Dynamic Proxemic Model for Human–Robot Interactions Using the Golden Ratio
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper presents a novel approach to determine dynamic safety and comfort zones in human–robot interactions (HRIs), with a focus on service robots operating in dynamic environments with people. The proposed proxemic model leverages the golden ratio-based comfort zone distribution and ISO safety standards to define adaptive proxemic boundaries for robots around humans. Unlike traditional fixed-threshold approaches, this novel method proposes a gradual and context-sensitive modulation of robot behaviour based on human position, orientation, and relative velocity. The system was implemented on an NVIDIA Jetson Xavier NX platform using a ZED 2i stereo depth camera Stereolabs, New York, USA and tested on two mobile robotic platforms: Go1 Unitree, Hangzhou, China (quadruped) and Scout Mini Agilex, Dongguan, China (wheeled). The initial verification of proposed proxemic model through experimental comfort validation was conducted using two simple interaction scenarios, and subjective feedback was collected from participants using a modified Godspeed Questionnaire Series. The results show that the participants felt comfortable during the experiments with robots. This acceptance of the proposed methodology plays an initial role in supporting further research of the methodology. The proposed solution also facilitates integration into existing navigation frameworks and opens pathways towards socially aware robotic systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Social Robot Interaction and HRI · Robotics and Automated Systems · Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Robotics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, VSB-TU Ostrava, 70800 Ostrava, Czech Republic
Funding
European Union · state budget of the Czech Republic
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Schneiders, E., Kanstrup, A.M., Kjeldskov, J., and Skov, M.B. (2021, January 8–13). Domestic Robots and the Dream of Automation: Understanding Human Interaction and Intervention. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan.10.1145/3411764.3445629 ↗
2. Retail Robot Navigation: A Shopper Behavior-Centric Approach to Path Planning10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384360 ↗
3. SPENCER: A Socially Aware Service Robot for Passenger Guidance and Help in Busy Airports10.1007/978-3-319-27702-8_40 ↗
4. Shafiullah, N.M.M., Rai, A., Etukuru, H., Liu, Y., Misra, I., Chintala, S., and Pinto, L. (2023). On Bringing Robots Home 2023. arXiv.
5. (2014). Robots and Robotic Devices—Safety Requirements for Personal Care Robots (Standard No. ISO 13482:2014). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/53820.html.
6. (2024). Safety of Machinery—Positioning of Safeguards with Respect to the Approach of the Human Body (Standard No. ISO 13855:2024). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/80590.html.
7. A Policy-Blending Formalism for Shared Control10.1177/0278364913490324 ↗
8. Lee Koay, K., Syrdal, D.S., Walters, M.L., and Dautenhahn, K. (2007, January 26–29). Living with Robots: Investigating the Habituation Effect in Participants’ Preferences During a Longitudinal Human-Robot Interaction Study. Proceedings of the RO-MAN 2007—The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Jeju, Republic of Korea.10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415149 ↗
9. A Survey of Methods for Safe Human-Robot Interaction10.1561/2300000052 ↗
10. Flacco, F., Kroger, T., De Luca, A., and Khatib, O. (2012, January 14–18). A Depth Space Approach to Human-Robot Collision Avoidance. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Saint Paul, MN, USA.10.1109/ICRA.2012.6225245 ↗
11. Arora, S., Subramanian, K., Adamides, O., and Sahin, F. (2024). Using 3-D LiDAR Data for Safe Physical Human-Robot Interaction. arXiv.10.1109/CASE59546.2024.10711705 ↗
12. Sathyamoorthy, A.J., Patel, U., Savle, Y.A., Paul, M., and Manocha, D. (2021). COVID-Robot: Monitoring Social Distancing Constraints in Crowded Scenarios 2020. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1371/journal.pone.0259713 ↗
13. Sensor-Enabled Safety Systems for Human–Robot Collaboration: A Review10.1109/JSEN.2024.3496905 ↗
14. Takayama, L., and Pantofaru, C. (2009, January 10–15). Influences on Proxemic Behaviors in Human-Robot Interaction. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA.10.1109/IROS.2009.5354145 ↗
15. Hall, E.T. (1990). The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday.
16. Correlation of Fibonacci Sequence and Golden Ratio With Its Applications in Engineering and Science
17. Golden Ratio: Construction, Geometry, Beauty, and Diversity10.3126/ijorn.v11i1.64327 ↗
18. Samarakoon, S.M.B.P., Muthugala, M.A.V.J., and Jayasekara, A.G.B.P. (2022). A Review on Human–Robot Proxemics. Electronics, 11.10.3390/electronics11162490 ↗
19. From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey10.1007/s12369-014-0251-1 ↗
20. Lehmann, H., Rojik, A., and Hoffmann, M. (2020). Should a Small Robot Have a Small Personal Space? Investigating Personal Spatial Zones and Proxemic Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction. arXiv.
21. Xu, X., Meng, Z., Li, E., Khamis, M., Zhao, P.G., and Bretin, R. (2023). Understanding Dynamic Human-Robot Proxemics in the Case of Four-Legged Canine-Inspired Robots. arXiv.
22. Bhagya, S.M., Samarakoon, P., Viraj, M.A., Muthugala, J., Buddhika, A.G., Jayasekara, P., and Elara, M.R. (2019, January 14–18). An Exploratory Study on Proxemics Preferences of Humans in Accordance with Attributes of Service Robots. Proceedings of the 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New Delhi, India.10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956297 ↗
23. Adaptive Human-Aware Robot Navigation in Close Proximity to Humans10.5772/10570 ↗
24. Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., and Nehaniv, C.L. (2025, June 08). An Empirical Framework for Human-Robot Proxemics. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277290091_An_Empirical_Framework_for_Human-Robot_Proxemics.
25. Keeping Distance with a Telepresence Robot: A Pilot Study10.3389/feduc.2022.1046461 ↗
26. Human-Robot Interaction in Assisted Personal Services: Factors Influencing Distances That Humans Will Accept between Themselves and an Approaching Service Robot: Human-Robot Interaction in Assisted Personal Services10.1002/hfm.20675 ↗
27. How Much Distance Do Humans Keep toward Robots? Literature Review, Meta-Analysis, and Theoretical Considerations on Personal Space in Human-Robot Interaction10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101386 ↗
28. (2025). Robotics—Safety Requirements. Part 1: Industrial Robots (Standard No. ISO 10218-1:2025). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/73933.html.
29. (2025). Robotics—Safety Requirements. Part 2: Industrial Robot Applications and Robot Cells (Standard No. ISO 10218-2:2025). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/73934.html.
30. (2010). Safety of Machinery—General Principles for Design—Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction (Standard No. ISO 12100:2010). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/51528.html.
31. (2016). Robots and Robotic Devices—Collaborative Robots (Standard No. ISO/TS 15066:2016). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/62996.html.
32. Golden Gait: An Optimization Theory Perspective on Human and Humanoid Walking10.3389/fnbot.2017.00069 ↗
33. Dynamic Social Zone Based Mobile Robot Navigation for Human Comfortable Safety in Social Environments10.1007/s12369-016-0352-0 ↗
34. (2025, June 02). ZED 2—AI Stereo Camera|Stereolabs. Available online: https://www.stereolabs.com/en-cz/products/zed-2.
35. Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 ↗