Cover not available

Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 26:1 (2025) ► pp.130–149

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required
Research report

Motor interference of elbow configuration changes in human-robot interaction

 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
 | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
ORCiD logo with link | Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Published online: 9 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.25026.kay
Abstract
Motor interference is an effect of movement deviations resulting from activation of mirror neurons due to a counterpart’s movements. This paper presents results from a study investigating the impact of elbow configuration changes of a physical robot arm on human elbow configurations, while performing a linear hand movement task. A within-subjects design is chosen with different elbow configuration change conditions (upwards, downwards, no change) presented to the participants. Results show various types of imitation behavior of elbow movements by the participants. Significant differences of the variability of height differences of optically tracked wrist and elbow positions measured by standard deviations of the time series of height difference progressions are found compared to a baseline condition without elbow movements. These results show, that recently found principles in human-human-interaction do also apply to human-robot interaction, where involuntary arm configuration changes induced by a robotic counterpart may lead to unwanted sensitivity and manipulability variations, which could interfere with given interaction tasks.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related work
  • 3.Previous work
  • 4.Current study
    • 4.1Apparatus and stimuli
    • 4.2Procedure
    • 4.3Outcome measures and statistical analysis
    • 4.4Participants
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Author contributions
  • References
References (22)
References
Badets, A., Blandin, Y., and Shea, C. S. (2006). Intention in motor learning through observation. Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59 (2), pp. 377–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortot, D., Born, M. and Bengler. (2013). Directly or on detours? How should industrial robots approximate humans?, In: Proc. of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cao, S. H., Han, X. Y., Zhao, Z. P. et al. (2025). Hand position fields of neurons in the premotor cortex of macaques during natural reaching. Nat Commun 16, 3489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaminade, T., Franklin, D., Oztop, E., and Cheng, G. (2005): Motor interference between humans and humanoid robots: Effect of biological and artificial motion. In: Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chinellato, E., Castiello, U. and Sartori, L. (2015). Motor interference in interactive contexts. Front. Psychol. 61:791. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coudé, G., Toschi, G., Festante, F., Bimbi, M., Bonaiuto, J. et al. (2019). Grasping Neurons in the Ventral Premotor Cortex of Macaques Are Modulated by Social Goals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31 (2), pp.299–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flash, T., and Hogan, N. (1985): The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 1688–1703, Society for Neuroscience. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., and Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cprtex, Brain 1191: 593–609.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaya, M. and Kühnlenz, K. (2023). “Towards Prediction of Motor Interference during synchronous Human-Robot Arm Movements Using Subjective Ratings of Anthropomorphism,” Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaya, M., Bauer, J., Nickl, F., and Kühnlenz, K. (2025). Towards Motor Interference of Limb Configuration Changes — a potential Measure for Human-likeness of Robots. Proc. of the 27th Int. Conf. on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII), accepted. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilner, J., Paulignan, Y., and Blakemore, S. (2003): An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 522–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilner, J., Hamilton, A., and Blakemore, S. (2007): Interference effect of observed human movement on action is due to velocity profile of biological motion. Social Neuroscience, 2(3), pp. 158–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kühnlenz, K. and Kühnlenz, B. (2020). Motor interference of incongruent motions increases workload in close HRI, Advanced Robotics, 34:6, pp. 400–406, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kupferberg, A., Glasauer, S., Huber, M., Rickert, M., Knoll, A., and Brandt, T. (2011): Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction. In: AI & Society, 26(4):339–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuz, S., Petruck, H., Heisterueber, M. A., Patel, H., Schumann, B., Schlick, C., Mirror Neurons. (2015). and Human-Robot Interaction in Assembly Cells, Proc. of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuz, S., Mertens, A. and Schlick, M. (2018). Anthropomorphic motion control of a gantry robot in assembly cells, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19:6, pp. 738–751, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lago, A., Cheeran, B., Koch, G., Hortobagyi, T., and Fernández-Del-Olmo, M. (2014). The role of mirror neurons in observational motor learning: an integrative review. European Journal of Human Movement. 321. 82–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oztop, E., Franklin, D., Chaminade, T., and Cheng, G. (2005): Human-humanoid interaction: Is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? In: International Journal of Humanoid Robots, Vol. 21, pp. 537–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, H., Kuz, S., Mertens, A., and Schlick, C. (2016). Increasing Safety in Human-Robot Collaboration by Using Anthropomorphic Speed Profiles of Robot Movements, In: Schlick, C., Trzcieliński, S. (eds) Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 4901. Springer, Cham. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rinkenauer, G., Böckenkamp, A., and Weigert, F. (2017). Man-Robot Collaboration in the Context of Industry 4.0: Approach-Avoidance Tendencies as an Indicator for the Affective Quality of Interaction?, In: Schlick, C. et al. (eds) Advances in Ergonomic Design of Systems, Products and Processes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudisch, J., Holzhauer, L., Kravanja, K., Hamker, F. and Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2024). A systematic review of observational practice for adaptation of reaching movements. npj Science of Learning. 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, M., Li, R., Xiang, S., and Liu, N. (2024). Two different mirror neuron pathways for social and non-social actions? A meta-analysis of fMRI studies, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 19, Issue 1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue