Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/robot

A literature review of sensor heads for humanoid robots

∗
J.A. Rojas-Quintero, M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
CONACYT/Tecnológico Nacional de México/I.T. Ensenada, Esenada, B.C., Mexico

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: We conducted a literature review on sensor heads for humanoid robots. A strong case is made on topics
Received 11 September 2019 involved in human–robot interaction. Having found that vision is the most abundant perception system
Received in revised form 7 May 2020 among sensor heads for humanoid robots, we included a review of control techniques for humanoid
Accepted 15 June 2021
active vision. We provide historical insight and inform on current robotic head design and applications.
Available online 22 June 2021
Information is chronologically organized whenever possible and exposes trends in control techniques,
Keywords: mechanical design, periodical advances and overall philosophy. We found that there are two main
Humanoid robot heads types of humanoid robot heads which we propose to classify as either non-expressive face robot
Human–robot interaction heads or expressive face robot heads. We expose their respective characteristics and provide some
Review ideas on design and vision control considerations for humanoid robot heads involved in human–robot
Control of robotic systems interactions.
Active vision © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Humanoid robot research is receiving much attention in the
recent years [1,2] because there may be potential commercial
applications for these robots [3–8]. Humanoid robots design is
often targeted to reproduce the capabilities of a human being in a
technical system [2,9], and even their appearance [10]. However,
there are numerous examples where humanoid robots rely on
superhuman sensing abilities to succeed at their task as in [11–
13]. Nevertheless, a humanoid robot can be considered as a set of
several robotic subsystems among which a very important one
is the robot head. Based on the conducted research, we have
found that humanoid robots often feature a sensor head, that is,
a head that gathers important exteroceptive sensors that enable
world perception. We should note right away that this is not
the only solution for humanoid robots and some of them gather
exteroceptive sensors in the torso, waist and limbs [11,12], but
in this review we focus on humanoid robots sensor heads. In
this context, we will therefore refer to these sensor heads as
humanoid robot heads for the rest of this review. At a glance,
creating a humanoid robot head appears to be a rather simple
task because, in its most basic expression, a robot head can
essentially be composed of a pair of actuated cameras [14], thus
providing a means for the robot to interact with its surrounding
environment, and even communicate through gaze motions. For
a time, robot heads were quasi-exclusively of this type, because
vision appears to be the most effective way to obtain information
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jarojas@conacyt.mx (J.A. Rojas-Quintero),
mcrodriguez@conacyt.mx (M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán).
from the environment [15]. However, literature has proven that
it may not be so simple because although gaze is particularly
important in human–human relationships [15], it is not the only
sensing mechanism that contributes to the interaction task [16].
For example, human beings can localize sound sources just by
hearing [17]; or even locate gas sources [18] and get information
on taste [19] with the olfactory sense. The main function of the
head is that of interacting with surrounding elements by acquir-
ing information through senses. It is therefore not surprising that
humanoid robot heads naturally evolved to include at least one
more sensing system. Brooks was the first to mention the need
for sound understanding by a humanoid robot in 1994 [20], but
the first example of a humanoid robot head incorporating vision
and audition was the humanoid robot WABOT-2 [21] already in
1984. Audition seems to have also become a standard sensing
system in humanoid robot heads (see Sections 4 and 6 ). In the
future, a similar process might occur with the inclusion of an
olfactory system as a sensing device for humanoid robot heads.
The robot WE-3 RIV was the first example that included an olfac-
tory system [22] and there has been some research conducted in
the area of odor detection and location, that could be aimed for
humanoid robotics [18]. The human head contains the brain as a
part of the Central Nervous System; several sensory systems take
place exclusively in the head. The main being: a visual system
(sight), an auditory system (audition), a gustatory system (taste)
and an olfactory system (smell). There is also the more specialized
vestibular system which contributes to the sense of balance and
orientation. This one appears to be particularly well-needed for
a humanoid robot to be able to navigate its environment [23].
Note that by ‘‘navigate’’ we simply mean the possibility that a hu-
manoid robot has to change its position and orientation through
a particular route or course in its surrounding environment.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2021.103834
0921-8890/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834

Fig. 1. Examples of non-expressive humanoid robot heads. From left to right: WE-2 [24], an early development featuring actuated stereo vision and ARMAR-III [9]
featuring foveated stereo vision, both feature actuated necks and hearing; Romeo [25] was designed to evoke familiarity in a passive manner; Atlas [26] featuring
a Carnegie Robotics Multisense SL with stereo vision and a LIDAR sensor. WE-2 by Takanishi Laboratory, reproduced with permission. ARMAR-III by Renate Herbst,
Romeo by Softbank Robotics Europe, and Atlas photos retrieved 2019 from Wikimedia Commons.

Fig. 2. Examples of expressive humanoid robot heads. From left to right: Kobian-R [27] displaying happiness and anger with its articulated facial traits; Albert
HUBO [28] has an android head featuring artificial skin and hair; and SociBot [29] whose face is an animation projected onto a screen-face. Kobian-R by Takanishi
Laboratory, reproduced with permission. Albert HUBO by David Hanson, retrieved 2019 from Wikimedia Commons. SociBot by Engineered Arts Ltd., reproduced with
permission.

If a humanoid robot is to dwell among us, one of its most
important tasks will be to interact with surrounding human be-
ings [30]. For this purpose, a humanoid robot needs to identify,
recognize and locate external stimuli, but it must also be able
to establish relationships. For a human being, the head is an
essential organ for interacting with others because it can inform
about the current emotional state through facial expressions [15].
This may not always be a necessary concern when developing
a humanoid head, however, the sole fact that a humanoid robot
is supposed to eventually navigate an environment designed for
humans, and interact with them at some point, justifies the need
for communication [31,32]. Therefore, a humanoid robot head
should not only be viewed as a receptacle of sensory systems, but
also as a means of communication in the field of Human–Robot
Interaction (HRI). To this respect, we have found two types of
humanoid robot heads: non-expressive face heads and expressive
face heads (see Section 4). The former are exclusively designed
to absorb incoming information from the environment. The latter
concerns those systems that not only perceive data but can also
communicate.
There are some common features to all types of humanoid
robot heads. They all require to be designed as a mechanical
structure that contains integrated sensing devices to perform
their task and motion, or the motion of a larger system where it
is embedded, which has to be controlled. It is important to point
out that a humanoid robot head is generally shaped as something
resembling the human head. This can be appreciated throughout
the many examples of humanoid robots available in literature
(see some examples in Figs. 1 and 2).
This paper aims to contribute to humanoid robotics research
by providing organized information on humanoid robot heads
2
on key subjects such as design and control. Section 2 presents
our research methodology. Section 3 presents a chronological
analysis of humanoid robot heads general evolution, to offer
historical insight and to allow for the identification of future
perspectives. This discussion considers their external appearance,
emphasizing their varied structure construction. A revision of the
numerous ideas to provide them with effective sensing and ex-
pressive devices that guide their overall design is also included in
3. Section 4 presents the two types of humanoid robot heads en-
countered in the specialized literature (non-expressive face heads
and expressive face heads). Section 5 also presents a compilation
of the most common control methods in active vision related to
humanoid robot heads. A brief discussion of the physiological as-
pects of human vision introduces the artificial models that inspire
such controllers in this section. Section 6 presents general design
and control considerations that should be taken into account in
order to enhance HRI involving humanoid robot heads. Section 7
concludes our work.
2. Methodology
Interested in knowing what constitutes and what character-
izes a humanoid robot head, we have tried to review most of what
could be found in the literature by consulting hundreds of scien-
tific papers, and focusing on the main academic publishers. There
is so much variety among humanoid robot heads and their appli-
cations but we were not able to find a formal literature review
of humanoid robot heads. We consulted the scientific databases
Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar until January 2019.
References [2,33–39] were published and retrieved after this
date and where added during the revision process. Reference
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
lists of included articles were reviewed for further citations. We
began our research using the keyword ‘‘humanoid robot’’ AND
‘‘head design’’. However, our search quickly led us to use the
following keywords: ‘‘active vision’’; ‘‘cerebellar model articula-
tion control’’; ‘‘robot communication’’; ‘‘developmental robotics’’;
‘‘disaster response robot’’; ‘‘eye-head coordination’’; ‘‘entertain-
ment robot’’; ‘‘feedback-error-learning control’’; ‘‘gaze control’’;
‘‘head stabilization’’; ‘‘humanoid robot sensing’’; ‘‘humanoid robot
control’’; ‘‘human--robot interaction’’; ‘‘image stabilization’’; ‘‘ma-
nipulation of objects’’; ‘‘robot assistance’’; ‘‘robot vision’’; ‘‘sac-
cade’’; ‘‘vestibulo-ocular reflex’’. Boolean combinations involving
these keywords were also used.
We limit the scope of this paper to the review of robot heads
and the associated concepts and ideas that are currently used or
that could directly be of use in humanoid robotics. Here, we take
that in terms of general mechanical design, a humanoid robot
has been defined as being inspired by the human appearance,
structure and kinematics [2,9,10], ideally including a torso, hip,
head, neck, and limbs [2]. Following this definition, we consider
that a humanoid robot head is supposed to hold some physical
and functional resemblance with a human head. It essentially
plays the role of receiving and processing external information
to allow for the control of robot motions, on the one hand; on
the other hand, it should provide means to interact with the
environment as a message carrier through para-linguistic com-
munication signals such as facial expressions, intonation or gaze
direction [40,41].
We propose to define a humanoid robot head as a device
capable of acquiring information that the humanoid robot can
process and act on, to successfully navigate its environment and
interact with humans. If the humanoid robot head is to engage
in HRI, it should be able to non-verbally communicate via para-
linguistic communication signals. Therefore, a humanoid robot
head should obey to three main aspects:
1. context: it must be designed with the intention of being
embedded in a humanoid robot;
2. functionality: it must contain at least one of the main senses
that allow the humanoid robot to navigate an environment
designed for human beings;
3. appearance: it should be close to human-like appearance or
at least evoke human-like traits.
3. Chronological analysis of humanoid robot heads features
In this section we proceed to present the most repeatedly
integrated humanoid robot heads senses and features (vision and
other senses). We then briefly explore the topic of their integra-
tion within a humanoid robot. Finally we present features that are
useful in HRI such as para-linguistic communication, appearance
and behavior. We have grouped the ideas chronologically in each
of the following subsections.
3.1. Vision and neck mobility
As we outlined in our introduction, the human head contains
several sensory systems, the main being: audition, sight, smell
and taste. The last one (taste) is yet to appear in a robotic example
of a robot head in the literature. One reason may be because
unlike other senses, taste does not directly serve to guide us
around our environment. A chronological analysis of scientific
literature shows that the first and most repeatedly used sensing
device equipping robot heads is a pair of cameras. Vision is what
seems to have gained most of the attention in this particular
research area, since when it comes to robot heads, they should
be able to track and follow objects as well as to recognize them.
3
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
Active Vision research was initiated in 1988 [42,43]. The scientific
paradigm was investigated by Aloimonos et al. [42], according to
whom, an observer is called active when engaged in a process
whose purpose is to control the geometric parameters of its
sensory apparatus. However, Bajcsy [43] defined active vision as
the modeling and study of control strategies to search and follow
objects through vision. Taking both definitions, it appears clear
that active vision research could not be possible without active
vision sensors such as robot heads. Not long after this research
debuted, around 1990, a number of stereo or binocular camera
heads featuring exclusively stereo vision as the main guiding
sense were developed as a support for computer vision research
(Rochester Robot Head [44], LIRA/DIST Head [45], LIFIA/SAVA
Binocular Head [46], Harvard Binocular Head [14], KTH head [47]).
At first, these robot heads were composed of a pair of cameras
mounted at the end effector of an industrial robot arm (Rochester
Robot Head [44], or LIFIA/SAVA Binocular Head [46] for example).
This was done for practical purposes: the robot arm would act
as a human neck, re-orienting and pointing the cameras in the
right direction in a very effective manner. However, such a device
could not be integrated into a humanoid robot. In early stages,
most robot heads were essentially verging stereo vision systems
mounted on a type of neck mechanism that allowed for panning
and tilting motions (such as the LIRA/DIST Head [45]). Interest-
ingly, the KTH Head [47] included optical degrees of freedom
(DOF) to control focus, zoom and aperture camera parameters and
even a baseline DOF (called inter-pupillary distance, for humans)
that modified the horizontal distance between cameras, to ensure
that the robot could focus at dynamically varying distances from
the object of interest. Optical degrees of freedom were scarcely
used in subsequent works due to design and control difficulties.
WE-2 [24] (see Fig. 1) equipped a humanoid robot called
Hadaly, which acted as a campus assistant in 1995. It was the
first to incorporate an artificial form of vestibulo-ocular reflex
(VOR, see Section 5.1 for more details on this physiological reflex)
through the use of inertial sensors. VOR allows us to maintain the
direction of our eyes constant during head motion (object fixa-
tion). Later, a WE-2 successor, WE-3R, could adjust to brightness
through the use of eyelashes [48].
The human eye offers high acuity through its fovea (high
acuity zone located at the center of the eye), but also a large
field of vision (FOV) through its peripheral zone (of lower acuity).
Foveated vision appeared to emulate this. A set of cameras with
wide field of view (FOV) would be combined with a set of cameras
with narrow FOV (see COG [49], second example of Fig. 1).
An alternative to stereo cameras to obtain 3D depth rep-
resentation of the environment appeared with RGB-D sensors.
These sensors integrate an RGB camera with an infra-red (IR)
depth sensor and emitter to produce color images that contain
depth information for each pixel in the image. Originally intended
for entertainment applications, their low cost and effectiveness
have made them attractive to the robotics research community.
RGB-D technology presents one disadvantage in outdoor environ-
ments though: the IR sensor cannot discern between the sunlight
and the IR light from the emitter. Therefore, some robots like
TORO [10] or Hubo2+ [50], additionally rely on other sensors to
obtain more robust measurements.
3.2. Other sensing features
The humanoid robot head WE-2 had many successors with
multiple versions, among which some came with very original
features. WE-3RII was equipped with actuated facial traits so that
it could display emotions through facial expressions [51]. WE-
3RIII was the first to integrate the sense of touch (or in this case,
cutaneous sensing) [52] in 2000. Not long after, WE-3RIV was
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
even provided with an artificial lung and a gas sensor giving it the
ability to breathe in and recognize certain smells [53]. Although
the lung is not located inside the head, this was the first robot
head to integrate the sense of smell.
Only human-inspired sensing features have been mentioned
up to this point. However, in order to succeed at challenging
tasks such as emergency relief, some humanoid robot heads have
been provided with sensors that are not necessarily inspired by
human sensing capabilities. Disaster-response robots structures
are very diverse, but examples featuring a humanoid structure
emerged after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011:
CHIMP [13], DRC-HUBO+ [54], HRP-2Kai [55], THORMANG [56]
and Valkyrie [12] are some examples. Their heads include light
detection and ranging (LIDAR) which is a method that com-
putes distance to objects by measuring the time that a pulse
of light takes to travel from the source to the observed target
and then to the detector. A LIDAR sensor can be used to create
a 3D representation of the environment to enhance real-world
perception, specially in cluttered environments [57]. Therefore,
LIDAR sensors seem particularly adequate for disaster response
humanoid robots. Carnegie Robotics Multisense SL/SLB combines
a camera based stereo vision system with a rolling LIDAR sensor.
Such a system could be considered to be a fully operational
humanoid robot head since it enables a robot to ‘‘see’’ a very large
scene around it without the need to actuate cameras or neck. The
Multisense SL/SLB (see Fig. 1) equips several humanoid robots
having participated in the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) such
as Atlas-DRC and Atlas-Unplugged [26] (see Fig. 1), ESCHER [58],
JAXON [11] or WALK-MAN [59].
3.3. Humanoid integration
Humanoid robots date back to 1973 when WABOT-1, the first
full-scale humanoid robot in modern history, was unveiled [60].
It could talk, measure distances to objects and estimate directions
of incoming input through artificial ears and eyes. It was an
impressive development integrating most of what a robot head
should have nowadays, but it was hard to visually estimate the
location of its head. WABOT-2 could also converse with people
and play the piano, with anthropomorphic hands, by reading a
musical score via its one-eyed vision system, and by receiving
auditory feedback [21]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first humanoid robot head to have met the three aspects that we
defined in Section 1.
At first, humanoid robots that included a functional head were
quite rare because advanced humanoid robot heads are gener-
ally very complex mechanisms that are not easily embedded.
Some of the reasons include the large quantity of actuators when
the head has actuated facial traits; it may simply be too big
to be embedded. Honda did provide its humanoid robots with
cameras and other useful sensing devices [61] but their heads
did not meet our three requirements until the development of
P2 [62]. Soon, functional humanoid robot heads were equipping
all sorts of humanoid robots around the year 2000. COG was
designed to explore the hypothesis that human-like intelligence
requires human-like interactions with the world, and it featured
visual, auditory, proprioceptive, tactile, and vestibular senses to
enhance such interactions [63]. Robita humanoid could communi-
cate with various users detecting sound sources and recognizing
faces and gestures [64]. Infanoid was an infant humanoid robot
that featured foveated stereo vision and was capable of facial
expressions [31]. ETL humanoid had a 3 DOF neck, its eyes could
not only pan and tilt but also roll which is rare among hu-
manoid robot heads [65]. The list of humanoid robots including
a functional head vastly extends after the year 2000. Up until
that year, humanoid robot head research was mainly focused
4
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
on discovering ways to expand sensing capabilities; size, shape
and appearance were not the main concern. Integration of sensor
heads in humanoid robots is of importance in humanoid robotics.
As a more complete system, humanoids enable more active HRI
such as collaborative tasks, but also the study of hypotheses about
human motion [66]
3.4. Para-linguistic communication, appearance and behavior
There is evidence that human beings tend to humanize ob-
jects [67–69], specially when these present human-like features
[27,68,70]. This phenomenon is known as anthropomorphism
[68,70]. Therefore, one approach to enhance robot acceptance
is by designing them with anthropomorphic design [68] and
capable of social characteristics for interaction and communica-
tion [67,68].
Our research has shown that para-linguistic communication
signals have been employed by humanoid robot heads in order
to enhance HRI. These communication cues are effective ways of
carrying messages and enhance linguistic communication. Facial
expressions are one type of para-linguistic communication cues.
These were implemented early on (around 1993) in the Tokyo
Robot Head [71,72], which is a predecessor of the face robot
SAYA [73]. This was the first to feature a form of artificial skin,
along with actuated facial traits (mouth, nose and eyebrows) in
order to imitate the human capability of emotion communication
through facial expressions, making it the first emotive robot head.
Emotions are biological states conforming a motivation system
that determines the behavioral reaction to environmental events
significant for the needs and goals of a creature [40,41]. The
response translates into a set of para-linguistic reactions such
as gestures, intonation or facial expressions that inform about a
certain emotional state. Emotion expression is closely related to
anthropomorphism in robot head design. Along with Kismet [40],
these robots of the first era (before the year 2000) were ca-
pable of displaying a variety of emotions, thus enhancing the
interaction experience and perceived intelligence of the robot.
Six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and
surprise) [41] were commonly used to evaluate the expressive
capabilities (facial) of these robots that were designed for social
interaction with humans [40,71].
After the year 2000, humanoid robot platforms that featured
a robot head continued to be developed. Their heads were for
the most part mechanisms featuring active vision, sometimes
active audition, VOR and other sensing capabilities that were
already introduced years before. In 1970, Mori raised the hypoth-
esis that human-likeness in appearance and behavior, increases
robot acceptance in society, but this only happens up to a point
where extreme but not perfect resemblance would cause their
rejection [74]. It is still only a hypothesis and the amount of
empirical proof remains scarce [70,75], so it is unclear whether
or not this hypothesis holds, simply because a humanoid robot
that perfectly looks and behaves as a human does not yet exist.
Regardless, there has been struggle to overcome this uncanny
valley [76], suggesting that appearance does matter (see Philip K.
Dick android [77], Geminoid HI-1 [78] or HRP-4C [79] humanoid
robots).
Humanoid robot heads appearance is considered a major con-
cern by some, and there has been an emergence of android
robot heads in humanoid robots [28,71,76–79]. Androids have
been defined as humanoid robots with an appearance that closely
resembles that of humans, possessing traits such as artificial skin
and hair (see [80] for an example), and capable of linguistic
and para-linguistic communication [76]. Aiming to identify robot
aesthetics principles that would increase robot acceptance, image
based surveys where participants graded certain metrics have
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
been considered [77,81]. In one study, the head of a small hu-
manoid robot (Qrio) is compared with an android one (Philip
K. Dick) on four metrics: realism, appeal, eeriness and famil-
iarity [77]. The results imply that an android face is deemed
more humanlike and familiar. In another study, the images of
48 humanoid robots were rated on a 1 to 5 scale from ‘‘not
very human like’’ to ‘‘very human like’’ [81]. The study showed
that the increased head width and number of facial features
(browline, eyes, mouth, nose, etc.; see Romeo [25] in Fig. 1 and
robot heads of Fig. 2) enhances the perceived humanness of a
humanoid robot head. However, the authors also point out that
behavior may also be responsible for robot acceptance, which
is an argument shared by other studies [40,82]. In a study by
Minato et al. [82], human subjects were asked questions by
both a human questioner and an android (Repliee Q1) that was
programmed to display micro-motions such as eye and shoul-
der movements. The subjects reactions were then analyzed in
both situations and compared. Results suggest that the android
was deemed human-like although not at the same level as the
human questioner, and that it is the combination of both ap-
pearance and behavior that increases robot acceptance. In HRI,
two conditions of robot head design gradually became implicit:
that they are pleasant to the eye, and that they are easy to
interact with. As a consequence, humanoid robot heads that were
capable of communicating by speech and by displaying facial
expressions became more abundant between 2000 and 2010:
WE-4 [32]; MERTZ [83]; iCub [84]; Philip K. Dick android [77];
Albert HUBO [28] (see Fig. 2); SAYA [85]; CB2 child robot [86].
Some robot heads have been designed with animal-inspired
looks: Leonardo [87], iCat [88], EEEX [89], Probo [90] or EMYS
[91]. One idea behind these zoomorphic developments is that the
uncanny valley effect can be avoided by providing the robot with
a familiar but not human appearance. However, these designs
were made to explore certain aspects of social HRI that are
otherwise impossible to explore with a more humane appearance
such as the effect of exaggerative facial expression [89,91] or even
medical treatments like animal assisted therapy [90].
Sensorial and social functions of a robot head have gradually
become two minimum requirements in HRI, and some go as far as
to proclaim that significant contribution can only be made if there
is solid advance in these two functions [92]. Therefore, emotion
expression by robots has become more mature by exploring novel
methods to display emotions. We have seen some interesting
developments such as Flobi [92], Probo [90], HRP-4C [79], and
KOBIAN-R [27] (see Fig. 2). The mechanical design of a robot
head having not only sensorial functions but also an actuated face
can become quite complex and the resulting cost can be high.
One solution to decrease mechanical design complexity while
keeping emotion communication abilities consists in displaying
colors associated with an emotional state, as done with iCub [84]
or Nao [93]. It is even possible to animate and display certain
facial traits. For example the Twente humanoid head displays
animated eyebrows and mouth [94]. By integrating displays into
their design, humanoid robot heads are no longer subject to
specific mechanical limitations in terms of emotion expression,
and the scope of possible expressions vastly broadens. However,
some developments went even further by projecting the whole
face onto a display/translucent mask. Some examples include the
LightHead robot [95], which later became SociBot [29] (see Fig. 2),
and Mask-bot 2i [96]. With this type of mechanism, emotion
expression is no longer limited by the mechanical capabilities of
a specific design.
5
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
4. Types of humanoid robot heads
Development of robot heads has vastly evolved since their
debut around 1975. As we outlined in the previous section, early
examples consisted mainly of an embedded vision system and
some other sensors, as means to obtain information from the
environment. The constant addition of sensing devices and de-
sign parameters has taken current robot heads to a high level
of complexity and, as a consequence, they have evolved to be
very diverse in terms of appearance, function, and application.
Most robot heads address the basic sensorial needs of a hu-
manoid robot (such as sight, hearing and VOR). However, many
designs seem to address the para-linguistic communication cue of
facial-expressions through diverse mechanisms. It is therefore not
surprising that there are non-expressive face heads (see Fig. 1) as
well as expressive face heads (see Fig. 2). Therefore, in this section,
we will proceed to present both types.
4.1. Non-expressive face heads
Even though a humanoid robot often shows physical resem-
blance with the human being, it is the several sensory systems the
human head holds that have initially inspired scientists. Sensory
systems allow to coordinate body motions. They guide towards
a goal, to reach an object that can be located through sight,
audition or even smell. If this logic is taken, the head acts mostly
as a sensorial organ which coordinates body motions. Therefore
humanoid robot heads often feature sensors such as cameras,
microphones, artificial vestibular systems and in a few cases,
electronic noses. These types of features are often included in
non-expressive face heads (see Fig. 1 for some examples). Non-
expressive face heads are those that cannot display dynamically
changing facial expressions. Some of these have been considered
mostly as a research platform to develop areas such as active
vision [97,98], active audition [16,83], and software develop-
ment [99–104]. We should note that most non-expressive face
heads that we encountered in the literature are in fact part
of a humanoid robot: HRP-2 [105], ETL-Humanoid [65], KHR-
2 [106], Rollin’ Justin [107], ARMAR-4 [108], CHIMP [13], or
DRC-HUBO+ [54] are some examples.
Recent non-expressive robot heads feature two DOF per eye
and a neck with as much as five DOF (such as Armar IV [108], al-
lowing for lower and upper pitch, lower and upper roll and yaw).
Artificial VOR and optokinetic response (OKR, see 5.1 for more on
this reflex) have become standard image stabilization techniques.
Many resort to foveated vision systems but it seems that RGB-D
is used more and more since 2013: HaSaRam IX [109], TORO [10],
HRP2 W [110], Shenyang Head [111] or Valkyrie [12] among
others. LIDAR and GPS/INS sensors seem to be used only for
the more specialized disaster-response humanoid robots. Rolling
LIDAR sensors often replace a neck mechanism because it allows
the humanoid robot to create a map of the environment [13]
without the need to re-orientate its head. However, for some of
these examples, the overall design is aimed towards efficiency,
and sometimes part of their perception systems are located in
the torso (THORMANG [56], DRC-HUBO+ [54]) or waist and back
(Valkyrie [12]) for example.
The development of non-expressive heads began long ago. At
a time where actuated facial traits were an emerging feature,
many non-expressive heads were specifically built with HRI ap-
plications in mind such as service or assistance (Robonaut [112],
Honda Asimo [113], Pearl [81], Robovie [114] or Romeo [25]) or as
platforms for cognition research (COG [49], ROBITA [64], H6 [115],
or DB [116]). We should note that even if all of these examples
usually lack appearance-enhancing design parameters (such as
actuated facial traits) they can still be involved in HRI. Non-
expressive face heads can still use para-linguistic communication
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
cues such as gaze direction [15], intonation or head gestures
which are effective para-linguistic communication cues that carry
messages and even convey emotions [40,68]. Intentions, which
are a state of commitment to carry out actions, are another im-
portant interaction component [117] that can be easily conveyed
by non-expressive face heads through motor actions (like Robovie
in [114] or Baxter with its expressive face in [118]).
4.2. Expressive face heads
In human species, the head is the external organ for social
interaction. Our faces can communicate essential information
about our emotions through gaze and facial expression [15] (see
Fig. 2 for an example). In fact, there is evidence that words are
not even needed to convey a particular emotion [119]. What-
ever the means, it appears that the ability to communicate is
an essential aspect of social interaction. If a robot is to freely
navigate an environment created for humans, then, it is natural
to expect that humans will be present in such space. Therefore,
HRI becomes inevitable; exteroceptive senses do not suffice to
interact with people around. This means that the robot has to
be able to direct and orientate itself by avoiding obstacles, it has
to locate and manipulate objects, but it also has to be able to
interact with surrounding people. Within the HRI logic, a robot
head should be able to yield a particular emotional state; it
must be able to verbally or physically communicate and interact
with a human being; therefore its actions must be recognizable
and interpretable. As it was previously stated, a non-expressive
head can already communicate verbally and with some para-
linguistic communication cues. However, there are expressive
face heads that can, in addition, make use of facial expressions to
communicate intentions or emotions. Expressive face heads (see
Fig. 2) display dynamically changing facial expressions through
several mechanisms: actuated facial traits (see the two images on
the left of Fig. 2); animated facial traits through displays; or the
projection of the animated face onto a screen (see right image of
Fig. 2).
All of these expressive face heads are capable of nonverbal
communication, which is an important part of our daily interac-
tions [119,120]. It is interesting to notice that the first expressive
face head was already of the android type (Tokyo Robot Face [71,
72]). It is also worth noticing that no android-type expressive face
heads were developed for several years after this.
Some expressive face heads combine mechanically actuated
facial traits with animated traits through displays. For example,
EEEX [89] (which is a zoomorphic design inspired by a bug) dis-
plays emoji-stlye eyes to complement its exaggerative emotion
expression when its actuated ears (antennae), cheeks and jaw
pop out of its face. Exaggerative emotion expression is also used
by EMYS [91] (also a zoomorphic design inspired by a turtle). Its
eyes can pop out of its face, which is formed by three actuated
disks that greatly deform its face when expressing emotions. By
using exaggerative emotion expression, these robots ensure the
recognition of their emotions during HRI.
As with non-expressive face heads, all the expressive face
heads that we encountered in literature have eyes, strongly sug-
gesting that the presence of eyes and a vision system have be-
come a minimum requirement. Same goes for audition which
seems to have become a standard sense (only a few do not
feature hearing: EEEX [89], KASPAR [121], Twente [94], SHFR-
III [122], LightHead [95], Mask-bot 2i [96] and SCIPRR [123]).
Smell seems to have ended with WE-4 [32], since no other head
has featured that sense ever since. In terms of communication,
many of these heads are able to produce speech but not all
(Tokyo Face Robot [71], Leonardo [87] and Bert2 [124] are some
examples).
6
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
Android robot heads tend to defy the valley effect by taking
the design to very high levels of physical resemblance with the
human being (see third image of Fig. 2). This contradicts the idea
that in order for robots to be socially accepted, their appearance
should be only roughly similar to that of a human being [35].
Robot heads of this type are usually equipped with much more
detailed physical traits such as artificial skin and artificial hair;
most are able to communicate with speech and para-linguistic
communication cues. The android type also often features an an-
thropomorphous neck with at least 3 DOF (with the exception of
Lilly [125] who is also not able to communicate via speech). Skin
and hair are also standard features for these robots. Most of these
expressive face heads android faces are intended to have the
appearance of adults, although there are some examples of child-
androids like Barthoc Jr. [126] and CB2 [86]. One very interesting
feature of Repliee Q1 and Geminoid HI-1 androids [78] is the
implementation of micro-motions. We consider micro-motions to
be a type of appearance-enhancing design parameter because it
is something that is constantly being displayed (breathing motion
or shoulder movements).
There are expressive face heads in which the face or some
facial traits are either displayed on LCDs; or projected onto a
translucent surface with a video projector. Some of them make
use of Light-emitting diodes (LED) placed under a translucent
mask to display animated eyebrows and mouth like iCub [84] and
the Twente University Head [94]. RoboThespian [127] displays
animated eyes to simulate blinking and retinal deformation. Ex-
pressive face heads have reached a very high level of complexity
in their mechatronic design, and more specially, the android type.
This complexity reflects in their production cost. If we take the
example of WE-4RII [23] with its 29 DOF, one can understand
that the cost of actuators alone is very high and may not be a
realistic possibility for every research project. There also seems
to be some skepticism towards the facial expression quality of
expressive face heads robot heads with actuated faces [29,84,94–
96,128]. A displayed or projected expressive face arises from a
very simple and yet effective idea: the display or projection of
an animated face on a screen that acts as a face. The cost of this
type of system is therefore extremely reduced because only the
neck needs to be actuated. In such devices, the quality of facial
expressions depends less on the hardware itself, as opposed to
expressive face heads actuated faces and androids. Synthetic ani-
mations are usually projected, but real faces can also be mapped
to the display [129] or translucent mask [96]. The example of
SCIPRR [123] is more of a vessel in which one could incorporate
either a display or a retro-projected translucent mask. However,
we must note that even though displayed or projected expressive
face heads are very attractive, they remain subject to the valley
effect; for example, a user qualified SociBot (Fig. 2) as being
‘‘creepy’’ [29], confirming that the valley effect is not so easily
avoided.
5. Active vision control
Previous sections discussed general design aspects of hu-
manoid robot heads, identifying two basic types: non-expressive
face heads and expressive face heads Within these two classes
active vision appears to be a fundamental aspect for humanoid
robot heads. Active vision ensures gaze direction, coordinating
eyes and head motion. It also allows the robot to direct its gaze
towards a detected stimulus, guaranteeing its tracking even when
the target or the robot are in motion. When the head is embedded
in a humanoid, active vision also allows to coordinate limbs
motion.
Moreover, a robot that can react in a human way to a visual
cue will be more attractive to humans, than one whose actions
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
appear mechanical. This is, if the robot can turn its head towards
a moving object in a natural way, balancing the motion of the
eyes, head and body; if it can make eye contact with the person
with whom it is interacting; if it can keep track of a moving
target; etc, then the robot’s attitude will appear more natural to
the user. This is particularly important in HRI tasks because the
robot must be able to navigate through a human environment
naturally, and to interact with users without eliciting rejection
from people. In order to achieve this desirable ‘‘humanity’’, one
of the most important aspects to consider is the control and
coordination of the robot’s eyes, head and body. Because, ulti-
mately, these controllers will be the ones that give the robot
human-like abilities, if they are properly designed. From a phys-
iological point of view, the process of human vision is composed
of various features that make it possible to detect targets, keep
them in focus, follow them as they move, etc; and numerous
researchers have attempted to recreate such features. However,
humans also use facial (and body) gestures that enrich our in-
teractions, and therefore their replication in humanoid robotics
is also important [130]. Some of these gestures include blinks,
mouth movements, eyebrow motions, etc. In a 2019 study, Ali
et al. [33] note the benefits that therapy with a humanoid robot
(NAO) with the ability to ‘‘blink’’ has on children with autism
spectrum disorder. In this case the blinking action was simulated
with led lightning changes around the robot’s eyes. Mechanical
blinking has been implemented as well, such as in [131,132]. The
robot head in [132] can also move its lips and change the orienta-
tion of the head. In [36] a humanoid robot has been dotted with
the ability to ‘laugh’. It can generate laughing sounds, and modify
the position of its eyelids, mouth, cheeks, and generate upper
body motions to simulate laughter. The following sections focus
on active vision, rather than on complementary gestures used in
interaction. The different features that characterize human vision
should be considered as desirable functionalities of a humanoid
robot head if it is intended for HRI. In the following, we describe
these features and the control techniques that research groups
have used to recreate one or several of these.
5.1. Physiological aspects of human vision
The concept of ‘active vision’ or ‘animate vision’ was intro-
duced by Aloimonos et al. [42], Ballard et al. [133], and Ba-
jcsy [43]. Initially, most of the research around robot vision fo-
cused on ‘passive vision’, namely, the observation and analysis
of static images. Human vision, however, is an active process;
objects are not always static, and focus should be maintained, in
spite of changes in illumination, distance or position [42]. On the
other hand, active vision reduces the computational cost associ-
ated to passive vision, by allowing the vision system to interact
with the environment [133]. Naturally, in order to develop active
vision in humanoid robots, it is necessary to understand the pro-
cess of human vision from a physiological point of view. Through
the years, several phyisiological studies have identified different
vision phenomena (in humans and primates), such as vergence,
saccades, smooth pursuit, VOR, OKR, and the Vestibulocollic Re-
flex (VCR). Each will be briefly described below. More detailed
descriptions of the vestibular and visual processes involved in the
human gaze dynamics can be found in the literature [134–136].
Vergence In animals with foveal regions in their retinas, ver-
gence plays an important role when focusing on a target
placed at a varying distance from the eyes. Both eyes must
maintain focus on the target by modifying their orienta-
tion angles. Vergence is a slow motion process, performed
simultaneously by both eyes but with different directions.
Its purpose is to maintain binocular vision.
7
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex This reflex works to stabilize the image
on the retina while the head is moving. It compensates
head motion by directing eye movements in the opposite
direction, this way the image can be kept at the center of
the field of vision. VOR depends on stimuli detected in the
inner ear (by the vestibular system), rather than on visual
events. It has been demonstrated that, in humans and other
primates, this process is adaptive and is carried away by
the cerebellum [137].
Optokinetic Response This is a combination of fast and slow
paced eye movements. The OKR serves to follow moving
objects when the head is kept still, or when stationary
targets are observed by the moving subject. It acts on in-
formation from the retinal slip, and works in combination
with the VOR to stabilize the image in the retina.
Vestibulocollic Reflex VCR’s role is to stabilize the head using
the neck muscles. Its response depends on information
from the vestibular system, and complements the actions
of VOR and OKR.
Smooth pursuit The objective of this type of response is the
tracking of moving objects in a horizontal or vertical way.
It comprises two stages. The first is a ballistic, open-loop
response, during which the eye tries to nullify the retinal
velocity (the velocity with which the object moves in the
retina). In the second stage, a closed-loop is formed, using
visual feedback, to match the angular velocity of the eye
with that of the target. It provides an online correction of
pursuit velocity to compensate for retinal slip (movement
of the target image in the retina).
Saccades In contrast with vergence, saccades are fast, low la-
tency, simultaneous movements of both eyes, reaching
speeds up to 1000 ◦ /s[138]. The human retina has a small,
maximum acuity area known as the fovea. Humans process
the observed environment by moving the eyes around and
thus bringing interesting parts of it into the fovea. This
is achieved thanks to saccadic movements. The result is
a 3-D map of the area. Saccades can be further classified
according to their specific objective as visually guided,
antisaccade, memory guided and predictive.
Research shows that motion control in humans is conducted
by the cerebellum [137], using information from different sensors
(position, velocity, acceleration, tension, etc.), which the central
nervous system then uses to determine the actions that should
be taken by the muscles to perform the desired task [139–141].
The development of oculo-motor control abilities starts during
infancy, in a series of stages described by Piaget in 1951 [142].
This process forms connections between neurons that can be
flexible, allowing for adaptive responses to different scenarios.
This is called heterosynaptic plasticity, and implies that the body’s
dynamics are learnt with practice [141].
5.2. Control mechanisms for biomimetic active vision
Berthouze et al. [148] define gaze control as ‘‘the ability to keep
an object of attention in the center of the image’’. More specifically,
gaze control or gaze stabilization is constituted of two main tasks:
target fixation and image stabilization. The first refers to the
problem of acquiring a target and keeping it within the limits of
the foveal region; the second is concerned with keeping motion
blur (generally caused by head or body motions, or by the target’s
own displacement) at a minimum. It is difficult to decide where to
draw the line when defining which visual processes contribute to
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
Table 1
Eye-centered gaze control strategies.
Technique Implemented visual feature
CMAC [140] [143]
RCA [144] [145]
FEL [146,147] [148–150] [145,147,151]
NN [152] [152]
ANN [149] [153]
Pr [154,155] [154] [154–156]
Ad [157,158] [157]
PI/PID [25] [156]
Saccades OKR/VOR Smooth Pursuit Vergence
CMAC: Cerebellar Model Articulation Controller, RCA: Recurrent Cerebellar
Architecture, FEL: Feedback-error-learning, NN: Neural Networks, ANN: Adap-
tive Neural Networks, Pr: Predictive methods, Ad: Adaptive methods, PI:
Proportional–Integral control.
solve the gaze control problem. For some researchers, gaze stabil-
ity is merely achieved by a combination of ocular and vestibular
phenomena, so saccades and smooth pursuit are considered as in-
dependent processes that do not contribute to gaze-control [159].
However, some authors consider gaze control as a combination of
all the aforementioned processes, plus the motion of the neck and
the head to pursuit the target [160]; this can include body motion
as well [161]. Thus, it can be understood that biomimicry of gaze
control is a complex task that involves the design and control of
various subsystems that simulate biological visual processes.
In general, the common approach to achieve gaze control is
to design a low-level servo controller to command the actuators,
and a higher-level gaze controller that takes over the visual
aspects of gaze (namely, VOR, OKR, saccades, vergence, etc.).
Most low-level controllers are based on Proportional–Integral–
Derivative (PID) control, or variations of it. The higher-level con-
trol, however, has to rely on alternative methods, mainly in-
telligent, adaptive and/or predictive control approaches. This is
the conclusion that diverse authors have reached after years of
analysis of the human visual system.
5.2.1. CMAC and FEL
Next, two of the main methodologies employed in active vi-
sion are described. These approaches, which appeared in the 70’s
and 80’s, are inspired in the physiology of human vision. More
specifically, by studying the adaptability and complexity of the
central nervous system and the biological motion control process,
these models attempt to replicate the cerebellum’s actions in
robotic systems. Their original intention was not to embed them
into humanoid robot heads, rather, they focused in the gen-
eral problem of body coordination. Nevertheless, several research
groups have later exploited their features for active humanoid
vision.
Albus proposed the Cerebellar Model Articulation Controller
(CMAC) in 1975, with the aim of replicating the physiological
structure of the cerebellum by means of a modified perceptron.
The CMAC has the form of a table-based model of the cerebellum,
as an alternative to usual analytical models. In order to realize a
desired task, the CMAC relates the task to the necessary actions
to be performed by the actuators. First, based on information
from the desired output and actual data from the sensors, the
CMAC calculates which actions, and in what proportion, should
contribute to the final response. This is done by reading weight
values from a table. The weights on the table are active, meaning
they can be adjusted by feedback, depending on the desired joint
actuator value. The weighted signals are, finally, added together
to obtain the computed actuator signal [140].
Biological inspiration also played a role in Kawato’s work. The
human brain has the capability to learn desired motion patterns
8
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
through observation of an external ‘teacher’. The ‘student’ tries to
imitate the observed movement and corrects the path, according
to the desired trajectory. The model proposed by Kawato in
1987 [141] is based on this human ability, and defines a neural
network model that learns the desired body dynamics from pre-
diction of actual joint dynamics, obtained from an inverse model
of the mechanism. This approach mimics the plasticity exhibited
by neural cells. The method was later referred to as Feedback-
Error-Learning (FEL) [146]; it parts from the feedback principle in
control systems to reduce the perceived error between the actual
and desired motions. Essentially, a FEL system is comprised of a
feedback loop and an inverse model in a feed-forward loop. The
first loop computes the motor command signals to the actuators,
so that the system follows a desired trajectory. This generates an
error signal which is then used as input to the inverse model. In
the second stage, the calculated inverse model is used to predict
actual system trajectories (via a neural network), which are then
used in a feed-forward loop to reduce tracking errors [141,146].
Even when neither CMAC nor FEL were originally intended for
gaze control applications (CMAC was meant to be used for motion
control in manipulation tasks, and FEL’s objective was to replicate
the learning process during general body coordination) both of
these approaches are naturally inserted in the gaze control prob-
lem [143]. Allow us to elaborate on this by taking, for instance,
the case of saccadic response. The first models of saccades had
the form of a feedback system, where eye position was assumed
to be the controlled variable, and visual information was used
in the feedback loop to determine its response [162]. However,
this view was later disputed by several works, which showed that
saccades were in fact dependent on eye displacement, that is, by
change in position rather than by the position itself [163,164].
Moreover, visual feedback produces lags, longer than saccadic
responses, thus complicating its use in the calculation of efficient
saccadic actions [149]. In order to produce accurate saccades,
the system must ‘predict’ the motions that are needed to find
the target [143,160]. The above justifies the use of alternative
methods like CMACs or FEL in active vision. More detailed ac-
counts on saccade models and their evolution can be found in
the literature[164,165].
The following sections will focus mainly on the different
higher-level control systems used in the literature. We present
the most important solutions, with the intention of giving the
reader a generalized view of the state-of-the-art in gaze control
for humanoid robot heads. The most relevant works in gaze
control are presented next, grouped by subsystem: eyes or eye-
head/neck, giving an overview of the most popular approaches
used to implement each visual feature. Additionally, for eye-
head/neck coordination systems, we have included aspects such
as head stabilization, head/eye coordination, tracking and gaze
direction. The works which are referred in each of these instances
do not specify which feature is implemented or by what means.
Instead, they study vision as a general gaze control problem. The
interested reader is referred to [166] for an interesting review
on motion control strategies up to 2015. The article describes
artificial reconstructions of some visual features, in particular
saccades, smooth pursuit, VOR/OKR, and eye-head coordination.
5.3. Eye-centered gaze control
Eye-centered gaze control, as the name indicates, assumes
that gaze is maintained only through eye processes. This is, it
assumes that the head or neck motions do not contribute to
the control of gaze. Then, the visual features or tasks that are
considered for implementation are: saccades, OKR, VOR, smooth
pursuit, and vergence. Table 1 shows the most common tech-
niques that are employed to implement these phenomena. In the
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
table, the methodologies are grouped according to their general
structure. The CMAC [140] and the Recurrent Cerebellar Archi-
tecture (RCA) [144] are both controllers based on the structure of
the cerebellum, and its functionality in regards with perception.
Next, the table shows those models or controllers that are based
on Neural Networks (NN), including the FEL methodology by
Kawato [146], and Adaptive NN. Other strategies are constructed
from Predictive controllers (which may include Kalman filters,
Smith Predictors, or variations of those). Adaptive control strate-
gies, in which the controller parameters are adjusted based on
the evolution of the system, are listed next. And finally, classical
controllers appear last in the table, in this case in the form of PI
or PID control.
5.3.1. Saccades implementation
Saccades require very rapid motions, with minimum delay. As
mentioned above, visual feedback in this case is not appropriate
due to feedback’s inherent latency. Then, the tendency is to
implement saccades by means of intelligent techniques (particu-
larly, neural networks), and predictive or adaptive control. As an
example, one can refer to the work of Berthouze et al. [148] They
use a FEL algorithm in a sensorial robot head with foveated stereo
vision (ESCHeR) where each joint (for right and left vergence, pan
and tilt) is controlled by an independent FEL module. This work
was later combined with a Self-Organizing Map (SOM) based on
a Kohonen network [150]. The objective was to show how these
learning algorithms interact with each other and the world. A
variant of FEL is presented in [149], in which the feedforward
path of the controller is implemented using an Adaptive Neural
Network (ANN). This modification not only allows the platform to
satisfy the velocity requirements for saccades but it also permits
the NN to selectively grow in regions where more precision is
needed. Learning methods can also be used to provide the control
system with the desired position in advance (rather than fed
back), as demonstrated by Dean et al. in [143]. Their implemen-
tation feeds a CMAC with signals from a trained linear NN, thus
imitating the learning and teaching processes that occur naturally
in the cerebellum.
It has been demonstrated that humans and primates use pre-
dictive and adaptive mechanisms to control their gaze. If there
are errors in the visual tracking (originated by a poor prediction)
these are summed up and used to improve the model [157]. Then,
different studies have proposed the use of predictions to achieve
efficient saccadic mechanisms. Predictions are used in [154] to
select the visual feature that should be activated after a visual
stimulus has been detected. A similar idea is found in [155],
where a gaze control system is built upon saliency maps. At this
stage, the points of interest in the image have been identified.
Then a Markovian switching system is used to select the gaze
process that is necessary to track the object, namely saccades,
smooth pursuit or fixation.
Experiments have also shown that humans use adaptation to
adjust their saccadic and vestibulo-ocular systems to unexpected
situations, [157]. This is, our visual system can adapt and react
in accordance to the situation. This biological adaptation inspired
the use of adaptive control strategies in the implementation of
different visual processes, such as saccades [157,158] and smooth
pursuit [157].
5.3.2. Optokinetic reflex and VOR
Retinal slip is the displacement velocity of the observed image
in the retina. For example, a moving object passing in front
of our eyes can appear blurry, but image remains clear if it is
the head that moves instead. The first phenomenon is related
to OKR; the second, to VOR. OKR is a reflex that stabilizes the
image using information from the retinal slip. The vestibulo-
ocular reflex or VOR can be recreated by a feedback loop that
9
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
uses inertial information (e.g. from IMUs) to obtain head velocity
data [161]. It is commonly modeled using FEL architectures. It
has been noted in the literature that VOR is a learning process;
when retinal slip is affected, VOR is able to recover the stillness of
the image in the retina by adapting to the new conditions [157].
The most popular method for modeling VOR is Kawato’s FEL
architecture. In 1992, Gomi and Kawato [147] modeled VOR using
an adaptive FEL system, which was an extension to their original
work [146]. Later, Shibata and Schaal [151] interpreted retinal
slip as the error signal feeding the OKR model, likening it to a
feedback control system. Then, the output from the OKR is used to
feed a model for the VOR. However, Haith and Vijayakumar [145]
noted that by using this method, the VOR-OKR system would be
heavily dependent on the model’s dynamics, implying that the
controller would not generate appropriate signals if a variation
in the dynamics occurs. Therefore, they proposed to isolate the
VOR and the OKR, based on the fact that OKR does not depend on
the system kinematics. Haith and Vijayakumar’s approach relies
on recurrent cerebellar architectures to train the OKR. Then, the
OKR’s generated output contributes to the training of the VOR
subsystem.
5.3.3. Smooth pursuit
Smooth pursuit refers to the ability of the visual system to fol-
low a moving object, once it has been detected by saccades. Most
works found in the literature use adaptive or predictive models
to simulate this visual feature. Predictive methods are naturally
inserted in the smooth pursuit problem, rather than conventional
feedback control, because visual feedback is a rather slow process.
Predictive methods allow to estimate where the object will be in
the future and start directing the eyes in that direction. This is
achieved by analyzing the overall movement of the object up to
the current time. Examples of such implementations are found
in [154,155]. Both of these works use predictions to decide which
visual feature is to be activated (see Section 5.3.1.)
Two different approaches to implement smooth pursuit via
adaptive mechanisms are the works by Bahill and McDonald [157]
and Lunghi et al. [153]. An Adaptive Neural Network framework is
used in [157] to model smooth pursuit responses; this is the same
approach that was used for saccadic motion, and that has been
discussed in Section 5.3.1. Later, Lunghi et al. present a neural
adaptive predictor to implement smooth pursuit. One interesting
variation is that the gains of the predictor are updated using a
fuzzy system. The predictor can effectively compensate a visual
delay by modifying its parameters on line [153].
Macesanu et al. present a tracking methodology for a 6-DOF
humanoid vision system in which, the cameras are able to detect
and track a person moving in front of the robot. The method
considers the delay associated with the time needed to process
the images from the cameras, which as noted in [167], can lead
to instability of the control system. The motion of the cameras
is achieved by a PID controller (one for each degree of freedom),
while the dead-time is compensated using Smith predictors [156].
5.3.4. Vergence
As it was mentioned above, the role of vergence is to drive
both eyes towards the observed target, with the purpose of main-
taining it inside the fovea. To effectively realize vergence, each
eye must be driven by its own reference, which varies depending
on the position in space of the tracked object. As before, feedback
is not the ideal solution to implement vergence, because of its
natural slow response time. This is why, intelligent approaches,
like neural networks, make an appearance once again. Muham-
mad and Spratling [152] model vergence and saccade planning
by means of a hierarchical neural network. The proposed model
takes visual cues, as well as pose information, and maps them
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
to the visual space. It contrasts with other methods because it
takes into account the fact that in humans, saccades are open-
loop ballistic models, whereas previous works considered them
to be closed-loop. Muhammad and Spratling’s interpretation of
saccades leads to an adequate model of vergence, as well.
5.4. Eye-head coordination for gaze control
In humans and primates, gaze control is accomplished thanks
to the mutual contribution of the eyes and the head. When an
observer gazes towards an object, the eyes shift in the direc-
tion of the target, and then the head follows suit [160,191]. In
particular, the motion of the head serves to bring the target
image into the fovea when the object is located outside of the
field-of-view [136]. In robotics, gaze stabilization refers to the
process of keeping a target focused in spite of object, head or
body movements. It can include a feedback loop to process visual
information and to calculate adequate head motions to attain
a particular target, and a feed-forward loop that predicts head
movements. When the object is within a region reachable by pure
eye motion, the head’s contribution to gaze shift is minimal. Then,
once the target has been acquired, VOR ensures that it remains in
focus in spite of head motion. Table 2 shows control approaches
that have been used for gaze control, when considering cooper-
ation of the eyes and the head. The techniques in Table 2 are
grouped as follows. First, there appear those methods based on
cerebellar structure or functionality, such as RCA and the Locally
Weighted Projection Regression (LWPR) learning method [169].
The methods based on some form of intelligent control are listed
next; included here are NN, and fuzzy logic models. Predictors
are next, with instances of Kalman filters and Smith Predic-
tors. These are followed by Adaptive control techniques. In a
separate category, one can find strategies based on Develop-
mental Robotics [192]. This is an emergent area in robotics that
stems from human developmental theories [142] for learning.
Bio-inspired techniques include those deriving from neurological
models of the superior colliculus [193], or biological models of
the eyes’ movements, like Listing’s and Donders’ laws [184]. Next
in the table are those solutions based on classical controllers, like
PID and its variations, and finally, control schemes based on State
Machines.
5.4.1. Saccades
It is clear from Table 2 that the most common architectures for
implementing bioinspired saccades are the predictive and adap-
tive methods [174,177]. The high speeds required to implement
saccades mean that predictive or neural approaches are better
suited for the task, since they allow the eyes to react to a stimulus
in an anticipated manner.
For Brown [177], gaze control is achieved by the collabora-
tive work of various subsystems (the visual features) and body
propioception. Brown extended Bahill’s approach [157] by taking
into consideration the delays associated with gaze control. To
cope with them, it is proposed to use a Smith predictor that
naturally handles delays. The algorithm also permits the coordi-
nation of different control subsystems associated with saccades,
smooth pursuit, vergence, VOR and head compensation, [177,
194]. It should be noted however, that in the absence of an
exact model of the plant, Smith predictors are not suited to the
task. In this case, a Kalman filter and predictor can offer better
results [174]. In [174], supervised learning is used to select the
most appropriate response from various visual features (saccade,
smooth pursuit, VOR, OKR, vergence, or focus).
10
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
5.4.2. OKR and VOR
In complete eye/head coordination systems, cerebellar and
neural methods seem to be favored when implementing OKR and
VOR. In a study from 2010, Franci et al. compared FEL against
Porril’s decorrelation method, and concluded that, although FEL
is computationally less aggressive, the latter is better at guaran-
teeing a performance closer to that of humans. The analysis is
realized in terms of image stabilization [137].
Gaze stabilization as a combination of VCR, VOR and OKR,
is considered by Vannucci et al. in [136]. They created a model
of the cerebellar granular layer using a regression method (Lo-
cally Weighted Projection Regression, LWPR). This approach com-
bines machine learning and cerebellar models to obtain a system
that effectively learns the internal model of the plant. Falotico
et al. [170] demonstrated that FEL is better at head stabilization
tasks than traditional control methods, where VOR and OKR are
considered in the model. The FEL controller outdoes the classical
ones when a simulated sinusoidal perturbation is present. How-
ever, when the controllers were implemented in a real walking
robot, the authors noted that the FEL controller is sensitive to
perturbations caused by the initial impact of the robot’s foot.
Panerai et al. [171] consider VOR to achieve image stabilization
in the presence of head motion. This adaptive reflex commands
the eyes to move in the opposite direction of head movement
by using information from the vestibular system, thus keeping
the image stable in the retina. The authors use an unsupervised
learning neural network that takes data from visual and inertial
sensors to calculate the necessary control actions to achieve gaze
stabilization.
5.4.3. Smooth pursuit
This feature can be interpreted as a feedback loop, where the
reference is the object position. However, in order to successfully
keep the target in the center of the retina, the visual system must
predict the next position of the target based on its current pattern
of motion. Then, the most common methods for modeling smooth
pursuit are predictive and adaptive strategies.
Adaptive approaches are presented by Milighetti et al. [176]
and Vannucci et al. [175]. Milighetti et al. [176] propose a gaze
control scheme based on an adaptive Kalman filter predictor. The
proposed method is able to track an object moving in arbitrary
trajectories by combining a proportional feedback loop and an
adaptive feed-forward gain to predict the next state of the target.
Later, Vannucci et al. [175], use an adaptive approach based on
Asuni’s neural controller [172]. The objective is to coordinate eye
and head motions to achieve smooth pursuit of a moving object.
The algorithm uses predictions of the target’s motion, obtained
from an extended Kalman filter, to ensure accurate tracking with
zero delay and minimal tracking error.
An alternative approach is proposed by Wang et al. [189],
where the visual system is built in terms of several PID con-
trollers. The implemented active vision system accounts for sac-
cades, smooth pursuit, VOR and vergence. Their proposal com-
bines an open loop controller that ensures fast target fixation
with a closed loop controller in charge of vergence. Additionally,
smooth pursuit is achieved through the VOR system. Position
control and velocity control are used jointly to satisfy the re-
quirements of the saccadic and smooth pursuit systems. PID
controllers are used for both smooth pursuit and vergence control
in a feedback loop. A third PID controller is used to control head
motion, which works together with VOR and vergence to ensure
gaze stabilization.
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
Table 2
Eye-head coordination gaze control methods (see [168]).
Technique Implemented visual feature
RCA [144] [137]
LWPR[169] [136]
FEL [146,147] [137,170]
NN [168] [168,171] [168]
ANN
Fuzzy
Kalman [174] [174–176]
SP [177]
Ad [177] [178]
Dev [142]
B-i
P [185]
PD [170]
PID [189]
O-L [189]
SM
Saccades OKR/VOR Smooth pursuit
RCA: Recurrent Cerebellar Architecture, LWPR: Locally Weighted Projection Regression, FEL: Feedback-error-learning, NN: Neural Network
approaches, ANN: Adaptive Neural Network, SP: Smith Predictor, Ad: Adaptive methods, Dev: Developmental control, B-i: Bio-inspired control,
P: Proportional control, PD: Proportional–Derivative control, PID: Proportional–Integral–Derivative control, O-L: Open Loop control, SM: State
Machines.
5.4.4. Vergence
During vergence, each eye is driven by its own reference
inducing latencies than can interfere with the control system.
Then, an effective tracking solution needs to account for these
delays. Sharkey et al. [167] use Smith predictors to overcome the
associated delays. The controller is implemented in two stages:
a low-level system based on square root control (which drives
the actuators), and a higher-level controller based on predictive
methods that takes charge of the visual control processes. Results
are demonstrated for the vergence control problem.
Another issue that should be considered is the effect that
an object moving with an unpredictable trajectory can have in
the tracking system. In [178] an adaptive scheme is proposed to
track an object with unknown trajectory. The algorithm calcu-
lates the optimal joint actions, coordinating eyes, head and neck
mechanisms, to keep the target in the center of the image. The
method implements vergence control, tracking, and gaze control,
considering head motions.
5.4.5. Foveation
When a scene is being surveyed, the head and eye movements
allow the viewer to scan the area bringing different parts of
the scene into the fovea, thus detecting features of interest. We
call this process foveation and, in humanoid robots, it is typi-
cally recreated by classical controllers, such as those based on
Proportional (P) or Proportional–Derivative (PD) schemes.
Ude et al. [188] achieve foveated vision in a binocular robot
head by means of PD controllers. This strategy considers the
role of head motion in aiding the eyes locate the target by
increasing the observed area. Moreover, eyes coordinated motion
is implemented to provide a natural motion (rather than one eye
roaming independently of the other), and to increase the chances
of relocating the target if one eye loses it. Gu and Su [187] propose
a gaze control algorithm for the general problem of tracking a
visual target based on the kinematic equations of the system.
Saccades are used to make the eyes converge on the target once
it has entered the field of view. If a tracking error is detected, the
head moves to compensate the error. Then, if motion of target is
detected, a series of PD controllers would ensure that the eyes
remain fixed on the target. Later, Omrčen and Ude [185] propose
a foveated vision robot head that is controlled by means of a
virtual mechanism for target tracking. This virtual link extends
the model of the head with an additional joint ‘fixed’ to the eye,
thus connecting the head to the object of interest. The problem is
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
[136]
[172]
[173]
[167] [167]
[178] [179]
[180,181]
[182,183] [184]
[186]
[187,188]
[189] [189]
[25]
[190]
Vergence VCR Foveation Gaze direction Head-eye coord.
to control the position of the end of the virtual mechanism. The
control objective is attained by means of a proportional velocity
controller, with the system dynamics defined in terms of the
Jacobian matrix.
5.4.6. Gaze direction
Although gaze direction can, in general terms, be subdivided
into the performance of different visual actions, we have decided
to set it apart to highlight some works that stand out from the
works previously mentioned. We can see, from Table 2, that
the proposed solutions in this category are somewhat balanced
between intelligent [172,173], predictive or adaptive [167,179]
and classical approaches, [186,189], but a new category was also
found, that we label Bio-inspired control.
Bio-inspired control includes works that aim to explicitly im-
itate the physiological phenomena occurring in vision. The dif-
ference between these and the previously presented methods
(namely, FEL and CMAC) is that the latter use existing algorithms
(like neural networks) and try to accommodate them into copy-
ing the responses of a certain natural phenomenon. Bio-inspired
methods, on the other hand, create step by step, artificial versions
of those physiological responses; their purpose is to create an
explicit model of the visual feature in consideration. For the
problem of gaze direction we can mention the works in [182,183].
In this works, a robotic head is created to implement a neuro-
physiological model of gaze control by Goossens and Opstal [193].
This model includes three stages: the collicular mapping, the
stimulus detection and the control of the eyes velocities.
Intelligent control is employed in the works by Asuni et al.
[172] and Yoo et al. [173]. Neural networks in the form of Self-
organizing Neural Maps (SOM) are used in [172] for the control of
the ARTS Lab sensorial head. A set of sensors acquires information
about the motion of the head and based on this data the neural
network learns the dynamics of the robot by relating the motion
of the joints with the gaze direction. Once the learning phase is
over, the network provides the necessary motor commands to
satisfy the reference given a desired gaze direction. The authors
show evidence of effective target detection and gaze stabilization
within human tolerances. Yoo et al. [173] use an integral-based
fuzzy controller to solve the decision making problem in a real
world setting. This work is explicitly directed towards Human–
Robot-Interaction. Stable tracking of a visual object is attained by
Kryczka et al. [186] by means of an inverse dynamics based con-
troller that drives the head orientation. The system implements
11
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
the Vestibulocollic Reflex using information obtained from IMU
sensors.
Adaptive control is present in the work by Kuhn et al. in
2012 [179]. The authors propose an adaptive gaze control method
based on saliency information from scene analysis. An interesting
point of this proposal is that it reduces head motion by act-
ing only when new, important, data is detected by the robot’s
cameras.
Finally, Yoo and Kim [190] introduce a state machine system
for gaze control. In this work, the objective is to teach the robot
how to water a plant. The robot learns from observing a human
tutor, with the gaze shifting decisions being dictated by the state
machine.
5.4.7. Head-eye coordination
In the works reported, head-eye coordination is achieved by
biologically inspired mechanisms, that we have classified as ei-
ther bio-inspired control (based on physiological characteristics)
and developmental control (based on psychological features).
Instances of both are presented next.
An example of bio-inspired control applied to the head and
eye coordination problem is found in [184]. The approach in this
work detects saliency points that are used to activate adequate
saccadic responses, based on their biological counterparts. This
saccades are sent to the head and eye systems so that appropriate
actions can be taken to track the object in question.
Developmental robotics is a relatively recent research area
that combines robotics and developmental psychology and neu-
roscience. Developmental sciences state that humans acquire
their abilities, from infancy, in stages [142]. For example, children
are not born with the ability to walk; they first need to learn
to control their body, and to perform simple motions with arms
and legs, etc. Then, in developmental robotics the objective is to
endow robots with the necessary tools to learn how to perform
complex tasks from simple ones [192,195]. Based on this premise,
Law et al. [180,181] implement a neural approach for robot vision,
in which the robot gradually learns to coordinate eye and head
movements to achieve gaze control. The approach shows that
adding constraints (that enable staged learning) is beneficial to
attaining the general objective.
6. Design and control considerations
Based on results available in literature, we propose some
parameters that should be considered for the global design and
control of humanoid robot heads for HRI applications. In the first
of the following subsections we will present a brief overview of
humanoid robot head design. We will then continue our analysis
in the subsequent subsections.
6.1. Overview
We have positioned several humanoid robot heads in Table 3.
This table records the main sensing features presented by the
listed humanoid robot heads. It also shows their neck mobility
and whether or not they are capable of linguistic communica-
tion as well as the para-linguistic communication cue of facial
expressions. To this respect, one bullet corresponds to passive
facial traits that cannot change dynamically but are still intended
for appearance enhancement (such as Romeo [25] in Fig. 1);
two bullets correspond to partially expressive faces where only
some facial traits change dynamically (iCub [84] or EMYS [91]);
three bullets correspond to heads where most facial traits can
dynamically change allowing to express a wider variety of emo-
tions. It appears clear that there has not been a linear evolution
of humanoid robot heads. Expressive and non-expressive faces
12
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
continue to be developed. It can be also appreciated that there
is not one robot head which concentrates every sensing feature
because not all are needed for every application, however, vision
and audition seem to be standard. A form of inertial sensing is not
always present in the head because many humanoid robots locate
these sensors elsewhere (for example, DRC-HUBO+ [54] has them
at the pelvis). Neck mobility does not seem to generally increase,
but most have 2 DOF or more. Communicative features such as
speech and facial expressions are featured by a fair amount of
robot heads in Table 3.
6.2. Vision system and neck
If a humanoid robot is to navigate its environment, the ori-
entation of its vision system would change dynamically, hence
the need of active vision schemes, against passive vision meth-
ods [42]. There are several visual features that need to be con-
sidered in the design of a truly biomimetic robot vision system:
saccades, VOR and OKR, smooth pursuit, vergence, VCR, fovation,
gaze direction and head-eye coordination. According to the anal-
ysis in Section 5, saccades are typically implemented using pre-
dictive and adaptive methods. VOR and OKR, which work hand in
hand in stabilizing images in the retina, are mostly recreated via
intelligent controllers. Smooth pursuit is traditionally achieved
by Kalman filters and predictors, while vergence is generated by
predictive and adaptive methods. Foveation, on the other hand,
can be achieved through classical PID-type controllers. A lot of
the reported works on active vision, treat gaze direction as a
general problem where two or more of the individual features
may merge. Therefore, we found that the reported implementa-
tions range from classical, to intelligent, to bio-inspired control
techniques. Finally, in terms of head-eye coordination systems,
developmental approaches and bio-inspired controllers are being
investigated for achieving responses that are closer to human
actions.
The human being has the ability to visualize a whole scene
and at the same time, focus a specific object in the scene thanks
to both peripheral and foveal vision. Foveated vision can be
simulated with retina-like or space-variant sensors, where reso-
lution is highest at the center and gradually decreases as going
towards the periphery of the sensor [45,196]. However, these
retina-like sensors are not easily available. Two cameras per eye
where one of them gives wide FOV images (peripheral vision)
and the other provides narrow FOV images through a longer focal
length lens (to simulate the fovea) is another solution (see Armar
III in Fig. 1). In terms of control, foveation can be achieved by
directing and maintaining the image inside the high definition
area; this is typically achieved by classical methods like P, and
PD controllers, [185,187,188]. When the head is of the projected
type, one may consider RGB-D sensors which provide vision with
depth information and sometimes audition in a fully integrated
system. Two main RGB-D sensors abound among humanoid robot
heads: the Microsoft Kinect [109,197,198], and Asus Xtion Pro
Live sensor [10,50,110].
If the vision system has actuated cameras, and the goal is
to reproduce kinematic and dynamic capabilities of the human
visual apparatus, one may consider the following data. Eye an-
gular velocities are comprised between 600 ◦ s−1 and 1000 ◦ s−1 ,
and angular accelerations between 35 000 ◦ s−2 and 45 000 ◦ s−2
during saccadic motions [138]. Saccadic motions are of low am-
plitude, generally of no more than 20◦ . Motions that require
more than 30 ◦ s−1 velocities usually elicit saccadic motions and
are not in the domain of smooth pursuit [199]. Smooth pursuit
and saccades are normally modeled by intelligent, adaptive or
predictive methods. If the robot is expected to interact with
humans within a dynamic environment, then its responses must
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834

Table 3
Sensing and communicative features of several robot heads.
Robot head Circa Sensing Neck Verbal Facial
features DOF speech expressions
Wabot-2 [21] 1984 V A I S D L G 0 •
KTH Head [47] 1992 V A I S D L G 3
Tokyo face robot [71] 1993 V A I S D L G 0 •••
COG [49,63] 1995 V A I S D L G 3
WE-2/Hadaly [24] 1995 V A I S D L G 2
HRP-2 [105] 1998 V A I S D L G 2
WE-3 [48,53] 1998 V A I S D L G 4 • •••
Kismet [40] 1999 V A I S D L G 1 • •••
Robonaut [112] 2000 V A I S D L G 2
Asimo [113] 2000 V A I S D L G 2
WE-4 [23,32] 2002 V A I S D L G 4 • •••
Robovie [114] 2002 V A I S D L G 3
Qrio [77] 2004 V A I S D L G 2 •
Leonardo [87] 2004 V A I S D L G 4 •••
Philip K. Dick [77] 2005 V A I S D L G N/A • •••
Barthoc (Jr.) [126] 2006 V A I S D L G 4 • •••
ARMAR-III [9] 2006 V A I S D L G 4
Albert HUBO [28] 2006 V A I S D L G 3 • •••
iCub [84] 2006 V A I S D L G 3 • ••
HRP-4C [79] 2009 V A I S D L G 3 • •••
Nao [93] 2009 V A I S D L G 2 • •
Twente [94] 2009 V A I S D L G 4 ••
Flobi [92] 2010 V A I S D L G 3 • •••
EveR-2 [80] 2011 V A I S D L G 3 • •••
Mask-bot 2i [96] 2012 V A I S D L G 3 • •••
ARMAR-4 [108] 2013 V A I S D L G 5
EMYS [91] 2013 V A I S D L G 3 ••
Kobian-R [27] 2013 V A I S D L G 4 • •••
Atlas-DRC [26] 2013 V A I S D L G 1
CHIMP [13] 2013 V A I S D L G 0
RoboThespianTM [127] 2013 V A I S D L G 3 • •••
Romeo [25] 2014 V A I S D L G 4 • •
SociBot [29] 2014 V A I S D L G 2 • •••
Valkyrie [12] 2014 V A I S D L G 3
TORO [10] 2015 V A I S D L G 2 •
HRP-2Kai [55] 2015 V A I S D L G 1
DRC-HUBO+ [54] 2015 V A I S D L G 2
ISR-RobotHead [128] 2017 V A I S D L G 2 • •••
SCIPRR [123] 2018 V A I S D L G 4 •••
Armar-6 [34] 2018 V A I S D L G 2 •••
Sensing features: V (vision), A (audition), I (VOR/OKR through IMU), S (Smell), D (RGB-D), L (Lidar), G (INS/GPS). Facial
expressions: • (passive traits), •• (partially expressive face), ••• (fully expressive face).

be dynamic as well. The motion of the visual cues may be erratic,
or too fast; regardless, the visual system must be able to track it.
This is achievable by control structures that can predict motion
of the object, or that can adjust their parameters as needed.
As stated in Section 3 and Table 3, early non-expressive face
heads had simple neck mechanisms. However, redundancy allows
for a wider variety of motions while orienting the head [23].
A more anthropomorphous construction with four or more DOF
neck (roll, yaw and lower and upper pitch) such as in [108] allows
for natural motions more suitable for HRI [200]. Then, another
important aspect to consider is the interaction of the eyes with
the head (or neck). An appropriate coordination of these, will
allow the robot to react naturally, and to be familiar to the hu-
mans around it. In this respect, new robot design methodologies
based on the psychological human development [195], are being
introduced and gaining popularity, and control techniques based
on this theory have appeared [180,181].
6.3. Appearance and behavior
A robot head usually shapes the physical appearance of a hu-
manoid robot into something that looks human-like (or animal-
like in some examples). To enhance acceptance of humanoid
robots during HRI, there are two types of considerations to bear
in mind. The first one is the robot appearance. The second one
has more to do with what the robot is able to do to interact and
convey intentionality.
13
As we outlined in previous sections, non-expressive face robot
heads have been designed with HRI applications in mind. One
way to enhance their appearance is to design them so as to evoke
familiarity to the user in a passive manner (such as Romeo [25],
Fig. 1, or Pearl [81]). Passive designs may require to consider
factors such as head width and shape [201]; inter-pupillary dis-
tance (distance between eyes) [202,203]; or the presence of traits
such as browline, eyes and mouth [81]. As an image-based survey
conducted on NAO suggests, the simple addition of one facial trait
greatly increased the recognition rate of anger and sadness [93].
Interestingly, live tests have confirmed that the presence of
actuated facial traits enhance recognition of emotions expressed
by the robot [40]. However, the face is not the only appendage
that can enhance robot acceptance. In fact, it has been found that
whole-body motions and behavior can greatly increase the accep-
tance rate of a robot [114] by conveying intentionality. However,
intentionality can still be conveyed by gaze directions [15]. Motor
mimicry [126], dynamical update of facial expressions, generation
of emotion expression according to external stimuli [204] and
well-defined emotion expression [92,204] are all recommended
features in a humanoid robot head for HRI. Even though legged
locomotion does not particularly improve acceptance [204], ex-
pressive full-body motions do [114,204] (here, the head is not the
only agent of communication but part of it). Exaggerative emotion
expression tends to elevate the recognition rate of certain emo-
tions [91] and is an interesting feature to consider. Regardless,
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
it seems that all of these functions positively impact the quality
of interactions and their implementation is recommended. In
terms of appearance-enhancing design parameters, it seems that
eyebrows and eyelids are a very effective way to convey emotion,
since they are the most repeatedly actuated facial traits. Actuated
lips are also repeatedly used and usually suffices for displaying
motions during speech, which can be enhanced by an actuated
jaw [89,205]. We must emphasize that while it is true that a robot
can convey intentionality using body motions (such as Baxter
in [118]), for the non-expressive head (we are after all focusing
on the head), motion patterns are a combination of neck motions
with gaze directions. Even though intonation is still a possible
para-linguistic signal, the presence of the neck ensures these
motion patterns that convey intentionality. It has been shown
that fine-grained variations of body language are required to
give a humanoid robot the illusion of life [37]. Transporting this
idea to just the head, fair neck and eyes mobility along with
an expressive face might be required in order to achieve such
fine-grained variations. We therefore consider the neck as an
important component of robot heads.
We have found that non-expressive face heads have initially
been used in applications where no complex communication
skills are required, such as active vision and navigation research,
disaster response, or reach and grasp for manipulation. These are
qualities needed for autonomously navigating an environment
built for humans but do not allow for direct engagement in HRI.
We also see that there are expressive face heads that display
facial expressions with a mixture of both actuated and displayed
facial traits such as iCub [84] or Twente Head [94] (which in fact
lacks hearing). Finally, we see that android robot heads tend to be
the most appearance-enhanced and present all the basic sensorial
needs.
In terms of HRI enhancing functions, humanoid robot heads
should show an empathic and engaging behavior based on the
voice pattern or the facial expressions of an interacting agent.
This has been partially done in [126] and are certainly features
required in HRI [35]. After all, a sociable robot is one that adapts
its behavior according to stimuli perceived from the environment,
thus, a proper and real-time analysis of actions and gestures
performed by interacting agents is needed [35]. Ambient noise
seems to affect audition capabilities of humanoids in industrial
settings [34], so there is room for improvement in this respect.
‘‘Cutaneous sensing’’ in a humanoid robot head could be imple-
mented by a combination of touch sensors and impedance con-
trol. It should be kept in mind that while robot head appearance
and behavior greatly enhance HRI, identifying and interpreting
the interacting partner intentions may reveal to be even more
important in a collaborative context. Research on this issue has
been conducted [118,126,206] showing that an attentive state
is of great importance [87,207] but more research should be
done in this direction. Additionally, a few studies have compared
expressive face heads against non-expressive face heads [77,208]
mostly on appearance parameters. These studies evaluate their
design and perceived intelligence by the human counterpart.
Other studies focus more on acceptance and usability of the
overall humanoid robot [34] and are a step in the right direction.
The idea that a more human looking robot head results in a
more natural interaction [206] may hold in certain circumstances,
however, more field studies are needed in order to define if
an expressive face head positively impacts active collaborative
tasks when compared to a non-expressive robot head (and to
what extent). After all, it seems that in a collaborative context,
interacting partners look at the humanoid robot head in search
for social cues [34].
14
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
6.4. Some mechanical design challenges
Interesting developments such as foveated vision [31,49,108]
have arisen in sensor heads for humanoid robots. However, two
cameras per eye might result in a bulky design, that may nega-
tively impact the robot appearance. Space-variant sensors are an
alternative but these are not readily available (see Section 6.2).
Perhaps, the design of foveating lenses with a higher magnifica-
tion at the center than the periphery [98,209] can be alternatively
considered. There is also a challenge in reproducing the kinemat-
ics of the human visual apparatus. If we take the data introduced
in Section 6.2, we can see that velocities and accelerations during
saccadic motions are very high. Some humanoid robot heads
come near such figures (as Romeo [25], Fig. 1, for example), but
fully reaching human performance would require more power,
bigger actuators and bulkier designs. Additionally, mechanical
design parameters such as eyes and neck ranges of motion are
usually taken from established literature coming from medical or
statistical data of the human being [32,92]. However, these results
are often taken out of the context of a more natural and dynamic
set of motions that arise during interaction. It might be beneficial
to perform motion analysis of the human neck to identify natural
ranges of motion during interaction as it has been done for other
body parts [210].
Table 3 shows that few robots are equipped with more than
three sensing features. Adding more sensing features certainly
complicates the design task. The challenge increases when the
robot is also provided with actuated facial expressions and high
neck mobility along with many sensing features (even more so by
adding artificial skin and hair). The numerous required actuators
elevate both the cost and the noise coming from the actuation
system. Noise may reduce the quality of HRI [78] and more
silent mechanisms may be required. Also, high power to size
ratio actuators and structural optimization [108] become neces-
sary to avoid bulky designs. Passive (face) designs are therefore
appealing because they reduce the number of required drives
and thus the noise they produce. However it has been suggested
that non-expressive face heads may rely on other body parts
to communicate para-linguistically and obtain good acceptance
results [114]. Humanoid robot heads with projected faces [29,96]
also reduce the number of required drives because these do
not need to actuate facial traits. These have not yet equipped a
walking humanoid robot and the consulted literature does not
mention if embedded projection technology is compatible with
the dynamics of walking.
6.5. Perspectives in gaze control
We have seen that a lot of the existing works on gaze control
have relied on predictions, adaptations and learning methods to
imitate human vision. In parallel, artificial intelligence (AI) has
been receiving a lot of attention from various research groups in
recent years. Most notably, methodologies such as deep learning,
evolutionary computation, or developmental robotics.
When it comes to humanoid robotic vision there are several
challenges that still need to be addressed. The challenge goes
further than merely controlling the position and velocity of the
eyes and/or head. Before commanding them to gaze in a certain
direction, it is first necessary to develop a biomimetic visual
detection algorithm, that is capable of human-like responses.
Target detection in complex, unstructured or cluttered scenes has
been object of study by artificial vision groups for several years,
with deep learning methodologies being the most commonly
used. For instance, in [211] Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
(DCNN) are employed to train the Baxter robot to grasp unknown
objects in real-time. Other developments focus on the design of
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
Visual attention (VA) algorithms. An example based on Genetic
Programming (GP), known as Brain Programming (BP), automates
the search of VA programs [212]; an application example can
be found in [39]. The VAs are built on the premise that vision
is performed in different areas of the brain, in a hierarchical
manner, and the model is evolved to find the best solutions out
of all the possible visual attention programs. The proposed VA
model is shown to be better than other man-made solutions.
Once the target has been acquired by the cameras, it is nec-
essary to design appropriate control solutions that can manage
the different subsystems that contribute to reproduce the var-
ious reactions required. This is, to achieve a true biomimetic
response from the robot, it is necessary to coordinate (a) various
motions of the eyes, movements of the head, and in the case
of more complex robotic heads, even manage movements of the
lips, cheeks, eyelids, etc. Strategies on evolutionary computing
could prove useful to solve these issues. A new control design
methodology, known as Analytic Behaviors based control has
been employed for solving complex control challenges, under
different constraints [38]. This methodology, which emanates
from Genetic Programming, performs a search for optimal so-
lutions, given certain restrictions. The result is a set of analytic
expressions that can be used to define a controller, which can
be analyzed under the control theory framework. Developmental
robotics, which is already being used in the context of humanoid
vision, is another interesting (AI) methodology that could offer
interesting results in the solution of several of the open problems
in HRI.
The performance evaluation of the different control strate-
gies vary from application to application. In some works, the
performance evaluation criteria focuses on how well the system
reacts to stimuli, how fast can the ‘eyes’ saccade to the moving
target, or how efficient the control system is in keeping the visual
objective in focus, but there is no explicit comparison with human
responses. Some other evaluations focus on one specific human
visual process and explicitly compare the robot’s response with
that of a human subject. It would be interesting to establish
a benchmark to evaluate the appropriateness of each solution
in terms of likeliness to the human system, and especially, the
degree of acceptance from the users.
7. Conclusion
We proposed to define a humanoid robot head as being one
designed with the intention of being embedded in a humanoid
robot, that contains at least one guiding sense and that evokes
human-like physical traits. Therefore, we focused our study on
existing robot heads meeting these requirements. We have re-
viewed the general evolution of humanoid robot heads. These
robot heads are generally composed of various sensing devices
such as vision, audition and artificial vestibulo-ocular systems,
but other sensors are also used in conjunction. We have found
that vision is the most studied and abundant perception mecha-
nism embedded in humanoid robot heads. Many humanoid robot
heads are currently able to detect sounds, process speech, scan
and recreate a 3D representation of the environment, communi-
cate with para-linguistic signals such as facial expressions and
gaze directions, and even hold extreme physical resemblance
with the human being by incorporating artificial skin and hair.
Very few examples are capable of detecting smells, so this seems
to be an underrated feature which could well be of use as a
guiding sense for humanoids. Some humanoid robot heads are
of the expressive face type or the non-expressive head type. We
have seen that a non-expressive head can perform well in HRI
but the para-linguistic communication cue of facial expressions
remains very useful to enhance robot acceptance.
15
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
Because sight has been the first and most studied guiding
sense implemented in a humanoid robot head, we have presented
a review of the various control strategies that are commonly used
in active vision systems for these robots. Gaze control is usually
implemented in two steps: a higher level controller that is con-
cerned with the visual aspects of gaze, namely stimuli detection,
tracking, and gaze stabilization; and a low level control that man-
ages the actuator system. In terms of the higher level control, it is
evident from the literature that the current trend points towards
physiological or psychological inspired controllers that emulate
the functionality of the central nervous system, the vestibular sys-
tem, or the brain. Three approaches stand out: cerebellar archi-
tectures, neural networks, and adaptive or predictive methods, all
of which have been observed in biological visual systems. While
some works propose analytic, non bio-inspired, active vision so-
lutions, the majority of the research in the literature is based on
some biological model of vision, aiming to replicate it. Specially
since it has been demonstrated by various authors that such bio-
inspired controllers give the most human-like responses. In the
recent years artificial intelligent (AI) methodologies have been
gaining popularity amongst researchers, with applications to HRI,
complex systems, robotics, artificial vision, etc. Here we can find
deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN), brain programming
(BP) and genetic programming (GP). In particular, DCNN and BP
have been already employed for recreating biomimetic artificial
vision systems. GP, on the other hand, has proven useful for
controlling complex systems with various restrictions. Its exten-
sion to systems composed of multiple, possibly heterogeneous,
subsystems is an active area of research. Since humanoid robot
heads can be studied as complex systems, the implementation of
active vision systems that use scene information acquired from
DCNN or BP, and then compute control actions from GPs, for
instance, seems like a promising research area for humanoid
roboticists. An alternative to this is the field of developmental
robotics, which bridges psychology, neuroscience and robotics, to
create robots that learn and evolve in a human-like fashion. The
premise here is to build robots that acquire new abilities to solve
complex tasks from the learning of basic skills.
We have included a set of considerations regarding the global
design and control strategies that could enhance HRI involving
humanoid robot heads. We believe that a humanoid robot head
should be viewed also as a means of communication, designed to
enhance the quality of HRI. We have seen that much focus has
gone towards the appearance of the robot head (be it expressive
or non-expressive), however, more research should be performed
in topics such as: real-time emotion analysis and recognition
(via audition and vision) of interacting agents and the genera-
tion of extensive and fine variations of facial expressions and
head motions. Field studies evaluating acceptance and usability
of expressive face heads are also needed to assess the extent of
their impact in collaborative tasks and general HRI, as compared
to non-expressive face robot heads. Applications for humanoid
robot heads range from customer service like clients reception,
guidance or user support, to clinical services such as care for the
elderly and vulnerable patients, or therapy for individuals with
cognitive disabilities. In applications such as emergency relief,
appearance and communicative skills do not yet appear to be es-
sential requirements. Current disaster-response humanoid robots
success only partially depends on the sensor head performance
which has to be accurate and robust. However, humanoid robots
are increasingly being used to enhance therapy by accompanying
patients during rehabilitation tasks. Commercial or entertainment
applications are also becoming more abundant. In these instances,
HRI naturally occurs. Consequently, robot heads with a pleasant
demeanor are desirable in order to enhance acceptance from the
interacting agent. Thus, there is a need to enhance the robot
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
social behavior characteristics such as empathy and engagement,
which can be emulated by displaying appropriate verbal and/or
non-verbal signals.
Overall, substantial progress has been made in the areas of
active vision, cognition, design, emotion expression and recog-
nition as well as HRI and human–robot collaboration. Many of
these developments work well for their independent application
scenarios, however no humanoid robot head currently exists, ca-
pable of combining all of the individual approaches. The growing
complexity of the models involved may complicate their imple-
mentation into a single autonomous system, and the deployment
in uncontrolled human environments may be needed to assess
real world requirements and general robustness of the humanoid
robot head. Another open challenge is the issue of robot knowl-
edge for active vision and social behavior: it is impossible to
pre-program robot heads for all possible situations, therefore
robot heads should be able to acquire knowledge and reasoning
capabilities. It could also be useful that these robots learn from
failures (to identify objects or when displaying the wrong expres-
sion) when an interacting agent indicates so. For collaborative
tasks, there is a need to anticipate intentions of interactive agents
in order to communicate according to the needs of the situation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Secretaría de Educación Pública
(SEP) and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT)
under Grant A1-S-29824.
References
[1] B. Duran, S. Thill, Rob’s robot: Current and future challenges for humanoid
robots, in: The Future of Humanoid Robots - Research and Applications,
InTech, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/27197.
[2] S. Saeedvand, M. Jafari, H.S. Aghdasi, J. Baltes, A comprehensive survey
on humanoid robot development, Knowl. Eng. Rev. 34 (2019) e20, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269888919000158.
[3] B. Burton, The smithsonian’s new tour guide isn’t human, 2018,
https://www.cnet.com/news/smithsonian-museum-new-tour-guide-is-a-
pepper-robot-from-softbank/.
[4] J. Brown, Navigating the crowd with SPENCER, 2016, https://news.cnrs.
fr/articles/navigating-the-crowd-with-spencer.
[5] M. de la Grande Guerre, Visite à distance, 2018, https://www.
museedelagrandeguerre.eu/fr/espace-pedagogique/visitez-le-musee/
visite-a-distance.html.
[6] D. Carvajal, Let a robot be your museum tour guide, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/arts/design/museums-experiment-
with-robots-as-guides.html.
[7] J. Archer, ‘Friendly’ hospital robot begins trials to help stressed nurses,
2018, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/09/19/friendly-
hospital-robot-begins-trials-help-stressed-nurses/.
[8] J. Vincent, LG’s new airport robots will guide you to your gate and clean
up your trash, 2017, https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/16007680/lg-
airport-robot-cleaning-guide-south-korea-incheon.
[9] A. Albers, S. Brudniok, J. Ottnad, C. Sauter, K. Sedchaicharn, Design of
modules and components for humanoid robots, in: A.C. de Pina Filho
(Ed.), Humanoid Robots, IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.
5772/4857.
[10] J. Englsberger, A. Werner, C. Ott, B. Henze, M.A. Roa, G. Garofalo, R.
Burger, A. Beyer, O. Eiberger, K. Schmid, A. Albu-Schaffer, Overview of the
torque-controlled humanoid robot TORO, in: 2014 IEEE-RAS International
Conference on Humanoid Robots, IEEE, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
humanoids.2014.7041473.
16
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
[11] K. Kojima, T. Karasawa, T. Kozuki, E. Kuroiwa, S. Yukizaki, S. Iwaishi, T.
Ishikawa, R. Koyama, S. Noda, F. Sugai, S. Nozawa, Y. Kakiuchi, K. Okada,
M. Inaba, Development of life-sized high-power humanoid robot JAXON
for real-world use, in: 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on
Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2015, pp. 838–843, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/HUMANOIDS.2015.7363459.
[12] N.A. Radford, P. Strawser, K. Hambuchen, J.S. Mehling, W.K. Verdeyen,
A.S. Donnan, J. Holley, J. Sanchez, V. Nguyen, L. Bridgwater, R. Berka,
R. Ambrose, M. Myles Markee, N.J. Fraser-Chanpong, C. McQuin, J.D.
Yamokoski, S. Hart, R. Guo, A. Parsons, B. Wightman, P. Dinh, B. Ames,
C. Blakely, C. Edmondson, B. Sommers, R. Rea, C. Tobler, H. Bibby, B.
Howard, L. Niu, A. Lee, M. Conover, L. Truong, R. Reed, D. Chesney, R.
Platt Jr, G. Johnson, C.-L. Fok, N. Paine, L. Sentis, E. Cousineau, R. Sinnet,
J. Lack, M. Powell, B. Morris, A. Ames, J. Akinyode, Valkyrie: NASA’s
first bipedal humanoid robot, J. Field Robotics 32 (3) (2015) 397–419,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.21560.
[13] A. Stentz, H. Herman, A. Kelly, E. Meyhofer, G.C. Haynes, D. Stager, B.
Zajac, J.A. Bagnell, J. Brindza, C. Dellin, M. George, J. Gonzalez-Mora, S.
Hyde, M. Jones, M. Laverne, M. Likhachev, L. Lister, M. Powers, O. Ramos,
J. Ray, D. Rice, J. Scheifflee, R. Sidki, S. Srinivasa, K. Strabala, J.-P. Tardif,
J.-S. Valois, J.M. Vande Weghe, M. Wagner, C. Wellington, CHIMP, the
CMU highly intelligent mobile platform, J. Field Robotics 32 (2) (2015)
209–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.21569.
[14] N.J. Ferrier, Harvard binocular head, in: Proc. SPIE 1708, Applications of
Artificial Intelligence X: Machine Vision and Robotics, Vol. 1708, 1992,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.58557.
[15] N. Emery, The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution
of social gaze, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 24 (6) (2000) 581–604, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00025-7.
[16] L. Natale, G. Metta, G. Sandini, Development of auditory-evoked reflexes:
Visuo-acoustic cues integration in a binocular head, Robot. Auton. Syst.
39 (2) (2002) 87–106, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00174-4.
[17] L. Rayleigh, XII.on our perception of sound direction, Philos. Mag. Ser. 6
13 (74) (1907) 214–232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786440709463595.
[18] R. Russell, A. Purnamadjaja, Odor and airflow: complementary senses for
a humanoid robot, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/robot.
2002.1014809.
[19] M. Bonnefille, in: K. Goodner, R. Rouseff (Eds.), Practical Analysis of Flavor
and Fragrance Materials, Wiley, 2011, pp. 111–154.
[20] R.A. Brooks, L.A. Stein, Building brains for bodies, Auton. Robots 1 (1)
(1994) 7–25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00735340.
[21] I. Kato, S. Ohteru, K. Shirai, T. Matsushima, S. Narita, S. Sugano, T.
Kobayashi, E. Fujisawa, The robot musician ‘wabot-2’ (waseda robot-2),
Robotics 3 (2) (1987) 143–155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8493(87)
90002-7.
[22] H. Miwa, A. Takanishi, H. Takanobu, Experimental study on robot
personality for humanoid head robot, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2, 2001,
pp. 1183–1188, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2001.976329.
[23] F. Patane, C. Laschi, H. Miwa, E. Guglielmelli, P. Dario, A. Takanishi, Design
and development of a biologically-inspired artificial vestibular system
for robot heads, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 1317–1322, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389578.
[24] A. Takanishi, S. Ishimoto, T. Matsuno, Development of an anthropo-
morphic head-eye system for robot and human communication, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human
Communication, 1995, pp. 77–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.1995.
531938.
[25] N. Pateromichelakis, A. Mazel, M.A. Hache, T. Koumpogiannis, R. Gelin,
B. Maisonnier, A. Berthoz, Head-eyes system and gaze analysis of the
humanoid robot romeo, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2014, pp. 1374–1379,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2014.6942736.
[26] G. Nelson, A. Saunders, R. Playter, The PETMAN and atlas robots at boston
dynamics, in: A. Goswami, P. Vadakkepat (Eds.), Humanoid Robotics:
A Reference, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2019, pp. 169–186, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6046-2_15.
[27] G. Trovato, T. Kishi, N. Endo, M. Zecca, K. Hashimoto, A. Takanishi, Cross-
cultural perspectives on emotion expressive humanoid robotic head:
Recognition of facial expressions and symbols, Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5 (4)
(2013) 515–527, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0213-z.
[28] J. h. Oh, D. Hanson, W. s. Kim, Y. Han, J. y. Kim, I. w. Park, Design of
android type humanoid robot albert HUBO, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2006, pp.
1428–1433, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2006.281935.
[29] P. Wills, P. Baxter, J. Kennedy, E. Senft, T. Belpaeme, Socially contingent
humanoid robot head behaviour results in increased charity donations, in:
Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-
Robot Interaction, 2016, pp. 533–534, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.
7451842.
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
[30] R.A. Brooks, Behavior-based humanoid robotics, in: Proceedings of the
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol.
1, 1996, pp. 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1996.570613.
[31] H. Kozima, Infanoid, a babybot that explores the social environment, in: K.
Dautenhahn, A. Bond, L. Cañamero, B. Edmonds (Eds.), Socially Intelligent
Agents: Creating Relationships with Computers and Robots, Springer US,
Boston, MA, 2002, pp. 157–164, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47373-
9_19.
[32] H. Miwa, T. Okuchi, H. Takanobu, A. Takanishi, Development of a new
human-like head robot WE-4, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3, 2002, pp.
2443–2448, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IRDS.2002.1041634.
[33] S. Ali, F. Mehmood, Y. Ayaz, U. Asgher, M.J. Khan, Effect of different
visual stimuli on joint attention of ASD children using NAO robot,
in: Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, Springer
International Publishing, 2019, pp. 490–499, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-20473-0_48.
[34] B. Busch, G. Cotugno, M. Khoramshahi, G. Skaltsas, D. Turchi, L. Urbano,
M. Wächter, Y. Zhou, T. Asfour, G. Deacon, D. Russell, A. Billard, Evaluation
of an industrial robotic assistant in an ecological environment, in: 2019
28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive
Communication (RO-MAN), 2019, pp. 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/RO-
MAN46459.2019.8956399.
[35] A. Greco, A. Roberto, A. Saggese, M. Vento, V. Vigilante, Emotion analysis
from faces for social robotics, in: 2019 IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), 2019, pp. 358–364, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/SMC.2019.8914039.
[36] C.T. Ishi, T. Minato, H. Ishiguro, Analysis and generation of laughter
motions, and evaluation in an android robot, APSIPA Trans. Signal Inf.
Process. 8 (2019) http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/atsip.2018.32.
[37] M. Marmpena, A. Lim, T.S. Dahl, N. Hemion, Generating robotic emotional
body language with variational autoencoders, in: 2019 8th International
Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII),
2019, pp. 545–551, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2019.8925459.
[38] M. Meza-Sánchez, E. Clemente, M. Rodríguez-Liñán, G. Olague, Synthetic-
analytic behavior-based control framework: Constraining velocity in
tracking for nonholonomic wheeled mobile robots, Inform. Sci. 501 (2019)
436–459, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.06.025.
[39] G. Olague, D.E. Hernández, P. Llamas, E. Clemente, J.L. Briseño, Brain
programming as a new strategy to create visual routines for object
tracking, Multimedia Tools Appl. 78 (5) (2019) 5881–5918, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11042-018-6634-9.
[40] C. Breazeal, Emotion and sociable humanoid robots, Int. J. Hum.-Comput.
Stud. 59 (1) (2003) 119–155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)
00018-1.
[41] P. Ekman, W. Friesen, Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing
Emotions from Facial Clues, in: A Spectrum book, Malor Books, 2003.
[42] J. Aloimonos, I. Weiss, A. Bandyopadhyay, Active vision, Int. J. Comput.
Vis. 1 (4) (1988) 333–356, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00133571.
[43] R. Bajcsy, Active perception, Proc. IEEE 76 (8) (1988) 966–1005, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/5.5968.
[44] T.J. Olson, R.D. Potter, Real time vergence control, in: Proceedings
of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, 1989, pp. 404–409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.
1989.37878.
[45] C. Capurro, F. Panerai, E. Grosso, G. Sandini, A binocular active vision
system using space variant sensors: exploiting autonomous behaviors for
space applications, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Digital Signal Processing, 1993.
[46] J.L. Crowley, P. Bobet, M. Mesrabi, Gaze control for a binocular camera
head, in: G. Sandini (Ed.), Computer Vision — ECCV’92: Second European
Conference on Computer Vision Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, May 19–
22, 1992 Proceedings, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
1992, pp. 588–596, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55426-2_63.
[47] K. Pahlavan, J.-O. Eklundh, Heads, eyes and head-eye systems, Int. J.
Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell. 07 (01) (1993) 33–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1142/S0218001493000030.
[48] A. Takanishi, S. Hirano, K. Sato, Development of an anthropomorphic
head-eye system for a humanoid robot-realization of human-like head-
eye motion using eyelids adjusting to brightness, in: Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 2, 1998,
pp. 1308–1314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1998.677285.
[49] M. Marjanovic, B. Scassellati, M. Williamson, Self-taught visually-guided
pointing for a humanoid robot, in: From Animals to Animats: Proceedings
of the Society of Adaptive Behavior, MIT Press, 1996, pp. 35–44.
[50] C. Rasmussen, K. Yuvraj, R. Vallett, K. Sohn, P. Oh, Towards functional
labeling of utility vehicle point clouds for humanoid driving, Intell. Serv.
Robotics 7 (3) (2014) 133–143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11370-014-
0157-7.
17
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
[51] A. Takanishi, H. Takanobu, I. Kato, T. Umetsu, Development of the anthro-
pomorphic head-eye robot WE-3rii with an autonomous facial expression
mechanism, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Vol. 4, 1999, pp. 3255–3260, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/ROBOT.1999.774094.
[52] A. Takanishi, K. Sato, K. Segawa, H. Takanobu, H. Miwa, An anthro-
pomorphic head-eye robot expressing emotions based on equations of
emotion, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, Vol. 3, 2000, pp. 2243–2249, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
ROBOT.2000.846361.
[53] H. Miwa, T. Umetsu, A. Takanishi, H. Takanohu, Human-like robot head
that has olfactory sensation and facial color expression, in: Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1,
2001, pp. 459–464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2001.932593.
[54] J. Lim, I. Lee, I. Shim, H. Jung, H.M. Joe, H. Bae, O. Sim, J. Oh, T. Jung,
S. Shin, K. Joo, M. Kim, K. Lee, Y. Bok, D.-G. Choi, B. Cho, S. Kim, J.
Heo, I. Kim, J. Lee, I.S. Kwon, J.-H. Oh, Robot system of DRC-HUBO+ and
control strategy of team KAIST in DARPA robotics challenge finals, J. Field
Robotics 34 (4) (2017) 802–829, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.21673.
[55] K. Kaneko, M. Morisawa, S. Kajita, S. Nakaoka, T. Sakaguchi, R. Cisneros,
F. Kanehiro, Humanoid robot HRP-2kai — Improvement of HRP-2 towards
disaster response tasks, in: 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference
on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2015, pp. 132–139, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2015.7363526.
[56] S. Kim, M. Kim, J. Lee, S. Hwang, J. Chae, B. Park, H. Cho, J. Sim, J. Jung, H.
Lee, S. Shin, M. Kim, N. Kwak, Y. Lee, S. Lee, M. Lee, S. Yi, K.K.C. Chang,
J. Park, Approach of team SNU to the DARPA robotics challenge finals,
in: 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots
(Humanoids), 2015, pp. 777–784, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HUMANOIDS.
2015.7363458.
[57] M.J. Schuster, J. Okerman, H. Nguyen, J.M. Rehg, C.C. Kemp, Perceiving
clutter and surfaces for object placement in indoor environments, in:
2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2010,
pp. 152–159, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2010.5686328.
[58] C. Knabe, R. Griffin, J. Burton, G. Cantor-Cooke, L. Dantanarayana, G. Day,
O. Ebeling-Koning, E. Hahn, M. Hopkins, J. Neal, J. Newton, C. Nogales,
V. Orekhov, J. Peterson, M. Rouleau, J. Seminatore, Y. Sung, J. Webb,
N. Wittenstein, J. Ziglar, A. Leonessa, B. Lattimer, T. Furukawa, Team
valor’s ESCHER: A novel electromechanical biped for the darpa robotics
challenge, in: M. Spenko, S. Buerger, K. Iagnemma (Eds.), The DARPA
Robotics Challenge Finals: Humanoid Robots To the Rescue, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp. 583–629, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-74666-1_15.
[59] N.G. Tsagarakis, D. Caldwell, F. Negrello, W. Choi, L. Baccelliere, V.
Loc, J. Noorden, L. Muratore, A. Margan, A. Cardellino, L. Natale, E.
Mingo Hoffman, H. Dallali, N. Kashiri, J. Malzahn, J. Lee, P. Kryczka, D.
Kanoulas, M. Garabini, M. Catalano, M. Ferrati, V. Varricchio, L. Pallottino,
C. Pavan, A. Bicchi, A. Settimi, A. Rocchi, A. Ajoudani, WALK-MAN: A
high-performance humanoid platform for realistic environments, J. Field
Robotics 34 (7) (2017) 1225–1259, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.21702.
[60] I. Kato, Development of WABOT 1, Biomechanism 2 (1973) 173–214.
[61] K. Hirai, Current and future perspective of honda humamoid robot, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, Vol. 2, 1997, pp. 500–508, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.
1997.655059.
[62] K. Hirai, M. Hirose, Y. Haikawa, T. Takenaka, The development of honda
humanoid robot, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Vol. 2, 1998, pp. 1321–1326, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/ROBOT.1998.677288.
[63] B. Scassellati, A binocular, foveated active vision system, Tech. rep.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
[64] Y. Matsusaka, T. Tojo, S. Kubota, K. Furukawa, D.T.K. Hayata, Multi-person
conversation via multi-modal interface | a robot who communicates
with multi-user, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech
Communication Technology, 1999, pp. 1723–1726.
[65] A. Nagakubo, Y. Kuniyoshi, G. Cheng, Development of a high-performance
upper-body humanoid system, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3, 2000, pp.
1577–1583, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2000.895198.
[66] H.G. Marques, M. Jäntsch, S. Wittmeier, O. Holland, C. Alessandro, A.
Diamond, M. Lungarella, R. Knight, ECCE1: The first of a series of
anthropomimetic musculoskeletal upper torsos, in: Proceedings of the
10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2010, pp.
391–396, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2010.5686344.
[67] T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh, K. Dautenhahn, A survey of socially interactive
robots, Robot. Auton. Syst. 42 (3) (2003) 143–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X, Socially Interactive Robots.
[68] J. Fink, Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots
and human-robot interaction, in: S.S. Ge, O. Khatib, J.-J. Cabibihan, R. Sim-
mons, M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Social Robotics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 199–208.
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
[69] E.G. Urquiza-Haas, K. Kotrschal, The mind behind anthropomorphic think-
ing: attribution of mental states to other species, Anim. Behav. 109 (2015)
167–176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.08.011.
[70] A. Prakash, W. Rogers, Why some humanoid faces are perceived more
positively than others: Effects of human-likeness and task, Int. J. Soc.
Robot. 7 (2) (2015) 309–331, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-
4.
[71] H. Kobayashi, F. Hara, Study on face robot for active human interface-
mechanisms of face robot and expression of 6 basic facial expressions, in:
2nd IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication,
1993, pp. 276–281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.1993.367708.
[72] F. Hara, H. Kobayashi, F. Iida, An interactive face robot able to create
virtual communication with human, in: M. Göbel, J. Landauer, U. Lang, M.
Wapler (Eds.), Virtual Environments ’98, Springer Vienna, Vienna, 1998,
pp. 182–194.
[73] T. Hashimoto, I. Verner, H. Kobayashi, Human-like robot as teacher’s
representative in a science lesson: An elementary school experiment,
in: J.-H. Kim, E.T. Matson, H. Myung, P. Xu (Eds.), Robot Intelligence
Technology and Applications 2012: An Edition of the Presented Papers
from the 1st International Conference on Robot Intelligence Technology
and Applications, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 775–786, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37374-9_74.
[74] M. Mori, K.F. MacDorman, N. Kageki, The uncanny valley [from the field],
IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19 (2) (2012) 98–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
MRA.2012.2192811.
[75] C. Bartneck, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, N. Hagita, My robotic doppelgänger - a
critical look at the Uncanny Valley, in: 18th IEEE International Symposium
on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2009, pp. 269–276,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326351.
[76] T. Minato, M. Shimada, H. Ishiguro, S. Itakura, Development of an android
robot for studying human-robot interaction, in: B. Orchard, C. Yang, M.
Ali (Eds.), Innovations in Applied Artificial Intelligence: 17th International
Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intel-
ligence and Expert Systems, IEA/AIE 2004, Ottawa, Canada, May 17-20,
2004. Proceedings, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004,
pp. 424–434, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24677-0_44.
[77] D. Hanson, Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots, in:
Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium: Toward Social
Mechanisms of Android Science, 2006, pp. 39–42.
[78] H. Ishiguro, S. Nishio, Building artificial humans to understand humans,
J. Artif. Organs 10 (3) (2007) 133–142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10047-
007-0381-4.
[79] K. Kaneko, F. Kanehiro, M. Morisawa, K. Miura, S. Nakaoka, S. Kajita,
Cybernetic human HRP-4c, in: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE-RAS Inter-
national Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2009, pp. 7–14, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/ICHR.2009.5379537.
[80] H.S. Ahn, D.-W. Lee, D. Choi, D.Y. Lee, M.H. Hur, H. Lee, W.H. Shon,
Development of an android for singing with facial expression, in: IECON
2011 - 37th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society,
2011, pp. 104–109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2011.6119296.
[81] C. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, S. Kiesler, All robots are not created
equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads, in: Pro-
ceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes,
Practices, Methods, and Techniques, ACM, New York, NY, 2002, pp.
321–326, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/778712.778756.
[82] T. Minato, M. Shimada, S. Itakura, K. Lee, H. Ishiguro, Evaluating the
human likeness of an android by comparing gaze behaviors elicited by
the android and a person, Adv. Robot.: Int. J. Robot. Soc. Japan 20 (10)
(2006) 1147—1163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156855306778522505.
[83] L. Aryananda, J. Weber, MERTZ: a quest for a robust and scalable active
vision humanoid head robot, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RAS International
Conference on Humanoid Robots, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 513–532, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/ICHR.2004.1442668.
[84] R. Beira, M. Lopes, M. Praca, J. Santos-Victor, A. Bernardino, G. Metta, F.
Becchi, R. Saltaren, Design of the robot-cub (icub) head, in: Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006,
pp. 94–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2006.1641167.
[85] T. Hashimoto, S. Hitramatsu, T. Tsuji, H. Kobayashi, Development of
the face robot SAYA for rich facial expressions, in: Proceedings of the
SICE-ICASE International Joint Conference, 2006, pp. 5423–5428, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/SICE.2006.315537.
[86] T. Minato, Y. Yoshikawa, T. Noda, S. Ikemoto, H. Ishiguro, M. Asada, CB2:
A child robot with biomimetic body for cognitive developmental robotics,
in: Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid
Robots, 2007, pp. 557–562, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2007.4813926.
[87] C. Breazeal, A. Brooks, D. Chilongo, J. Gray, G. Hoffman, C. Kidd, H. Lee,
J. Lieberman, A. Lockerd, Working collaboratively with humanoid robots,
in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid
Robots, Vol. 1, 2004, pp. 253–272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2004.
1442126.
18
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
[88] A.N. van Breemen, Animation engine for believable interactive user-
interface robots, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 2873–2878, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389845.
[89] H. Song, Y.-M. Kim, J.C. Park, C.H. Kim, D.-S. Kwon, Design of a robot head
for emotional expression: EEEX, in: 17th IEEE International Symposium
on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2008, pp. 207–212,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600667.
[90] J. Saldien, K. Goris, B. Vanderborght, J. Vanderfaeillie, D. Lefeber, Express-
ing emotions with the social robot probo, Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2 (4) (2010)
377–389, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0067-6.
[91] P.E. McKenna, M.Y. Lim, A. Ghosh, R. Aylett, F. Broz, G. Rajendran, Do you
think i approve of that? Designing facial expressions for a robot, in: A.
Kheddar, E. Yoshida, S.S. Ge, K. Suzuki, J.-J. Cabibihan, F. Eyssel, H. He
(Eds.), Social Robotics, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp.
188–197.
[92] I. Lütkebohle, F. Hegel, S. Schulz, M. Hackel, B. Wrede, S. Wachsmuth, G.
Sagerer, The bielefeld anthropomorphic robot head ‘‘flobi’’, in: Proceed-
ings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
2010, pp. 3384–3391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509173.
[93] A. De Beir, H.-L. Cao, P. Gómez Esteban, G. Van de Perre, D. Lefeber, B.
Vanderborght, Enhancing emotional facial expressiveness on NAO, Int. J.
Soc. Robot. 8 (4) (2016) 513–521, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-
0363-x.
[94] R. Reilink, L.C. Visser, D.M. Brouwer, R. Carloni, S. Stramigioli, Mechatronic
design of the Twente humanoid head, Intell. Serv. Robot. 4 (2) (2011)
107–118, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11370-010-0077-0.
[95] F. Delaunay, T. Belpaeme, Refined human-robot interaction through retro-
projected robotic heads, in: 2012 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics
and Its Social Impacts, 2012, pp. 106–107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.
2012.6213409.
[96] B. Pierce, T. Kuratate, C. Vogl, G. Cheng, ‘‘Mask-bot 2i": An active
customisable robotic head with interchangeable face, in: Proceedings of
the 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2012,
pp. 520–525, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2012.6651569.
[97] D.H. Ballard, Reference frames for animate vision, in: Proceedings of
the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol.
2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1989, pp.
1635–1641.
[98] Y. Kuniyoshi, N. Kita, T. Suehiro, S. Rougeaux, Active stereo vision system
with foveated wide angle lenses, in: S.Z. Li, D.P. Mital, E.K. Teoh, H.
Wang (Eds.), Recent Developments in Computer Vision: Second Asian
Conference on Computer Vision, ACCV ’95 Singapore, December 5–8, 1995
Invited Session Papers, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
1996, pp. 191–200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60793-5_74.
[99] P. Fitzpatrick, G. Metta, L. Natale, Towards long-lived robot genes, Robot.
Auton. Syst. 56 (1) (2008) 29–45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2007.
09.014.
[100] F. Grondin, D. Létourneau, F. Ferland, V. Rousseau, F. Michaud, The
manyears open framework, Auton. Robots 34 (3) (2013) 217–232, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10514-012-9316-x.
[101] E. Marchand, F. Spindler, F. Chaumette, Visp for visual servoing: a generic
software platform with a wide class of robot control skills, IEEE Robot.
Autom. Mag. 12 (4) (2005) 40–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2005.
1577023.
[102] E.M. Hoffman, S. Traversaro, A. Rocchi, M. Ferrati, A. Settimi, F. Romano,
L. Natale, A. Bicchi, F. Nori, N.G. Tsagarakis, Yarp based plugins for
gazebo simulator, in: Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems,
Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 333–346, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-13823-7_29.
[103] K. Nakadai, T. Takahashi, H.G. Okuno, H. Nakajima, Y. Hasegawa, H. Tsu-
jino, Design and implementation of robot audition system ’HARK’ – open
source software for listening to three simultaneous speakers, Adv. Robot.
24 (5–6) (2010) 739–761, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/016918610x493561.
[104] V. Tikhanoff, A. Cangelosi, P. Fitzpatrick, G. Metta, L. Natale, F. Nori, An
open-source simulator for cognitive robotics research, in: Proceedings of
the 8th Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems, ACM
Press, 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1774674.1774684.
[105] H. Hirukawa, F. Kanehiro, K. Kaneko, S. Kajita, K. Fujiwara, Y. Kawai, F.
Tomita, S. Hirai, K. Tanie, T. Isozumi, K. Akachi, T. Kawasaki, S. Ota, K.
Yokoyama, H. Handa, Y. Fukase, J. ichiro Maeda, Y. Nakamura, S. Tachi, H.
Inoue, Humanoid robotics platforms developed in HRP, Robot. Auton. Syst.
48 (4) (2004) 165–175, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2004.07.007.
[106] I.-W. Park, J.-Y. Kim, S.-W. Park, J.-H. Oh, Development of humanoid
robot platform KHR-2 (KAIST humanoid robot-2), in: Proceedings of the
IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Vol. 1, 2004, pp.
292–310, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2004.1442128.
[107] C. Ott, O. Eiberger, W. Friedl, B. Bauml, U. Hillenbrand, C. Borst, A.
Albu-Schaffer, B. Brunner, H. Hirschmuller, S. Kielhofer, R. Konietschke,
M. Suppa, T. Wimbock, F. Zacharias, G. Hirzinger, A humanoid two-
arm system for dexterous manipulation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2006, pp. 276–283, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2006.321397.
[108] T. Asfour, J. Schill, H. Peters, C. Klas, J. Bücker, C. Sander, S. Schulz, A.
Kargov, T. Werner, V. Bartenbach, ARMAR-4: A 63 DOF torque controlled
humanoid robot, in: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE-RAS International
Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2013, pp. 390–396, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2013.7030004.
[109] J.-K. Yoo, S.-B. Han, J.-H. Kim, Sway motion cancellation scheme using a
RGB-d camera-based vision system for humanoid robots, in: Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp.
263–272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37374-9_26.
[110] X. Chen, K. Chaudhary, Y. Tanaka, K. Nagahama, H. Yaguchi, K. Okada, M.
Inaba, Reasoning-based vision recognition for agricultural humanoid robot
toward tomato harvesting, in: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/iros.2015.7354304.
[111] M. Wan, M. Fu, H. Zhang, W. Zhou, Mechatronic design of a humanoid
head robot, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Mechatronics and Automation, 2016, pp. 244–248, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/ICMA.2016.7558568.
[112] R.O. Ambrose, H. Aldridge, R.S. Askew, R.R. Burridge, W. Bluethmann, M.
Diftler, C. Lovchik, D. Magruder, F. Rehnmark, Robonaut: NASA’s space
humanoid, IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl. 15 (4) (2000) 57–63, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/5254.867913.
[113] Y. Sakagami, R. Watanabe, C. Aoyama, S. Matsunaga, N. Higaki, K.
Fujimura, The intelligent ASIMO: system overview and integration, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, Vol. 3, 2002, pp. 2478–2483, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IRDS.
2002.1041641.
[114] T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, T. Ono, M. Imai, R. Nakatsu, Development and
evaluation of an interactive humanoid robot "robovie", in: Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 2,
2002, pp. 1848–1855, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2002.1014810.
[115] K. Nishiwaki, T. Sugihara, S. Kagami, F. Kanehiro, M. Inaba, H. Inoue,
Design and development of research platform for perception-action
integration in humanoid robot: H6, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3, 2000,
pp. 1559–1564, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2000.895195.
[116] C.G. Atkeson, J.G. Hale, F. Pollick, M. Riley, S. Kotosaka, S. Schaul, T.
Shibata, G. Tevatia, A. Ude, S. Vijayakumar, E. Kawato, M. Kawato, Using
humanoid robots to study human behavior, IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl. 15 (4)
(2000) 46–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/5254.867912.
[117] C. Breazeal, B. Scassellati, How to build robots that make friends and
influence people, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 858–863, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1999.812787.
[118] A. Roncone, O. Mangin, B. Scassellati, Transparent role assignment and
task allocation in human robot collaboration, in: 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017, pp. 1014–1021,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989122.
[119] A. Mehrabian, Nonverbal Communication, Routledge, 2017.
[120] M. Knapp, Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
[121] K. Dautenhahn, C.L. Nehaniv, M.L. Walters, B. Robins, H. Kose-Bagci, M.
Blow, KASPAR –a minimally expressive humanoid robot for human–
robot interaction research, Appl. Bionics Biomech. 6 (3,4) (2009) 369–397,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11762320903123567.
[122] X. Ke, B. Qiu, J. Xin, Y. Yun, Vision development of humanoid head robot
SHFR-III, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Biomimetics, 2015, pp. 1590–1595, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBIO.
2015.7418998.
[123] A.M. Harrison, W.M. Xu, J.G. Trafton, User-centered robot head design: A
sensing computing interaction platform for robotics research (SCIPRR),
in: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-
Robot Interaction, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 215–223, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171283.
[124] D. Bazo, R. Vaidyanathan, A. Lentz, C. Melhuish, Design and testing
of a hybrid expressive face for a humanoid robot, in: Proceedings of
the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
2010, pp. 5317–5322, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2010.5651469.
[125] J. Rajruangrabin, D.O. Popa, Robot head motion control with an emphasis
on realism of neck–eye coordination during object tracking, J. Intell.
Robot. Syst. 63 (2) (2011) 163–190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10846-
010-9468-x.
[126] F. Hegel, T. Spexard, B. Wrede, G. Horstmann, T. Vogt, Playing a different
imitation game: Interaction with an empathic android robot, in: Proceed-
ings of the IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2006,
pp. 56–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2006.321363.
19
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
[127] T. Hashimoto, H. Kobayashi, A. Polishuk, I. Verner, Elementary science
lesson delivered by robot, in: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2013, pp. 133–134,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483537.
[128] R. Loureiro, A. Lopes, C. Carona, D. Almeida, F. Faria, L. Garrote, C.
Premebida, U.J. Nunes, ISR-robothead: Robotic head with LCD-based
emotional expressiveness, in: 2017 IEEE 5th Portuguese Meeting on Bio-
engineering (ENBENG), 2017, pp. 1–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ENBENG.
2017.7889437.
[129] M. Hackel, S. Schwope, A humanoid interaction robot for information,
negotiation and entertainment use, Int. J. Human. Robot. 01 (03) (2004)
551–563, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219843604000198.
[130] F. Cid, J. Moreno, P. Bustos, P. Núñez, Muecas: A multi-sensor robotic
head for affective human robot interaction and imitation, Sensors 14 (5)
(2014) 7711–7737, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s140507711.
[131] S. Schulz, F. Lier, A. Kipp, S. Wachsmuth, Humotion: A human inspired
gaze control framework for anthropomorphic robot heads, in: Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction - HAI
’16, ACM Press, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2974804.2974827.
[132] T.C. Apostolescu, G. Ionascu, L. Bogatu, S. Petrache, L.A. Cartal, Anima-
tronic robot humanoid head with 7 DOF: Design and experimental set-up,
in: 2018 10th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and
Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), IEEE, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ecai.
2018.8679056.
[133] D.H. Ballard, Animate vision, Artificial Intelligence 48 (1) (1991) 57–86,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90080-4.
[134] P. Glimcher, Eye movements, in: Fundamental Neuroscience, Academic
Press, 1998.
[135] F. Panerai, G. Metta, G. Sandini, Learning visual stabilization reflexes
in robots with moving eyes, Neurocomputing 48 (1) (2002) 323–337,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-2312(01)00645-2.
[136] L. Vannucci, S. Tolu, E. Falotico, P. Dario, H.H. Lund, C. Laschi, Adaptive
gaze stabilization through cerebellar internal models in a humanoid
robot, in: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on
Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 2016, pp. 25–30, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/BIOROB.2016.7523593.
[137] E. Franchi, E. Falotico, D. Zambrano, G.G. Muscolo, L. Marazzato, P.
Dario, C. Laschi, A comparison between two bio-inspired adaptive models
of vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) implemented on the icub robot, in:
Proceedings of the 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid
Robots, 2010, pp. 251–256, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2010.5686329.
[138] A.L. Yarbus, Saccadic eye movements, in: Eye Movements and Vision,
Springer US, Boston, MA, 1967, pp. 129–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4899-5379-7_5.
[139] J.S. Albus, A theory of cerebellar function, Math. Biosci. 10 (1–2) (1971)
25–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(71)90051-4.
[140] J.S. Albus, A new approach to manipulator control: The cerebellar model
articulation controller (CMAC), J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 97 (3) (1975)
220, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3426922.
[141] M. Kawato, K. Furukawa, R. Suzuki, A hierarchical neural-network model
for control and learning of voluntary movement, Biol. Cybernet. 57 (3)
(1987) 169–185, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00364149.
[142] J. Piaget, Play, Dreams and Immitation in Childhood, Routledge and Kegan
Paul Ltd, 1951.
[143] P. Dean, J.E. Mayhew, N. Thacker, P.M. Langdon, Saccade control in
a simulated robot camera-head system: neural net architectures for
efficient learning of inverse kinematics, Biol. Cybernet. 66 (1991) 27–36.
[144] J. Porrill, P. Dean, J.V. Stone, Recurrent cerebellar architecture solves the
motor-error problem, Proc. R Soc. Lond. 271 (1541) (2004) 789–796,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2658.
[145] A. Haith, S. Vijayakumar, Robustness of VOR and OKR adaptation under
kinematics and dynamics transformations, in: Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Development and Learning, 2007, pp. 37–42,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DEVLRN.2007.4354055.
[146] M. Kawato, Feedback-error-learning neural network for supervised motor
learning, in: Advanced Neural Computers, Elsevier, 1990, pp. 365–372,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-88400-8.50047-9.
[147] H. Gomi, M. Kawato, Adaptive feedback control models of the vestibulo-
cerebellum and spinocerebellum, Biol. Cybernet. (1992) http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF00201432.
[148] L. Berthouze, S. Rougeaux, Y. Kuniyoshi, A learning stereo-head control
system, in: World Automation Congress/International Symposium on
Robotics and Manufacturing, ASME Press, 1996, pp. 43–47.
[149] J. Bruske, M. Hansen, L. Riehn, G. Sommer, Biologically inspired
calibration-free adaptive saccade control of a binocular camera-
head, Biol. Cybernet. 77 (6) (1997) 433–446, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s004220050403.
[150] L. Berthouze, Y. Kuniyoshi, Emergence and categorization of coordinated
visual behavior through embodied interaction, Mach. Learn. 31 (1/3)
(1998) 187–200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1007453010407.
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
[151] T. Shibata, S. Schaal, Biomimetic gaze stabilization based on feedback-
error-learning with nonparametric regression networks, Neural Netw. 14
(2001) 201–216.
[152] W. Muhammad, M.W. Spratling, A neural model of binocular saccade
planning and vergence control, Adapt. Behav. 23 (5) (2015) 265–282,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059712315607363.
[153] F. Lunghi, S. Lazzari, G. Magenes, Neural adaptive predictor for visual
tracking system, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and
Biology Society, Vol. 20, IEEE, 1998, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iembs.1998.
747140.
[154] I. Reid, K. Bradshaw, P. McLauchlan, P. Sharkey, D. Murray, From saccades
to smooth pursuit: real-time gaze control using motion feedback, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, IEEE, 1993, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iros.1993.583282.
[155] M. Mancas, F. Pirri, M. Pizzoli, From saliency to eye gaze: Embodied
visual selection for a pan-tilt-based robotic head, in: Advances in Visual
Computing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 135–146, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-24028-7_13.
[156] G. Macesanu, V. Comnac, F. Moldoveanu, S.M. Grigorescu, A time-delay
control approach for a stereo vision based human-machine interaction
system, J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 76 (2) (2013) 297–313, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s10846-013-9994-4.
[157] A.T. Bahill, J.D. McDonald, Adaptive control models for saccadic and
smooth pursuit eye movements, in: Progress in Oculomotor Research,
Elsevier North Holland, 1981.
[158] M. Antonelli, A.J. Duran, E. Chinellato, A.P. del Pobil, Adaptive saccade
controller inspired by the primates’ cerebellum, in: Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 2015,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/icra.2015.7139901.
[159] E. Kowler, Eye movements: The past 25years, Vis. Res. 51 (13) (2011)
1457–1483, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.014.
[160] D. Guitton, Control of eye-head coordination during orienting gaze shifts,
Trends Neurosci. 15 (1992) 174–179.
[161] T. Habra, R. Ronsse, Gaze stabilization of a humanoid robot based on
virtual linkage, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 2016, pp. 163–169, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1109/BIOROB.2016.7523616.
[162] D.A. Robinson, Models of the saccadic eye movement control system,
Kybernetik 14 (2) (1973) 71–83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00288906.
[163] W. Becker, R. Jürgens, Human oblique saccades: Quantitative analysis of
the relation between horizontal and vertical components, Vis. Res. 30 (6)
(1990) 893–920, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(90)90057-r.
[164] E.G. Freedman, Coordination of the eyes and head during visual orienting,
Exp. Brain Res. 190 (4) (2008) 369, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-
1504-8.
[165] M. Daemi, J.D. Crawford, A kinematic model for 3-d head-free gaze-shifts,
in: Front. Comput. Neurosci., 2015.
[166] Z. Zhu, Q. Wang, W. Zou, F. Zhang, Overview of motion control on bionic
eyes, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Biomimetics, 2015, pp. 2389–2394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBIO.
2015.7419696.
[167] P. Sharkey, D. Murray, S. Vandevelde, I. Reid, P. McLauchlan, A modular
head/eye platform for real-time reactive vision, Mechatronics 3 (4) (1993)
517–535, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0957-4158(93)90021-S.
[168] Y. Song, X. Zhang, An active binocular integrated system for intelligent
robot vision, in: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence
and Security Informatics, IEEE, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/isi.2012.
6284090.
[169] A. D’Souza, S. Vijayakumar, S. Schaal, Learning inverse kinematics, in: Pro-
ceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems. Expanding the Societal Role of Robotics in the Next Millennium
(Cat. No.01CH37180), IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2001.973374.
[170] E. Falotico, N. Cauli, P. Kryczka, K. Hashimoto, A. Berthoz, A. Takanishi,
P. Dario, C. Laschi, Head stabilization in a humanoid robot: models and
implementations, Auton. Robots 41 (2) (2017) 349–365, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10514-016-9583-z.
[171] F. Panerai, G. Metta, G. Sandini, Visuo-inertial stabilization in space-
variant binocular systems, Robot. Auton. Syst. 30 (1) (2000) 195–214,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(99)00072-X.
[172] G. Asuni, G. Teti, C. Laschi, E. Guglielmelli, P. Dario, A robotic head neuro-
controller based on biologically-inspired neural models, in: Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE,
2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/robot.2005.1570466.
[173] B.-S. Yoo, J.-H. Kim, Fuzzy integral-based gaze control of a robotic head for
human robot interaction, IEEE Trans. Cybernet. 45 (9) (2015) 1769–1783,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/tcyb.2014.2360205.
[174] F. Du, M. Brady, D. Murray, Gaze control for a two-eyed robot head,
in: P. Mowforth (Ed.), BMVC91: Proceedings of the British Machine
Vision Conference, Organised for the British Machine Vision Association
By the Turing Institute 24–26 September 1991 University of Glasgow,
Springer London, London, 1991, pp. 193–201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4471-1921-0_25.
20
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
[175] L. Vannucci, N. Cauli, E. Falotico, A. Bernardino, C. Laschi, Adaptive visual
pursuit involving eye-head coordination and prediction of the target
motion, in: Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS International Conference on
Humanoid Robots, IEEE, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/humanoids.2014.
7041415.
[176] G. Milighetti, L. Vallone, A.D. Luca, Adaptive predictive gaze control
of a redundant humanoid robot head, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, 2011,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iros.2011.6094417.
[177] C. Brown, Kinematic and 3D motion prediction for gaze control, in:
Workshop on Interpretation of 3D Scenes, IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1989,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/tdscen.1989.68113.
[178] N. Marturi, V. Ortenzi, J. Xiao, M. Adjigble, R. Stolkin, A. Leonardis, A
real-time tracking and optimised gaze control for a redundant humanoid
robot head, in: Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS 15th International Confer-
ence on Humanoid Robots, 2015, pp. 467–474, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
HUMANOIDS.2015.7363591.
[179] B. Kuhn, B. Schauerte, K. Kroschel, R. Stiefelhagen, Multimodal saliency-
based attention: A lazy robot’s approach, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iros.2012.6385515.
[180] J. Law, P. Shaw, M. Lee, A biologically constrained architecture for
developmental learning of eye–head gaze control on a humanoid robot,
Auton. Robots 35 (1) (2013) 77–92, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10514-
013-9335-2.
[181] P. Shaw, J. Law, M. Lee, A comparison of learning strategies for biologically
constrained development of gaze control on an iCub robot, Auton. Robots
37 (1) (2014) 97–110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10514-013-9378-4.
[182] E.S. Maini, L. Manfredi, C. Laschi, P. Dario, Bioinspired velocity control of
fast gaze shifts on a robotic anthropomorphic head, Auton. Robots 25 (1)
(2008) 37–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9078-z.
[183] C. Laschi, F. Patanè, E. Maini, L. Manfredi, G. Teti, L. Zollo, E. Guglielmelli,
P. Dario, An anthropomorphic robotic head for investigating gaze
control, Adv. Robot. 22 (1) (2008) 57–89, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/
156855308x291845.
[184] H. He, S.S. Ge, Z. Zhang, A saliency-driven robotic head with bio-
inspired saccadic behaviors for social robotics, Auton. Robots 36 (3)
(2013) 225–240, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10514-013-9346-z.
[185] D. Omrčen, A. Ude, Redundant control of a humanoid robot head with
foveated vision for object tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2010, pp. 4151–4156,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509515.
[186] P. Kryczka, E. Falotico, K. Hashimoto, H. o. Lim, A. Takanishi, C. Laschi,
P. Dario, A. Berthoz, A robotic implementation of a bio-inspired head
motion stabilization model on a humanoid platform, in: Proceedings of
the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
2012, pp. 2076–2081, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2012.6386177.
[187] L. Gu, J. Su, Gaze control on humanoid robot head, in: 2006 6th
World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, Vol. 2, 2006, pp.
9144–9148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WCICA.2006.1713769.
[188] A. Ude, C. Gaskett, G. Cheng, Foveated vision systems with two cameras
per eye, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, 2006, pp. 3457–3462, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.
2006.1642230.
[189] X. Wang, J. van de Weem, P. Jonker, An advanced active vision system
imitating human eye movements, in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Advanced Robotics, IEEE, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
icar.2013.6766517.
[190] B.-S. Yoo, J.-H. Kim, Gaze control of humanoid robot for learning from
demonstration, in: J.-H. Kim, F. Karray, J. Jo, P. Sincak, H. Myung
(Eds.), Robot Intelligence Technology and Applications 4: Results from
the 4th International Conference on Robot Intelligence Technology and
Applications, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 263–270,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31293-4_21.
[191] E.G. Freedman, Interactions between eye and head control signals can
account for movement kinematics, Biol. Cybernet. 84 (6) (2001) 453–462,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00007989.
[192] A. Cangelosi, M. Schlesinger, Developmental Robotics. from Babies to
Robots, MIT Press, 2015.
[193] H.L.M. Goossens, A.J.V. Opstal, Human eye-head coordination in two
dimensions under different sensorimotor conditions, Exp. Brain Res. 114
(3) (1997) 542–560, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/pl00005663.
[194] C. Brown, Gaze controls with interactions and delays, IEEE Trans. Syst.
Man Cybern. 20 (2) (1990) 518–527, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/21.52563.
[195] M. Lungarella, G. Metta, R. Pfeifer, G. Sandini, Developmental robotics:
a survey, Connect. Sci. 15 (4) (2003) 151–190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09540090310001655110.
[196] G. Sandini, G. Metta, Retina-like sensors: Motivations, technology and
applications, in: F.G. Barth, J.A.C. Humphrey, T.W. Secomb (Eds.), Sensors
and Sensing in Biology and Engineering, Springer Vienna, Vienna, 2003,
pp. 251–262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6025-1_18.
J.A. Rojas-Quintero and M.C. Rodríguez-Liñán
[197] B. Bauml, T. Hammer, R. Wagner, O. Birbach, T. Gumpert, F. Zhi, U.
Hillenbrand, S. Beer, W. Friedl, J. Butterfass, Agile justin: An upgraded
member of DLR’s family of lightweight and torque controlled humanoids,
in: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE,
2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/icra.2014.6907220.
[198] T. Bhattacharjee, A.A. Shenoi, D. Park, J.M. Rehg, C.C. Kemp, Combining
tactile sensing and vision for rapid haptic mapping, in: 2015 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE,
2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iros.2015.7353522.
[199] K.W. Wright, Anatomy and physiology of eye movements, in: K.W.
Wright, P.H. Spiegel, L.S. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of Pediatric Strabis-
mus and Amblyopia, Springer New York, New York, NY, 2006, pp. 24–69,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27925-3_2.
[200] M. Jeung, G. Lee, Y. Oh, Realization of human neck motion with novel
robotic mechanism, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference
on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence, 2016, pp. 482–486, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/URAI.2016.7734087.
[201] G.C. Yan Zhu, Research on the head form design of service robots based
on Kansei engineering and BP neural network, in: Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Electronics and Information Engineering,
2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2267419.
[202] N.A. Dodgson, Variation and extrema of human interpupillary distance,
in: Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Electronic Imaging, Vol. 5291,
2004, pp. 5291 – 5291 – 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.529999.
[203] J.S. Pointer, The interpupillary distance in adult Caucasian subjects,
with reference to ‘readymade’ reading spectacle centration, Ophthalmic
Physiol. Opt. 32 (4) (2012) 324–331, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
1313.2012.00910.x.
[204] T. Kishi, T. Kojima, N. Endo, M. Destephe, T. Otani, L. Jamone, P. Kryczka,
G. Trovato, K. Hashimoto, S. Cosentino, A. Takanishi, Impression survey
of the emotion expression humanoid robot with mental model based
dynamic emotions, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, 2013, pp. 1663–1668, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/ICRA.2013.6630793.
[205] H. Kim, G. York, G. Burton, E. Murphy-Chutorian, J. Triesch, Design of an
anthropomorphic robot head for studying autonomous development and
learning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 3506–3511, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
ROBOT.2004.1308796.
[206] B.J.A. Kröse, J.M. Porta, A.J.N. van Breemen, K. Crucq, M. Nuttin, E.
Demeester, Lino, the user-interface robot, in: E. Aarts, R.W. Collier, E.
van Loenen, B. de Ruyter (Eds.), Ambient Intelligence: First European
Symposium, EUSAI 2003, Veldhoven,the Netherlands,November 3-4, 2003.
Proceedings, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003, pp.
264–274, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39863-9_20.
[207] A. Ito, S. Hayakawa, T. Terada, Why robots need body for mind com-
munication - an attempt of eye-contact between human and robot,
in: RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and
Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759), 2004, pp.
473–478, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374806.
21
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 143 (2021) 103834
[208] J. Bernotat, F. Eyssel, An evaluation study of robot designs for smart
environments, in: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference
on Human-Robot Interaction, in: HRI ’17, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2017,
pp. 87–88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038429.
[209] S. Huber, B. Selby, B.P. Tripp, Design of a saccading and accommodating
robot vision system, in: 2016 13th Conference on Computer and Robot
Vision (CRV), 2016, pp. 350–357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CRV.2016.48.
[210] J.A. Rojas-Quintero, P. Seguin, J.P. Gazeau, M. Arsicault, Using a motion
capture system to identify pertinent design parameters of a bio-inspired
mechanical hand, Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 16 (sup1)
(2013) 179–181, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2013.815950.
[211] L. Bergamini, M. Sposato, M. Pellicciari, M. Peruzzini, S. Calderara, J.
Schmidt, Deep learning-based method for vision-guided robotic grasping
of unknown objects, Adv. Eng. Inf. 44 (2020) 101052, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.aei.2020.101052.
[212] L. Dozal, G. Olague, E. Clemente, D.E. Hernández, Brain programming for
the evolution of an artificial dorsal stream, Cogn. Comput. 6 (3) (2014)
528–557, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12559-014-9251-6.
Juan Antonio Rojas-Quintero received the B.E. de-
gree in Science and Technology of Mechanics and
Engineering in 2007, the M.Sc. degree in Mechanics
and Engineering Sciences in 2009, and the Ph.D. de-
gree in Mechanics and Engineering Sciences in 2013
from the University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France. He
was a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Mechanics
and Engineering of the Southwest Jiaotong University,
Chengdu, P.R. of China, from 2014 to 2016. He is cur-
rently a CONACYT Research Fellow with the National
Technology Institute (Tecnológico Nacional de México),
Ensenada Campus, Mexico. His research interests include nonlinear dynamical
systems, optimal control and robotics.
María del Carmen Rodríguez-Liñán received the B.E.
degree in Electronic Engineering and the MSc degree in
Electrical Engineering from the University of San Luis
Potosí, Mexico, in 2006 and 2008, and the PhD de-
gree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from The
University of Manchester, UK, in 2013. From 2014 to
2016 she was a postdoctoral fellow at the Autonomous
University of San Luis Potosí. She is currently a CONA-
CYT Research Fellow, with the National Technology
Institute, at the Ensenada campus, Mexico. Her research
interests include nonlinear systems, hard nonlinearities
and robot control.