.AcardiM. B. S.dos SantosE. G.de MirandaG. B.MaiaR. F.et al (2019). Digital manufacturing tools in the simulation of collaborative robots: towards industry 4.0. Braz J. Oper. Prod. Manag.16 (2), 261–280. 10.14488/bjopm.2019.v16.n2.a8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 288

  LinsR. G.GivigiS. N.KurkaP. R. G. (2015). Vision-based measurement for localization of objects in 3-D for robotic applications. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.64 (11), 2950–2958. 10.1109/tim.2015.2440556

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 289

  LippiM.MarinoA. (2021). Human multi-robot safe interaction: a trajectory scaling approach based on safety assessment. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.29 (4), 1565–1580. 10.1109/tcst.2020.3009031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 290

  LiuB.FuW. P.WangW.GaoZ. Q.LiR.PengL. X.et al (2022b). Research on cobot action decision-making method based on intuitionistic fuzzy set and game theory. IEEE Access10, 103349–103363. 10.1109/access.2022.3205305

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 291

  LiuB.FuW. P.WangW.LiR.GaoZ. Q.PengL. X.et al (2022a). Cobot motion planning algorithm for ensuring human safety based on behavioral dynamics. Sensors22 (12), 4376. 10.3390/s22124376

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 292

  LiuD.CaoJ. W. (2022). Determinants of collaborative robots innovation adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises: an empirical study in China. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (19), 10085. 10.3390/app121910085

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 293

  LiuD.SonS. (2024). Trends and knowledge structure in collaborative robot research in the knowledge economy era: a bibliometric analysis. J Knowl Econ.

  • Google Scholar

• 294

  LiuH. Y.WangL. H. (2020). Remote human-robot collaboration: a cyber-physical system application for hazard manufacturing environment. J. Manuf. Syst.54, 24–34. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 295

  LiuL.GuoF.ZouZ. S.DuffyV. G. (2024a). Application, development and future opportunities of collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing: a literature review. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.40 (4), 915–932. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2041907

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 296

  LiuL.SchoenA. J.HenrichsC.LiJ. S.MutluB.RadwinR. G.et al (2024b). Human robot collaboration for enhancing work activities. Hum. Factors66 (1), 158–179. 10.1177/00187208221077722

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 297

  LiuL. Y.LiuQ. Y.SongY.PangB.YuanX. F.XuQ. Y. (2021b). A collaborative control method of dual-arm robots based on deep reinforcement learning. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (4), 1816. 10.3390/app11041816

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 298

  LiuY. W.CuiS. P.SunY. J. (2021a). Mechanical design and analysis of a novel variable stiffness actuator with symmetrical pivot adjustment. Front. Mech. Eng.16 (4), 711–725. 10.1007/s11465-021-0647-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 299

  LongJ. Y.LiangQ. K.SunW.WangY. N.ZhangD. (2021). Ultrathin three-Axis FBG wrist force sensor for collaborative robots. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.70, 1–15. 10.1109/tim.2021.3086898

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 300

  LongP.ChevallereauC.ChablatD.GirinA. (2018). An industrial security system for human-robot coexistence. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.45 (2), 220–226. 10.1108/ir-09-2017-0165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 301

  LongS. K.DangX. J.SunS. L.WangY. J.GuiM. Z. (2022). A novel sliding mode momentum observer for collaborative robot collision detection. Machines.10 (9), 818. 10.3390/machines10090818

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 302

  LongX.ChenJ.LiJ.LuoZ. (2024). The current status and global trends of clinical trials related to robotic surgery: a bibliometric and visualized study. J. Robot. Surg.18 (1), 193. 10.1007/s11701-024-01940-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 303

  LuL.XieZ.WangH.LiL.XuX. (2022a). Mental stress and safety awareness during human-robot collaboration-Review. Appl. Ergon.105, 103832. 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103832

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 304

  LuS. N.XuZ. D.WangB. R. (2022b). Human-robot collision detection based on the improved camshift algorithm and bounding box. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst.20 (10), 3347–3360. 10.1007/s12555-021-0280-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 305

  LucciN.LacevicB.ZanchettinA. M.RoccoP. (2020). Combining speed and separation monitoring with power and force limiting for safe collaborative robotics applications. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.5 (4), 6121–6128. 10.1109/lra.2020.3010211

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 306

  LvZ. H.QiaoL. (2020). Deep belief network and linear perceptron based cognitive computing for collaborative robots. Appl. Soft Comput.92, 106300. 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106300

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 307

  MaL. J.DongL. L.HanY.YanJ.ZhouJ. M. (2020). A method of sensorless collision detection based on motor current for robot manipulator. Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mech.64 (1-4), 237–244. 10.3233/jae-209327

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 308

  MadsenE.RosenlundO. S.BrandtD.ZhangX. P. (2020). Comprehensive modeling and identification of nonlinear joint dynamics for collaborative industrial robot manipulators. Control Eng. Pract.101, 104462. 10.1016/j.conengprac.2020.104462

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 309

  MagyarB.TsiogkasN.BritoB.PatelM.LaneD.WangS. (2019). Guided stochastic optimization for motion planning. Front. Robot. AI6, 105. 10.3389/frobt.2019.00105

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 310

  MaithaniH.RamonJ. A. C.LequievreL.MezouarY.AlricM. (2021). Exoscarne: assistive strategies for an industrial meat cutting system based on physical human-robot interaction. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (9), 3907. 10.3390/app11093907

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 311

  MalikA. A.BilbergA. (2019a). Developing a reference model for human-robot interaction. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf.13 (4), 1541–1547. 10.1007/s12008-019-00591-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 312

  MalikA. A.BilbergA. (2019b). Complexity-based task allocation in human-robot collaborative assembly. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.46 (4), 471–480. 10.1108/ir-11-2018-0231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 313

  MalikA. A.BremA. (2021). Digital twins for collaborative robots: a case study in human-robot interaction. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.68, 102092. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 314

  MalikA. A.MasoodT.BilbergA. (2020). Virtual reality in manufacturing: immersive and collaborative artificial-reality in design of human-robot workspace. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.33 (1), 22–37. 10.1080/0951192x.2019.1690685

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 315

  MalikA. A.MasoodT.KousarR. (2021). Reconfiguring and ramping-up ventilator production in the face of COVID-19: can robots help?J. Manuf. Syst.60, 864–875. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.09.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 316

  MangatA. S.ManglerJ.Rinderle-MaS. (2021). Interactive Process Automation based on lightweight object detection in manufacturing processes. Comput. Ind.130, 103482. 10.1016/j.compind.2021.103482

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 317

  MarturiN.KopickiM.RastegarpanahA.RajasekaranV.AdjigbleM.StolkinR.et al (2019). Dynamic grasp and trajectory planning for moving objects. Auton. Robot.43 (5), 1241–1256. 10.1007/s10514-018-9799-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 318

  MarvelJ. A.FalcoJ.MarstioI. (2015). Characterizing task-based human-robot collaboration safety in manufacturing. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. Syst.45 (2), 260–275. 10.1109/tsmc.2014.2337275

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 319

  MarvelJ. A.NorcrossR. (2017). Implementing speed and separation monitoring in collaborative robot workcells. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.44, 144–155. 10.1016/j.rcim.2016.08.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 320

  MateusJ. C.ClaeysD.LimèreV.CottynJ.AghezzafE. (2019). A structured methodology for the design of a human-robot collaborative assembly workplace. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.102 (5-8), 2663–2681. 10.1007/s00170-019-03356-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 321

  MateusJ. C.ClaeysD.LimèreV.CottynJ.AghezzafE. (2020). Base part centered assembly task precedence generation. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.107 (1-2), 607–616. 10.1007/s00170-019-04864-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 322

  MathesonE.MintoR.ZampieriE. G. G.FaccioM.RosatiG. (2019). Human-robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: a review. Robot8 (4), 100. 10.3390/robotics8040100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 323

  MathewR.McGeeR.RocheK.WarrethS.PapakostasN. (2022). Introducing mobile collaborative robots into bioprocessing environments: personalised drug manufacturing and environmental monitoring. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (21), 10895. 10.3390/app122110895

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 324

  MauriceP.MalaiséA.AmiotC.ParisN.RichardG.RochelO.et al (2019). Human movement and ergonomics: an industry-oriented dataset for collaborative robotics. Int. J. Robot. Res.38 (14), 1529–1537. 10.1177/0278364919882089

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 325

  MauriceP.PadoisV.MeassonY.BidaudP. (2017). Human-oriented design of collaborative robots. Int. J. Ind. Ergon.57, 88–102. 10.1016/j.ergon.2016.11.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 326

  MaurtuaI.FernándezI.TellaecheA.KildalJ.SusperregiL.IbargurenA.et al (2017b). Natural multimodal communication for human-robot collaboration. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.14 (4), 172988141771604. 10.1177/1729881417716043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 327

  MaurtuaI.IbargurenA.KildalJ.SusperregiL.SierraB. (2017a). Human-robot collaboration in industrial applications: safety, interaction and trust. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.14 (4), 172988141771601. 10.1177/1729881417716010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 328

  MayerA.MüllerD.RaischA.SawodnyO. (2020). Model-predictive reference trajectory planning for redundant pneumatic collaborative robots. AT-Automatisierungstech68 (5), 360–374. 10.1515/auto-2019-0127

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 329

  MayyasM.VadlamudiS. P.SyedM. A. (2020). Fenceless obstacle avoidance method for efficient and safe human-robot collaboration in a shared work space. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.17 (5). 10.1177/1729881420959018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 330

  MazharO.NavarroB.RamdaniS.PassamaR.CherubiniA. (2019). A real-time human-robot interaction framework with robust background invariant hand gesture detection. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.60, 34–48. 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.05.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 331

  McAtamneyL.CorlettE. N. (1993). RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl. Ergon.24 (2), 91–99. 10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-s

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 332

  MeissnerA.TrübswetterA.Conti-KufnerA. S.SchmidtlerJ. (2020). Friend or foe? Understanding assembly workers' acceptance of human-robot collaboration. ACM Trans. Hum. Robot. Interact.10 (1), 1–30. 10.1145/3399433

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 333

  MelchiorreM.ScimmiL. S.MauroS.PastorelliS. P. (2021). Vision-based control architecture for human-robot hand-over applications. Asian J. Control23 (1), 105–117. 10.1002/asjc.2480

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 334

  MendesN. (2022). Surface electromyography signal recognition based on deep learning for human-robot interaction and collaboration. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.105 (2), 42. 10.1007/s10846-022-01666-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 335

  Mendoza-TrejoO.Cruz-VillarC. A. (2016). Modelling and experimental validation of a planar 2-dof cobot as a differential-algebraic equation system. Appl. Math. Model40 (21-22), 9327–9341. 10.1016/j.apm.2016.06.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 336

  Mendoza-TrejoO.Padilla-GarciaE. A.Cruz-VillarC. A.Rodríguez-AngelesA. (2019). Free kinematic singularity controller for a planetary gear based cobot. Int. J. Soc. Robot.11 (2), 211–218. 10.1007/s12369-018-0486-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 337

  Merchán-CruzE. A.MorrisA. S. (2006). Fuzzy-GA-based trajectory planner for robot manipulators sharing a common workspace. IEEE Trans. Robot.22 (4), 613–624. 10.1109/tro.2006.878789

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 338

  MerckaertK.De BeirA.AdriaensN.El MakriniI.Van HamR.VanderborghtB. (2018). Independent load carrying and measurement manipulator robot arm for improved payload to mass ratio. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.53, 135–140. 10.1016/j.rcim.2018.04.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 339

  MesseriC.BicchiA.ZanchettinA. M.RoccoP. (2022). A dynamic task allocation strategy to mitigate the human physical fatigue in collaborative robotics. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (2), 2178–2185. 10.1109/lra.2022.3143520

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 340

  MinJ. K.AhnK. H.ParkH. C.SongJ. B. (2019). A novel reactive-type joint torque sensor with high torsional stiffness for robot applications. Mechatronics63, 102265. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2019.102265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 341

  MinJ. K.SongJ. B. (2020). Sensor block type joint torque sensor insensitive to crosstalk error. IEEE Sens. J.20 (7), 3469–3475. 10.1109/jsen.2019.2959842

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 342

  MitreaD.TamasL. (2018). Manufacturing execution system specific data analysis-use case with a cobot. IEEE Access6, 50245–50259. 10.1109/access.2018.2869346

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 343

  MiyakeY.KondoY. (2022). A study on new machining method applied to a collaborative robot for drilling. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.78, 102409. 10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102409

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 344

  MontiniE.DanieleF.AgbomemewaL.ConfalonieriM.CutronaV.BettoniA.et al (2024). Collaborative robotics: a survey from literature and practitioners perspectives. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.110 (3), 117. 10.1007/s10846-024-02141-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 345

  MooreC. A.PeshkinM. A.ColgateJ. E. (2003). Cobot implementation of virtual paths and 3-D virtual surfaces. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom.19 (2), 347–351. 10.1109/tra.2003.808866

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 346

  MudhivarthiB. R.ThakurP. (2022). Integration of artificial intelligence in robotic vehicles: a bibliometric analysis;13(1):110–120. 10.1515/pjbr-2022-0102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 347

  MukherjeeD.GuptaK.ChangL. H.NajjaranH. (2022). A survey of robot learning strategies for human-robot collaboration in industrial settings. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.73, 102231. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 348

  MüllerD.VeilC.SeidelM.SawodnyO. (2020). One-Shot kinesthetic programming by demonstration for soft collaborative robots. Mechatronics70, 102418. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2020.102418

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 349

  MuraM. D.DiniG. (2019). Designing assembly lines with humans and collaborative robots: a genetic approach. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol.68 (1), 1–4. 10.1016/j.cirp.2019.04.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 350

  MuraM. D.DiniG. (2022). Job rotation and human-robot collaboration for enhancing ergonomics in assembly lines by a genetic algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.118 (9-10), 2901–2914. 10.1007/s00170-021-08068-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 351

  MuraliP. K.DarvishK.MastrogiovanniF. (2020). Deployment and evaluation of a flexible human-robot collaboration model based on AND/OR graphs in a manufacturing environment. Intell. Serv. Robot.13 (4), 439–457. 10.1007/s11370-020-00332-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 352

  NadeauN. A.BonevI. A.JoubairA. (2019). Impedance control self-calibration of a collaborative robot using kinematic coupling. Robot8 (2), 33. 10.3390/robotics8020033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 353

  NajmaeiN.LeleS.KermaniM.SobotR. (2010). “Human factors for robot safety assessment,” 2010 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics (IEEE).

  • Google Scholar

• 354

  NascimentoH.MujicaM.BenoussaadM. (2021). Collision avoidance interaction between human and a hidden robot based on kinect and robot data fusion. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (1), 88–94. 10.1109/lra.2020.3032104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 355

  Navas-ReascosG. E.RomeroD.RodriguezC. A.GuedeaF.StahreJ. (2022). Wire harness assembly process supported by a collaborative robot: a case study focus on ergonomics. Robot11 (6), 131. 10.3390/robotics11060131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 356

  NetoP.SimaoM.MendesN.SafeeaM. (2019). Gesture-based human-robot interaction for human assistance in manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.101 (1-4), 119–135. 10.1007/s00170-018-2788-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 357

  NguyenT. D.KimT.NohJ.PhungH.KangG.ChoiH. R. (2021). Skin-Type proximity sensor by using the change of electromagnetic field. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron68 (3), 2379–2388. 10.1109/tie.2020.2975503

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 358

  NguyenV.CaseJ. (2022). Compensation of electrical current drift in human-robot collision. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.123 (7-8), 2783–2791. 10.1007/s00170-022-10369-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 359

  NguyenV.MarvelJ. A. (2022). Modeling of industrial robot kinematics using a hybrid analytical and statistical approach. J. Mech. Robot. Trans. ASME.14 (5). 10.1115/1.4053734

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 360

  NourmohammadiA.FathiM.NgA. H. C. (2022). Balancing and scheduling assembly lines with human-robot collaboration tasks. Comput. Oper. Res.140, 105674. 10.1016/j.cor.2021.105674

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 361

  OchoaH.CortesaoR. (2022). Impedance control architecture for robotic-assisted mold polishing based on human demonstration. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron69 (4), 3822–3830. 10.1109/tie.2021.3073310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 362

  OgenyiU. E.LiuJ. G.YangC. G.JuZ. J.LiuH. H. (2021). Physical human-robot collaboration: robotic systems, learning methods, collaborative strategies, sensors, and actuators. IEEE Trans. Cybern.51 (4), 1888–1901. 10.1109/tcyb.2019.2947532

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 363

  OjstersekR.JavernikA.BuchmeisterB. (2022). Importance of sustainable collaborative workplaces - simulation modelling approach. Int. J. Simul. Model21 (4), 627–638. 10.2507/ijsimm21-4-623

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 364

  OliffH.LiuY.KumarM.WilliamsM. (2020). Improving human-robot interaction utilizing learning and intelligence: a human factors-based approach. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.17 (3), 1–14. 10.1109/tase.2020.2967093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 365

  Olivares-AlarcosA.FoixS.AlenyàG. (2019). On inferring intentions in shared tasks for industrial collaborative robots. Electronics8 (11), 1306. 10.3390/electronics8111306

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 366

  Olivares-AlarcosA.FoixS.BorgoS.AlenyàG. (2022). OCRA - an ontology for collaborative robotics and adaptation. Comput. Ind.138, 103627. 10.1016/j.compind.2022.103627

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 367

  O'NeillJ.LuJ.DockterR.KowalewskiT. (2018). Stretchable, flexible, scalable smart skin sensors for robotic position and force estimation. Sensors18 (4), 953. 10.3390/s18040953

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 368

  OnnaschL.KostadinovaE.SchweidlerP. (2022). Humans can't resist robot eyes - reflexive cueing with pseudo-social stimuli. Front. Robot. AI9, 848295. 10.3389/frobt.2022.848295

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 369

  OSHA. OSHA technical manual - industrial robot systems and industrial robot system safety (section IV of chapter 4). Occupational safety and health administration (OSHA) (2017).

  • Google Scholar

• 370

  O'SheaN.KennedyD.TobinJ. T.FenelonM. A. (2021). Reconstituting infant formula powder using a collaborative robot ?CoBoT? to mimic human biomechanical movements. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol.67, 102562. 10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102562

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 371

  OstaninM.YagfarovR.DevittD.AkhmetzyanovA.KlimchikA. (2021). Multi robots interactive control using mixed reality. Int. J. Prod. Res.59 (23), 7126–7138. 10.1080/00207543.2020.1834640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 372

  OstynF.VanderborghtB.CrevecoeurG. (2022). Overload clutch with integrated torque sensing and decoupling detection for collision tolerant hybrid high-speed industrial cobots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (4), 12601–12607. 10.1109/lra.2022.3220527

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 373

  PaganiR.NuzziC.GhidelliM.BorboniA.LanciniM.LegnaniG. (2021). Cobot user frame calibration: evaluation and comparison between positioning repeatability performances achieved by traditional and vision-based methods. Robot10 (1), 45. 10.3390/robotics10010045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 374

  PaligaM. (2022). Human–cobot interaction fluency and cobot operators’ job performance. The mediating role of work engagement: a survey. Robot. Auton. Syst.155, 104191. 10.1016/j.robot.2022.104191

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 375

  PalleschiA.HamadM.AbdolshahS.GarabiniM.HaddadinS.PallottinoL. (2021). Fast and safe trajectory planning: solving the cobot performance/safety trade-off in human-robot shared environments. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (3), 5445–5452. 10.1109/lra.2021.3076968

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 376

  PalmieriG.ScocciaC. (2021). Motion planning and control of redundant manipulators for dynamical obstacle avoidance. Machines9 (6), 121. 10.3390/machines9060121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 377

  PalombaI.GualtieriL.RojasR.RauchE.VidoniR.GhedinA. (2021). Mechatronic Re-design of a manual assembly workstation into a collaborative one for wire harness assemblies. Robot10 (1), 43. 10.3390/robotics10010043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 378

  PangG. Y.DengJ.WangF. J. H.ZhangJ. H.PangZ. B.YangG. (2018). Development of flexible robot skin for safe and natural human-robot collaboration. Micromachines9 (11), 576. 10.3390/mi9110576

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 379

  PangG. Y.YangG.HengW. Z.YeZ. Q.HuangX. Y.YangH. Y.et al (2021). CoboSkin: soft robot skin with variable stiffness for safer human-robot collaboration. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron68 (4), 3303–3314. 10.1109/tie.2020.2978728

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 380

  PantanoM.PavlovskyiY.SchulenburgE.TraganosK.AhmadiS.RegulinD.et al (2022). Novel approach using risk analysis component to continuously update collaborative robotics applications in the smart, connected factory model. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (11), 5639. 10.3390/app12115639

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 381

  PapanagiotouD.SenteriG.ManitsarisS. (2021). Egocentric gesture recognition using 3D convolutional neural networks for the spatiotemporal adaptation of collaborative robots. Front. Neurorobot15, 703545. 10.3389/fnbot.2021.703545

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 382

  PapettiA.CiccarelliM.ScocciaC.PalmieriG.GermaniM. (2023). A human-oriented design process for collaborative robotics. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.36 (12), 1760–1782. 10.1080/0951192x.2022.2128222

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 383

  ParkK. M.KimJ.ParkJ.ParkF. C. (2021a). Learning-based real-time detection of robot collisions without joint torque sensors. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (1), 103–110. 10.1109/lra.2020.3033269

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 384

  ParkK. M.ParkY.YoonS.ParkF. C. (2022). Collision detection for robot manipulators using unsupervised anomaly detection algorithms. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatronics.27 (5), 2841–2851. 10.1109/tmech.2021.3119057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 385

  ParkM. Y.ChoiJ. S.KimK. S.RhimS.ParkH. J.ShinM. K. (2019). Identification of a closed cutaneous injury after mechanical trauma caused by collision. Skin. Res. Technol.25 (4), 440–446. 10.1111/srt.12670

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 386

  ParkY. S.YooD. Y.LeeJ. W. (2021b). Programmable motion-fault detection for a collaborative robot. IEEE Access9, 133123–133142. 10.1109/access.2021.3114505

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 387

  PatilS.VasuV.SrinadhK. V. S. (2023). Advances and perspectives in collaborative robotics: a review of key technologies and emerging trends. Discov. Mech. Eng.2 (1), 13. 10.1007/s44245-023-00021-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 388

  PaulikováA.UbirovaBabel'ováZ. G. M.UbárováM. (2021). Analysis of the impact of human-cobot collaborative manufacturing implementation on the occupational health and safety and the quality requirements. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18 (4), 1927. 10.3390/ijerph18041927

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 389

  PearceM.MutluB.ShahJ.RadwinR. (2018). Optimizing makespan and ergonomics in integrating collaborative robots into manufacturing processes. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.15 (4), 1772–1784. 10.1109/tase.2018.2789820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 390

  PedersenM. R.NalpantidisL.AndersenR. S.SchouC.BøghS.KrügerV.et al (2016). Robot skills for manufacturing: from concept to industrial deployment. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.37, 282–291. 10.1016/j.rcim.2015.04.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 391

  PérezL.Rodríguez-JiménezS.RodríguezN.UsamentiagaR.GarcíaD. F. (2020). Digital twin and virtual reality based methodology for multi-robot manufacturing cell commissioning. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (10), 3633. 10.3390/app10103633

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 392

  Pérez-UbedaR.Zotovic-StanisicR.GutiérrezS. C. (2020). Force control improvement in collaborative robots through theory analysis and experimental endorsement. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (12), 4329. 10.3390/app10124329

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 393

  Perez-VidalC.GraciaL.de PacoJ. M.WirkusM.AzorinJ. M.de GeaJ. (2018). Automation of product packaging for industrial applications. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.31 (2), 129–137. 10.1080/0951192x.2017.1369165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 394

  Perez-VidalC.GraciaL.Sanchez-CaballeroS.SolanesJ. E.SacconA.TorneroJ. (2019). Design of a polishing tool for collaborative robotics using minimum viable product approach. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.32 (9), 848–857. 10.1080/0951192x.2019.1637026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 395

  PeshkinM.ColgateJ. E. (1999). Cobots. Ind. Robot.26 (5), 335–341. 10.1108/01439919910283722

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 396

  PeshkinM. A.ColgateJ. E.WannasuphoprasitW.MooreC. A.GillespieR. B.AkellaP. (2001). Cobot architecture. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom.17 (4), 377–390. 10.1109/70.954751

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 397

  PetzoldtC.NiermannD.MaackE.SontopskiM.VurB.FreitagM. (2022). Implementation and evaluation of dynamic task allocation for human-robot collaboration in assembly. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (24), 12645. 10.3390/app122412645

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 398

  PintoA. R.KildalJ.LazkanoE. (2020). Multimodal mixed reality impact on a hand guiding task with a holographic cobot. Multimodal Technol. Interact.4 (4), 78. 10.3390/mti4040078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 399

  PizonJ.CiochM.KanskiL.GarcíaE. S. (2022). Cobots implementation in the era of industry 5.0 using modern business and management solutions. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J.16 (6), 166–178. 10.12913/22998624/156222

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 400

  PollakA.PaligaM.PulopulosM. M.KozusznikB.KozusznikM. W. (2020). Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot. Comput. Hum. Behav.112, 106469. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106469

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 401

  PollákM.KociskoM. (2021). Design and implementation of 3D printing using a universal printing system on the robot arm UR5. Tem. J. Technol. Educ. Manag. Inf.10 (4), 1895–1899. 10.18421/tem104-53

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 402

  PollákM.KociskoM.PaulisinD.BaronP. (2020). Measurement of unidirectional pose accuracy and repeatability of the collaborative robot UR5. Adv. Mech. Eng.12 (12). 10.1177/1687814020972893

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 403

  PolveriniM. P.ZanchettinA. M.RoccoP. (2017). A computationally efficient safety assessment for collaborative robotics applications. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.46, 25–37. 10.1016/j.rcim.2016.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 404

  PolveriniM. P.ZanchettinA. M.RoccoP. (2019). A constraint-based programming approach for robotic assembly skills implementation. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.59, 69–81. 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.03.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 405

  PopE.CampeanE.BragaI. C.IspasD. (2022). New product development of a robotic soldering cell using lean manufacturing methodology. Sustainability14 (21), 14057. 10.3390/su142114057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 406

  PopovD.KlimchikA.PashkevichA. (2021). Real-time estimation of multiple potential contact locations and forces. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (4), 7025–7032. 10.1109/lra.2021.3095902

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 407

  PopovD.KlimchikA.PashkevichA. (2022). Robustness of interaction parameters identification technique for collaborative robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (4), 8582–8589. 10.1109/lra.2022.3188886

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 408

  PratiE.PeruzziniM.PellicciariM.RaffaeliR. (2021). How to include user eXperience in the design of human-robot interaction. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.68, 102072. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 409

  PratiE.VillaniV.GrandiF.PeruzziniM.SabattiniL. (2022). Use of interaction design methodologies for human-robot collaboration in industrial scenarios. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.19 (4), 3126–3138. 10.1109/tase.2021.3107583

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 410

  PrioliJ. P. J.LiuS. Y.ShenY. F.HuynhV. T.RickliJ. L.YangH. J.et al (2022). Empirical study for human engagement in collaborative robot programming. J. Integr. Des. Process Sci.26 (2), 159–181. 10.3233/JID-221012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 411

  ProiaS.CarliR.CavoneG.DotoliM. (2022). Control techniques for safe, ergonomic, and efficient human-robot collaboration in the digital industry: a survey. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.19 (3), 1798–1819. 10.1109/tase.2021.3131011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 412

  PupaA.Van DijkW.BrekelmansC.SecchiC. (2022). A resilient and effective task scheduling approach for industrial human-robot collaboration. Sensors22 (13), 4901. 10.3390/s22134901

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 413

  PupaA.Van DijkW.SecchiC. (2021). A human-centered dynamic scheduling architecture for collaborative application. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (3), 4736–4743. 10.1109/lra.2021.3068888

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 414

  QiK. K.SongZ. B.DaiJ. S. (2022). Safe physical human-robot interaction: a quasi whole-body sensing method based on novel laser-ranging sensor ring pairs. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.75, 102280. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102280

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 415

  QuintanaJ. J.FerrerM. A.DiazM.FeoJ. J.WolniakowskiA.MiatliukK. (2022). Uniform vs. Lognormal kinematics in robots: perceptual preferences for robotic movements. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (23), 12045. 10.3390/app122312045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 416

  RaiolaG.CardenasC. A.TadeleT. S.de VriesT.StramigioliS. (2018). Development of a safety-and energy-aware impedance controller for collaborative robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.3 (2), 1237–1244. 10.1109/lra.2018.2795639

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 417

  RatoD.OliveiraM.SantosV.GomesM.SappaA. (2022). A sensor-to-pattern calibration framework for multi-modal industrial collaborative cells. J. Manuf. Syst.64, 497–507. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 418

  RaviolaA.AntonacciM.MarinoF.JacazioG.SorliM.WendeG. (2021a). Collaborative robotics: enhance maintenance procedures on primary flight control servo-actuators. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (11), 4929. 10.3390/app11114929

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 419

  RaviolaA.GuidaR.De MartinA.PastorelliS.MauroS.SorliM. (2021b). Effects of temperature and mounting configuration on the dynamic parameters identification of industrial robots. Robot10 (3), 83. 10.3390/robotics10030083

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 420

  RazieiZ.MoghaddamM. (2021). Adaptable automation with modular deep reinforcement learning and policy transfer. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.103, 104296. 10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 421

  Realyvásquez-VargasA.Arredondo-SotoK. C.García-AlcarazJ. L.Márquez-LobatoB. Y.Cruz-GarcíaJ. (2019). Introduction and configuration of a collaborative robot in an assembly task as a means to decrease occupational risks and increase efficiency in a manufacturing company. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.57, 315–328. 10.1016/j.rcim.2018.12.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 422

  RegaA.Di MarinoC.PasquarielloA.VitoloF.PatalanoS.ZanellaA.et al (2021b). Collaborative workplace design: a knowledge-based approach to promote human-robot collaboration and multi-objective layout optimization. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (24), 12147. 10.3390/app112412147

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 423

  RegaA.VitoloF.Di MarinoC.PatalanoS. (2021a). A knowledge-based approach to the layout optimization of human-robot collaborative workplace. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf.15 (1), 133–135. 10.1007/s12008-020-00742-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 424

  ReinhardtD.HaeuslerM. H.LondonK.LokeL.FengY. B.BarataE. D.et al (2020). CoBuilt 4.0: investigating the potential of collaborative robotics for subject matter experts. Int. J. Archit. Comput.18 (4), 353–370. 10.1177/1478077120948742

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 425

  RenT. Y.DongY. F.WuD.ChenK. (2018). Collision detection and identification for robot manipulators based on extended state observer. Control Eng. Pract.79, 144–153. 10.1016/j.conengprac.2018.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 426

  RenT. Y.DongY. F.WuD.ChenK. (2019a). Impedance control of collaborative robots based on joint torque servo with active disturbance rejection. Ind. Robot. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.46 (4), 518–528. 10.1108/ir-06-2018-0130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 427

  RenT. Y.DongY. F.WuD.ChenK. (2019b). Design of direct teaching behavior of collaborative robot based on force interaction. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.96 (1), 83–93. 10.1007/s10846-019-00986-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 428

  RestrepoS. S.RaiolaG.GuerryJ.D'EliaE.LamyX.SidobreD. (2020). Toward an intuitive and iterative 6D virtual guide programming framework for assisted human-robot comanipulation. Robotica38 (10), 1778–1806. 10.1017/s0263574720000016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 429

  RiedlM.DenzlR.FelberbauerM.LankmairT. (2019). High-resolution geometry measurement with a collaborative robot. MM Sci. J.2019, 3386–3392. 10.17973/MMSJ.2019_11_2019097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 430

  RodamilansG. B.VillaniE.TrabassoL. G.de OliveiraW. R.SuterioR. (2016). A comparison of industrial robots interface: force guidance system and teach pendant operation. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.43 (5), 552–562. 10.1108/ir-02-2016-0074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 431

  RodriguesI. R.DantasM.de OliveiraA. T.BarbosaG.BezerraD.SouzaR.et al (2023). A framework for robotic arm pose estimation and movement prediction based on deep and extreme learning models. J. Supercomput79 (7), 7176–7205. 10.1007/s11227-022-04936-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 432

  RojasR. A.GarciaM. A. R.WehrleE.VidoniR. (2019). A variational approach to minimum-jerk trajectories for psychological safety in collaborative assembly stations. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.4 (2), 823–829. 10.1109/lra.2019.2893018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 433

  RojasR. A.VidoniR. (2021). Designing fast and smooth trajectories in collaborative workstations. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (2), 1700–1706. 10.1109/lra.2021.3058916

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 434

  RojasR. A.WehrleE.VidoniR. (2020). A multicriteria motion planning approach for combining smoothness and speed in collaborative assembly systems. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (15), 5086. 10.3390/app10155086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 435

  RomitiE.MalzahnJ.KashiriN.IacobelliF.RuzzonM.LaurenziA.et al (2022). Toward a plug-and-work reconfigurable cobot. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatronics27 (5), 3219–3231. 10.1109/tmech.2021.3106043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 436

  RonzoniM.AccorsiR.BottiL.ManziniR. (2021). A support-design framework for Cooperative Robots systems in labor-intensive manufacturing processes. J. Manuf. Syst.61, 646–657. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 437

  RosinF.ForgetP.LamouriS.PellerinR. (2020). Impacts of industry 4.0 technologies on lean principles. Int. J. Prod. Res.58 (6), 1644–1661. 10.1080/00207543.2019.1672902

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 438

  RossatoC.PluchinoP.CelliniN.JacucciG.SpagnolliA.GamberiniL. (2021). Facing with collaborative robots: the subjective experience in senior and younger workers. Cyberpsychol Behav. Soc. Netw.24 (5), 349–356. 10.1089/cyber.2020.0180

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 439

  RossiF.PiniF.CarlesimoA.DalpaduloE.BlumettiF.GherardiniF.et al (2020). Effective integration of Cobots and additive manufacturing for reconfigurable assembly solutions of biomedical products. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf.14 (3), 1085–1089. 10.1007/s12008-020-00682-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 440

  RouzbehB.BoneG. M.AshbyG. (2018). High-accuracy position control of a rotary pneumatic actuator. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatronics.23 (6), 2774–2781. 10.1109/tmech.2018.2870177

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 441

  RouzbehB.BoneG. M.AshbyG.LiE. (2019). Design, implementation and control of an improved hybrid pneumatic-electric actuator for robot arms. IEEE Access7, 14699–14713. 10.1109/access.2019.2891532

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 442

  RovedaL.MaskaniJ.FranceschiP.AbdiA.BraghinF.TosattiL. M.et al (2020). Model-based reinforcement learning variable impedance control for human-robot collaboration. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.100 (2), 417–433. 10.1007/s10846-020-01183-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 443

  RozoL.CalinonS.CaldwellD. G.JiménezP.TorrasC. (2016). Learning physical collaborative robot behaviors from human demonstrations. IEEE Trans. Robot.32 (3), 513–527. 10.1109/tro.2016.2540623

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 444

  RungeG.RaatzA. (2017). A framework for the automated design and modelling of soft robotic systems. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol.66 (1), 9–12. 10.1016/j.cirp.2017.04.104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 445

  SaenzJ.BehrensR.SchulenburgE.PetersenH.GibaruO.NetoP.et al (2020). Methods for considering safety in design of robotics applications featuring human-robot collaboration. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.107 (5-6), 2313–2331. 10.1007/s00170-020-05076-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 446

  SafeeaM.BeareeR.NetoP. (2022). An integrated framework for collaborative robot-assisted additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Process81, 406–413. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.06.067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 447

  SafeeaM.NetoP. (2019). Minimum distance calculation using laser scanner and IMUs for safe human-robot interaction. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.58, 33–42. 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.01.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 448

  SafeeaM.NetoP. (2022). Precise positioning of collaborative robotic manipulators using hand-guiding. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.120 (7-8), 5497–5508. 10.1007/s00170-022-09107-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 449

  SafeeaM.NetoP.BeareeR. (2019). On-line collision avoidance for collaborative robot manipulators by adjusting off-line generated paths: an industrial use case. Robot. Auton. Syst.119, 278–288. 10.1016/j.robot.2019.07.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 450

  SaitoT.IkedaH. (2007). Development of normally closed type of magnetorheological clutch and its application to safe torque control system of human-collaborative robot. J. Intell. Mater Syst. Struct.18 (12), 1181–1185. 10.1177/1045389x07084755

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 451

  SalvatoE.VanzellaW.FenuG.PellegrinoF. A. (2022). Singularity avoidance for cart-mounted hand-guided collaborative robots: a variational approach. Robot11 (4), 79. 10.3390/robotics11040079

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 452

  SantosK. R. D.VillaniE.de OliveiraW. R.DttmanA. (2022). Comparison of visual servoing technologies for robotized aerospace structural assembly and inspection. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.73, 102237. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102237

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 453

  SauerV.SauerA.MertensA. (2021). Zoomorphic gestures for communicating cobot states. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (2), 2179–2185. 10.1109/lra.2021.3060416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 454

  SavazziS.NicoliM.BennisM.KianoushS.BarbieriL. (2021). Opportunities of federated learning in connected, cooperative, and automated industrial systems. IEEE Commun. Mag.59 (2), 16–21. 10.1109/mcom.001.2000200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 455

  SavkovicM.CaiazzoC.DjapanM.VukicevicA. M.PusicaM.MacuzicI. (2022). Development of modular and adaptive laboratory set-up for neuroergonomic and human-robot interaction research. Front. Neurorobot16, 863637. 10.3389/fnbot.2022.863637

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 456

  ScaleraL.GiustiA.VidoniR.GasparettoA. (2022). Enhancing fluency and productivity in human-robot collaboration through online scaling of dynamic safety zones. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.121 (9-10), 6783–6798. 10.1007/s00170-022-09781-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 457

  SchletteC.BuchA. G.HagelskjærF.IturrateI.KraftD.KrambergerA.et al (2020). Towards robot cell matrices for agile production - SDU Robotics' assembly cell at the WRC 2018. Adv. Robot.34 (7-8), 422–438. 10.1080/01691864.2019.1686422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 458

  SchmidtlerJ.KnottV.HölzelC.BenglerK. (2015). Human centered assistance applications for the working environment of the future. Occup. Ergon.12 (3), 83–95. 10.3233/OER-150226

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 459

  SchouC.AndersenR. S.ChrysostomouD.BoghS.MadsenO. (2018). Skill-based instruction of collaborative robots in industrial settings. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.53, 72–80. 10.1016/j.rcim.2018.03.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 460

  SchouC.MadsenO. (2017). A plug and produce framework for industrial collaborative robots. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.14 (4), 172988141771747. 10.1177/1729881417717472

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 461

  SchulzR.KratzerP.ToussaintM. (2018). Preferred interaction styles for human-robot collaboration vary over tasks with different action types. Front. Neurorobot12, 36. 10.3389/fnbot.2018.00036

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 462

  ScibiliaA.ValoriM.PedrocchiN.FassiI.HerbsterS.BehrensR.et al (2021). Analysis of interlaboratory safety related tests in power and force limited collaborative robots. IEEE Access9, 80873–80882. 10.1109/access.2021.3085109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 463

  ScimmiL. S.MelchiorreM.TroiseM.MauroS.PastorelliS. (2021). A practical and effective layout for a safe human-robot collaborative assembly task. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (4), 1763. 10.3390/app11041763

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 464

  ScocciaC.PalmieriG.PalpacelliM. C.CallegariM. (2021). A collision avoidance strategy for redundant manipulators in dynamically variable environments: on-line perturbations of off-line generated trajectories. Machines9 (2), 30. 10.3390/machines9020030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 465

  SemeraroF.GriffithsA.CangelosiA. (2023). Human–robot collaboration and machine learning: a systematic review of recent research. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.79, 102432. 10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102432

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 466

  SemjonJ.JanosR.SukopM.TulejaP.HajdukM.JurusO.et al (2020). Verification of the UR5 robot's properties after a crash caused by a fall of a transferred load from a crane. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.17 (1). 10.1177/1729881420904209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 467

  SharkawyA. N.KoustoumpardisP. N.AspragathosN. (2020a). Human-robot collisions detection for safe human-robot interaction using one multi-input-output neural network. Soft Comput.24 (9), 6687–6719. 10.1007/s00500-019-04306-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 468

  SharkawyA. N.KoustoumpardisP. N.AspragathosN. (2020b). Neural network design for manipulator collision detection based only on the joint position sensors. Robotica38 (10), 1737–1755. 10.1017/s0263574719000985

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 469

  ShinD. Y.JungM. J.LeeK. B.LeeK. D.KimW. H. (2022). A study on the improvement of torque density of an axial slot-less flux permanent magnet synchronous motor for collaborative robot. Energies15 (9), 3464. 10.3390/en15093464

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 470

  ShinH.KimS.SeoK.RhimS. (2019). A virtual pressure and force sensor for safety evaluation in collaboration robot application. Sensors19 (19), 4328. 10.3390/s19194328

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 471

  ShuklaD.ErkentÖ.PiaterJ. (2018). A comparative study of botulinum toxin: a with triamcinolone compared to triamcinolone alone in the treatment of osteoarthritis of knee, Anesth. Essays Res., 12, 47, 49. 10.4103/aer.AER_210_17

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 472

  SicilianoB.VillaniL. (1999). Robot force control. Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Google Scholar

• 473

  SidobreD.DesornneauxK. (2019). Smooth cubic polynomial trajectories for human-robot interactions. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.95 (3-4), 851–869. 10.1007/s10846-018-0936-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 474

  SimaoM.NetoP.GibaruO. (2019b). Improving novelty detection with generative adversarial networks on hand gesture data. Neurocomputing358, 437–445. 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.05.064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 475

  SimaoM. A.GibaruO.NetoP. (2019a). Online recognition of incomplete gesture data to interface collaborative robots. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron66 (12), 9372–9382. 10.1109/tie.2019.2891449

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 476

  SimasH.Di GregorioR. (2022). Collision avoidance for redundant 7-DOF robots using a critically damped dynamic approach. Robot11 (5), 93. 10.3390/robotics11050093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 477

  SimoesA. C.PintoA.SantosJ.PinheiroS.RomeroD. (2022). Designing human-robot collaboration (HRC) workspaces in industrial settings: a systematic literature review. J. Manuf. Syst.62, 28–43. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.11.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 478

  SimoesA. C.SoaresA. L.BarrosA. C. (2020). Factors influencing the intention of managers to adopt collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing organizations. J. Eng. Technol. Manag.57, 101574. 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101574

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 479

  SinghJ.SrinivasanA. R.NeumannG.KucukyilmazA. (2020). Haptic-guided teleoperation of a 7-DoF collaborative robot arm with an identical twin master. IEEE Trans. Haptics13 (1), 246–252. 10.1109/toh.2020.2971485

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 480

  SkuljG.VrabicR.PodrzajP. (2021). A wearable IMU system for flexible teleoperation of a collaborative industrial robot. Sensors21 (17), 5871. 10.3390/s21175871

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 481

  SmrcekJ.SmeringaiP.SmeringaiovaA. (2022). SpinBOT kit the new generation of robots - analysis of operating characteristics. MM Sci. J.2022, 6216–6219. 10.17973/mmsj.2022_12_2022010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 482

  SoaresI.PetryM.MoreiraA. P. (2021). Programming robots by demonstration using augmented reality. Sensors21 (17), 5976. 10.3390/s21175976

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 483

  SolanesJ. E.GraciaL.Muñoz-BenaventP.MiroJ. V.CarmichaelM. G.TorneroJ. (2018a). Human-robot collaboration for safe object transportation using force feedback. Robot. Auton. Syst.107, 196–208. 10.1016/j.robot.2018.06.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 484

  SolanesJ. E.GraciaL.Muñoz-BenaventP.MiroJ. V.GirbésV.TorneroJ. (2018b). Human-robot cooperation for robust surface treatment using non-conventional sliding mode control. ISA Trans.80, 528–541. 10.1016/j.isatra.2018.05.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 485

  SorellT. (2022). Cobots, “co-operation” and the replacement of human skill. Ethics Inf. Technol.24 (4), 44. 10.1007/s10676-022-09667-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 486

  StadnickaD.AntonelliD. (2019). Human-robot collaborative work cell implementation through lean thinking. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.32 (6), 580–595. 10.1080/0951192x.2019.1599437

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 487

  SteckeK. E.MokhtarzadehM. (2022). Balancing collaborative human-robot assembly lines to optimise cycle time and ergonomic risk. Int. J. Prod. Res.60 (1), 25–47. 10.1080/00207543.2021.1989077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 488

  StenmarkM.HaageM.ToppE. A.MalecJ. (2018). Supporting semantic capture during kinesthetic teaching of collaborative industrial robots. Int. J. Semant. Comput.12 (01), 167–186. 10.1142/s1793351x18400093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 489

  StormF. A.ChiappiniM.DeiC.PiazzaC.AndréE.ReissnerN.et al (2022). Physical and mental well-being of cobot workers: a scoping review using the Software-Hardware-Environment-Liveware-Liveware-Organization model. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind.32 (5), 419–435. 10.1002/hfm.20952

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 490

  StradovnikS.HaceA. (2022). Task-Oriented evaluation of the feasible kinematic directional capabilities for robot machining. Sensors22 (11), 4267. 10.3390/s22114267

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 491

  StrazdasD.HintzJ.Al-HamadiA. (2021). Robo-HUD: interaction concept for contactless operation of industrial cobotic systems. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (12), 5366. 10.3390/app11125366

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 492

  SultanT.XuX. C.RozinE. H.SorjonenJ.KetolainenJ.WikströmH.et al (2022). Effect of shape on the physical properties of pharmaceutical tablets. Int. J. Pharm.624, 121993. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.121993

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 493

  SurdilovicD.BernhardtR.ZhangL. (2003). New intelligent power-assist systems based on differential transmission. Robotica21, 295–302. 10.1017/s0263574702004800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 494

  SvarnyP.RozlivekJ.RustlerL.SramekM.DeliO.ZillichM.et al (2022). Effect of active and passive protective soft skins on collision forces in human-robot collaboration. Robot Comput. Integr. Manuf.78, 102363. 10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 495

  SvejdaM.GoubejM.JágerA.ReitingerJ.SeveraO. (2022). Affordable motion tracking system for intuitive programming of industrial robots. Sensors22 (13), 4962. 10.3390/s22134962

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 496

  TadeseM.PicoN.SeoS.MoonH. (2022). A two-step method for dynamic parameter identification of Indy7 collaborative robot manipulator. Sensors22 (24), 9708. 10.3390/s22249708

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 497

  TadeseM. A.YumblaF.YiJ. S.LeeW.ParkJ.MoonH. (2021). Passivity guaranteed dynamic friction model with temperature and load correction: modeling and compensation for collaborative industrial robot. IEEE Access9, 71210–71221. 10.1109/access.2021.3076308

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 498

  TamasL.MurarM. (2019). Smart CPS: vertical integration overview and user story with a cobot. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.32 (4-5), 504–521. 10.1080/0951192x.2018.1535196

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 499

  TangG.AsifS.WebbP. (2015). The integration of contactless static pose recognition and dynamic hand motion tracking control system for industrial human and robot collaboration. Ind. Robot. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.42 (5), 416–428. 10.1108/ir-03-2015-0059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 500

  TannousM.MiragliaM.IngleseF.GiorginiL.RicciardiF.PellicciaR.et al (2020). Haptic-based touch detection for collaborative robots in welding applications. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.64, 101952. 10.1016/j.rcim.2020.101952

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 501

  TaoH.RahmanM. A.Al-SaffarA.ZhangR. R.SalihS. Q.ZainJ. M.et al (2021). Security robot for the prevention of workplace violence using the non-linear adaptive heuristic mathematical model. Work A J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil.68 (3), 853–861. 10.3233/wor-203419

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 502

  TarbouriechS.NavarroB.FraisseP.CrosnierA.CherubiniA.SalleD. (2022). An admittance based hierarchical control framework for dual-arm cobots. Mechatronics86, 102814. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2022.102814

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 503

  TarbouriechS.SuleimanW. (2020). Bi-Objective motion planning approach for safe motions: application to a collaborative robot. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.99 (1), 45–63. 10.1007/s10846-019-01110-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 504

  Teso-Fz-BetoñoD.ZuluetaE.Fernandez-GamizU.AramendiaI.UriarteI. (2019). A free navigation of an AGV to a non-static target with obstacle avoidance. Electronics8 (2), 159. 10.3390/electronics8020159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 505

  TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O'BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.et al (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern Med.169 (7), 467–473. 10.7326/m18-0850

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 506

  TsarouchiP.MakrisS.ChryssolourisG. (2016). Human–robot interaction review and challenges on task planning and programming. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.29 (8), 916–931. 10.1080/0951192x.2015.1130251

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 507

  TsujiS.KohamaT. (2019). Proximity skin sensor using time-of-flight sensor for human collaborative robot. IEEE Sens. J.19 (14), 5859–5864. 10.1109/jsen.2019.2905848

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 508

  TsujiS.KohamaT. (2020). Self-capacitance proximity and tactile skin sensor with Shock-absorbing structure for a collaborative robot. IEEE Sens. J.20 (24), 15075–15084. 10.1109/jsen.2020.3011701

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 509

  TsujiS.KohamaT. (2022). Sensor module combining time-of-flight with self-capacitance proximity and tactile sensors for robot. IEEE Sens. J.22 (1), 858–866. 10.1109/jsen.2021.3130230

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 510

  UbedaR. P.RubertS. G. C.StanisicR. Z.IvarsA. P. (2021). Behavioural study of the force control loop used in a collaborative robot for sanding materials. Materials14 (1). 10.3390/ma14010067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 511

  UnhelkarV. V.LasotaP. A.TyrollerQ.BuhaiR. D.MarceauL.DemlB.et al (2018). Human-aware robotic assistant for collaborative assembly: integrating human motion prediction with planning in time. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.3 (3), 2394–2401. 10.1109/lra.2018.2812906

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 512

  VagasM.GalajdovaA. (2021). Application of speed and separation monitoring technique at automated assembly process. MM Sci. J.2021, 4420–4423. 10.17973/mmsj.2021_6_2021036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 513

  VagasM.GalajdovaA. (2022). Methodology for cobots implementation into the assembly applications. MM Sci. J.2022, 5638–5642. 10.17973/mmsj.2022_06_2022016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 514

  VaherK.MahmoodK.OttoT.RiivesJ. (2021). Simulation based feasibility analysis of autonomously movable robot arm. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci.70 (4), 422–428. 10.3176/proc.2021.4.08

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 515

  ValenteA.PavesiG.ZamboniM.CarpanzanoE. (2022). Deliberative robotics-a novel interactive control framework enhancing human-robot collaboration. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol.71 (1), 21–24. 10.1016/j.cirp.2022.03.045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 516

  ValoriM.ScibiliaA.FassiI.SaenzJ.BehrensR.HerbsterS.et al (2021). Validating safety in human-robot collaboration: standards and new perspectives. Robot10 (2), 65. 10.3390/robotics10020065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 517

  van EckN. J.WaltmanL. (2007). “VOS: a new method for visualizing Similarities between objects,” Advances in data analysis (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg).

  • Google Scholar

• 518

  van EckN. J.WaltmanL. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics84 (2), 523–538. 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 519

  van NunenK.LiJ.ReniersG.PonnetK. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Saf. Sci.108, 248–258. 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 520

  VemulaB.MatthiasB.AhmadA. (2018). A design metric for safety assessment of industrial robot design suitable for power-and force-limited collaborative operation. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl.2 (2), 226–234. 10.1007/s41315-018-0055-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 521

  VermaS.SinghV. (2024). The employees intention to work in artificial intelligence-based hybrid environments. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.71, 3266–3277. 10.1109/tem.2022.3193664

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 522

  VicentiniF. (2020). Terminology in safety of collaborative robotics. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.63, 101921. 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101921

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 523

  VicentiniF. (2021). Collaborative robotics: a survey. J. Mech. Des.143 (4). 10.1115/1.4046238

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 524

  VicentiniF.AskarpourM.RossiM. G.MandrioliD. (2020). Safety assessment of collaborative robotics through automated formal verification. IEEE Trans. Robot.36 (1), 42–61. 10.1109/tro.2019.2937471

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 525

  VillaniV.PiniF.LealiF.SecchiC. (2018). Survey on human-robot collaboration in industrial settings: safety, intuitive interfaces and applications. Mechatronics55, 248–266. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 526

  VirgalaI.PradaE.VagasM. (2021). Power and force limiting technique at collaborative workplace. MM Sci. J.2021, 4424–4427. 10.17973/mmsj.2021_6_2021037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 527

  VitoloF.RegaA.Di MarinoC.PasquarielloA.ZanellaA.PatalanoS. (2022). Mobile robots and cobots integration: a preliminary design of a mechatronic interface by using mbse approach. Appl. Sci. Basel12 (1), 419. 10.3390/app12010419

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 528

  VocetkaM.SuderJ.HuczalaD. (2020). The use of the two-handed collaborative robot in non-collaborative application. Acta Polytech.60 (2), 151–157. 10.14311/ap.2020.60.0151

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 529

  VysockyA.GrushkoS.OscádalP.KotT.BabjakJ.JánosR.et al (2020b). Analysis of precision and stability of hand tracking with leap motion sensor. Sensors.20 (15), 4088. 10.3390/s20154088

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 530

  VysockyA.NovakP. (2016). Human-robot collaboration in industry. MM Sci. J.9 (2), 903–906. 10.17973/mmsj.2016_06_201611

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 531

  VysockyA.PaprokR.SafaríkJ.KotT.BobovskyZ.NovákP.et al (2020a). Reduction in robotic arm energy consumption by particle swarm optimization. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (22), 8241. 10.3390/app10228241

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 532

  WahrburgA.BösJ.ListmannK. D.DaiF.MatthiasB.DingH. (2018). Motor-current-based estimation of cartesian contact forces and torques for robotic manipulators and its application to force control. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.15 (2), 879–886. 10.1109/TASE.2017.2691136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 533

  WangJ.ChenY.HuoS.MaiL.JiaF. (2023a). Research hotspots and trends of social robot interaction design: a bibliometric analysis. Sensors23 (23), 9369. 10.3390/s23239369

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 534

  WangL. H. (2015). Collaborative robot monitoring and control for enhanced sustainability. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.81 (9-12), 1433–1445. 10.1007/s00170-013-4864-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 535

  WangL. K.JiaS. Y.WangG. Y.TurnerA.RatchevS. (2023b). Enhancing learning capabilities of movement primitives under distributed probabilistic framework for flexible assembly tasks. Neural Comput. Appl.35 (32), 23453–23464. 10.1007/s00521-021-06543-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 536

  WangL. K.WangG. Y.JiaS. Y.TurnerA.RatchevS. (2022a). Imitation learning for coordinated human-robot collaboration based on hidden state-space models. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.76, 102310. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 537

  WangQ.LiuD. K.CarmichaelM. G.AldiniS.LinC. T. (2022b). Computational model of robot trust in human Co-worker for physical human-robot collaboration. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (2), 3146–3153. 10.1109/lra.2022.3145957

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 538

  WangW.LiR.DiekelZ. M.JiaY. (2018). Robot action planning by online optimization in human–robot collaborative tasks. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl.2, 161–179. 10.1007/s41315-018-0054-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 539

  WangW. T.LiR.ChenY.DiekelZ. M.JiaY. Y. (2019a). Facilitating human-robot collaborative tasks by teaching-learning-collaboration from human demonstrations. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.16 (2), 640–653. 10.1109/tase.2018.2840345

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 540

  WangW. T.LiR.DiekelZ. M.ChenY.ZhangZ. J.JiaY. Y. (2019b). Controlling object hand-over in human-robot collaboration via natural wearable sensing. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst.49 (1), 59–71. 10.1109/thms.2018.2883176

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 541

  WangY. Q.HuY. D.El ZaatariS.LiW. D.ZhouY. (2021). Optimised learning from demonstrations for collaborative robots. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.71, 102169. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102169

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 542

  WatsonJ.MillerA.CorrellN. (2020). Autonomous industrial assembly using force, torque, and RGB-D sensing. Adv. Robot.34 (7-8), 546–559. 10.48550/arXiv.2002.02580

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 543

  WeckenborgC.ThiesC.SpenglerT. S. (2022). Harmonizing ergonomics and economics of assembly lines using collaborative robots and exoskeletons. J. Manuf. Syst.62, 681–702. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.02.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 544

  WeissA.WortmeierA. K.KubicekB. (2021). Cobots in industry 4.0: a roadmap for future practice studies on human-robot collaboration. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst.51 (4), 335–345. 10.1109/thms.2021.3092684

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 545

  WeistrofferV.KeithF.BisiauxA.AndriotC.LasnierA. (2022). Using physics-based digital twins and extended reality for the safety and ergonomics evaluation of cobotic workstations. Front. Virtual Real3. 10.3389/frvir.2022.781830

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 546

  WeitschatR.AschemannH. (2018). Safe and efficient human-robot collaboration Part II: optimal generalized human-in-the-loop real-time motion generation. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.3 (4), 3781–3788. 10.1109/lra.2018.2856531

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 547

  WittmannJ.RixenD. J. (2022). Time-optimization of trajectories using zero-clamped cubic splines and their analytical gradients. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (2), 4528–4534. 10.1109/lra.2022.3148468

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 548

  WojtynekM.SteilJ. J.WredeS. (2019). Plug, plan and produce as enabler for easy workcell setup and collaborative robot programming in smart factories. Kunstl Intell.33 (2), 151–161. 10.1007/s13218-019-00595-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 549

  WolfartsbergerJ.HaslwanterJ. D. H.LindorferR. (2019). Perspectives on assistive systems for manual assembly tasks in industry. Technologies7 (1), 12. 10.3390/technologies7010012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 550

  World Bank (2025). World Bank group. Available online at: https://data.worldbank.org.

  • Google Scholar

• 551

  WorsnoppT.PeshkinM.LynchK.ColgateJ. E. (2006). Controlling the apparent inertia of passive human-interactive robots. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control Trans. ASME128 (1), 44–52. 10.1115/1.2168165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 552

  WuH.LiuY.ChangR.WuL. (2024). Research status quo and trends of construction robotics: a bibliometric analysis. J. Comput. Civ. Eng.38 (1), 03123001. 10.1061/jccee5.cpeng-5274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 553

  WuY. Q.LamonE.ZhaoF.KimW.AjoudaniA. (2021). Unified approach for hybrid motion control of MOCA based on weighted whole-body cartesian impedance formulation. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (2), 3505–3512. 10.1109/lra.2021.3062316

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 554

  XiaoJ. L.DouS. X.ZhaoW.LiuH. T. (2021). Sensorless human-robot collaborative assembly considering load and friction compensation. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (3), 5945–5952. 10.1109/lra.2021.3088789

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 555

  XiaoJ. L.ZhangQ. L.HongY.WangG. D.ZengF. (2018). Collision detection algorithm for collaborative robots considering joint friction. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.15 (4). 10.1177/1729881418788992

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 556

  XuS. L.HeB. (2022). A compliance modeling method of flexible rotary joint for collaborative robot using passive network synthesis theory. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci.236 (8), 4038–4048. 10.1177/09544062211047113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 557

  YamadaS.FujimotoH. (2021). Position-based high backdrivable control using load-side encoder and backlash. IEEJ J. Ind. Appl.10 (2), 142–152. 10.1541/ieejjia.20004583

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 558

  YanZ. C.HeW.WangY. H.SunL.YuX. B.HeW. (2024). Probabilistic motion prediction and skill learning for human-to-cobot dual-arm handover control. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn Syst.35 (1), 1192–1204. 10.1109/tnnls.2022.3182973

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 559

  YangY.ReniersG.ChenG.GoerlandtF. (2019). A bibliometric review of laboratory safety in universities. Saf. Sci.120, 14–24. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 560

  YeL.XiongG. L.ZengC.ZhangH. (2020b). Trajectory tracking control of 7-DOF redundant robot based on estimation of intention in physical human-robot interaction. Sci. Prog.103 (3), 36850420953642. 10.1177/0036850420953642

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 561

  YeZ. Q.PangG. Y.XuK. C.HouZ. Y.LvH. H.ShenY. R.et al (2022). Soft robot skin with conformal adaptability for on-body tactile perception of collaborative robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.7 (2), 5127–5134. 10.1109/lra.2022.3155225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 562

  YeZ. Q.YangG.PangG. Y.HuangX. Y.YangH. Y. (2020a). Design and implementation of robot skin using highly sensitive sponge sensor. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics.2 (4), 670–680. 10.1109/tmrb.2020.3020320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 563

  YeamkuanS.ChamnongthaiK.PichitwongW. (2022). A 3D point-of-intention estimation method using multimodal fusion of hand pointing, eye gaze and depth sensing for collaborative robots. IEEE Sens. J.22 (3), 2700–2710. 10.1109/jsen.2021.3133471

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 564

  YenS. H.TangP. C.LinY. C.LinC. Y. (2019). Development of a virtual force sensor for a low-cost collaborative robot and applications to safety control. Sensors19 (11), 2603. 10.3390/s19112603

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 565

  YuT.HuangJ.ChangQ. (2020). Mastering the working sequence in human-robot collaborative assembly based on reinforcement learning. IEEE Access8, 163868–163877. 10.1109/access.2020.3021904

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 566

  YunA.LeeW.KimS.KimJ. H.YoonH. (2022a). Development of a robot arm link system embedded with a three-Axis sensor with a simple structure capable of excellent external collision detection. Sensors22 (3), 1222. 10.3390/s22031222

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 567

  YunH. T.JeonH.YangS. H.JunM. B. G. (2022b). Calibration of industrial robots with spherical joint using single wire encoder. Manuf. Lett.33, 46–50. 10.1016/j.mfglet.2022.07.120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 568

  ZaccariaF.BaldassarriA.PalliG.CarricatoM. (2021). A mobile robotized system for depalletizing applications: design and experimentation. IEEE Access9, 96682–96691. 10.1109/access.2021.3092580

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 569

  ZacharakiA.KostavelisI.DokasI. (2021). Decision making with STPA through markov decision process, a theoretic framework for safe human-robot collaboration. Appl. Sci. Basel11 (11), 5212. 10.3390/app11115212

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 570

  ZafarM. H.LangåsE. F.SanfilippoF. (2024). Exploring the synergies between collaborative robotics, digital twins, augmentation, and industry 5.0 for smart manufacturing: a state-of-the-art review. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.89, 102769. 10.1016/j.rcim.2024.102769

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 571

  ZaidI. M.HalwaniM.AyyadA.ImamA.AlmaskariF.HassaninH.et al (2022). Elastomer-based visuotactile sensor for normality of robotic manufacturing systems. Polymers14 (23), 5097. 10.3390/polym14235097

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 572

  ZanchettinA. M.MesseriC.CristantielliD.RoccoP. (2022). Trajectory optimisation in collaborative robotics based on simulations and genetic algorithms. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl.6 (4), 707–723. 10.1007/s41315-022-00240-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 573

  ZanchettinA. M.RoccoP. (2017). Motion planning for robotic manipulators using robust constrained control. Control Eng. Pract.59, 127–136. 10.1016/j.conengprac.2016.11.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 574

  ZemlyakS.GusarovaO.SivakovaS. (2022). Assessing the influence of collaborative technology adoption-mediating role of sociotechnical, organizational, and economic factors. Sustainability14 (21), 14271. 10.3390/su142114271

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 575

  ZengC.YangC. G.ZhongJ. P.ZhangJ. W. (2019b). Encoding multiple sensor data for robotic learning skills from multimodal demonstration. IEEE Access7, 145604–145613. 10.1109/access.2019.2945484

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 576

  ZengF.XiaoJ. L.LiuH. T. (2019a). Force/torque sensorless compliant control strategy for assembly tasks using a 6-DOF collaborative robot. IEEE Access7, 108795–108805. 10.1109/access.2019.2931515

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 577

  ZengL. Q.BoneG. M. (2013). Design of elastomeric foam-covered robotic manipulators to enhance human safety. Mech. Mach. Theory60, 1–27. 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2012.09.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 578

  ZhangG.XuZ.HouZ. C.YangW. L.LiangJ. M.YangG.et al (2020). A systematic error compensation strategy based on an optimized recurrent neural network for collaborative robot dynamics. Appl. Sci. Basel10 (19), 6743. 10.3390/app10196743

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 579

  ZhangJ. J.WangP.GaoR. X. (2021d). Hybrid machine learning for human action recognition and prediction in assembly. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.72, 102184. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 580

  ZhangR.LiJ.ZhengP.LuY. Q.BaoJ. S.SunX. M. (2022b). A fusion-based spiking neural network approach for predicting collaboration request in human-robot collaboration. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.78, 102383. 10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102383

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 581

  ZhangS.LiS. Q.LiX.XiongY. J.XieZ. (2022c). A human-robot dynamic fusion safety algorithm for collaborative operations of cobots. J. Intell. Robot. Syst.104 (1), 18. 10.1007/s10846-021-01534-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 582

  ZhangS.LiS. Q.WangH. P.LiX. (2022d). An intelligent manufacturing cell based on human-robot collaboration of frequent task learning for flexible manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.120 (9-10), 5725–5740. 10.1007/s00170-022-09005-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 583

  ZhangS. L.GeY. G.WangH. T.WangS. (2021c). Mechanical design and dynamic compliance control of lightweight manipulator. Int. J. Autom. Comput.18 (6), 926–934. 10.1007/s11633-021-1311-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 584

  ZhangT.HongJ. D. (2019). Collision detection method for industrial robot based on envelope-like lines. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.46 (4), 510–517. 10.1108/ir-12-2018-0261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 585

  ZhangY. J.HuangN. J.RadwinR. G.WangZ.LiJ. S. (2022a). Flow time in a human-robot collaborative assembly process: performance evaluation, system properties, and a case study. IISE Trans.54 (3), 238–250. 10.1080/24725854.2021.1907489

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 586

  ZhangY. J.LiuL.HuangN. J.RadwinR.LiJ. S. (2021a). From manual operation to collaborative robot assembly: an integrated model of productivity and ergonomic performance. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.6 (2), 895–902. 10.1109/lra.2021.3052427

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 587

  ZhangZ. J.QianK.SchullerB. W.WollherrD. (2021b). An online robot collision detection and identification scheme by supervised learning and bayesian decision theory. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.18 (3), 1144–1156. 10.1109/tase.2020.2997094

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 588

  ZhaoY. T.ChenJ.LiW. G. (2022). Improved whale algorithm and its application in cobot excitation trajectory optimization. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl.6 (4), 615–624. 10.1007/s41315-022-00264-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 589

  ZhenS. C.CuiW. X.LiuX. L.MengG. J.ChenY. H. (2022). A novel model-based robust control design for collaborative robot joint module. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci.236 (9), 4520–4532. 10.1177/09544062211054753

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 590

  ZhouZ. X.LiL. H.FursterlingA.DurocherH. J.MouridsenJ.ZhangX. P. (2022). Learning-based object detection and localization for a mobile robot manipulator in SME production. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.73, 102229. 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102229

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 591

  ZhuM. L.HuangC.QiuZ. Q.ZhengW.GongD. W. (2022). Parallel image-based visual servoing/force control of a collaborative delta robot. Front. Neurorobot16, 922704. 10.3389/fnbot.2022.922704

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 592

  ZimmermannJ.HuelkeM.ClermontM. (2022). Experimental comparison of biofidel measuring devices used for the validation of collaborative robotics applications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19 (20), 13657. 10.3390/ijerph192013657

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 593

  ZormanM.ZlahticB.StradovnikS.HaceA. (2023). Transferring artificial intelligence practices between collaborative robotics and autonomous driving. Kybernetes52 (9), 2924–2942. 10.1108/k-05-2022-0679

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar