References

1. 1. Безрукова 2022 – Безрукова А. В Москве шахматный робот повредил мальчику палец на турнире // Комсомольская правда. 21.07.2022. https://www.kp.ru/online/news/4841784
2. 2. В столичных больницах 2023 – В столичных больницах появились роботы-помощники – робокошки // mos.ru. 22.11.2023. https://www.mos.ru/news/item/132424073
3. 3. Джабборов 2022 – Джабборов Д. Московская бабушка помогла перейти дорогу роботу-курьеру “Яндекса” // Газета.Ру. 01.04.2022. https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2022/04/01/17508595.shtml
4. 4. Иванова 2024 – Иванова И. Прохожие защитили робота-курьера от человека, который “хотел прокатиться” // Москвич Mag. 16.05.2024. https://moskvichmag.ru/gorod/prohozhie-zashhitili-robota-kurera-ot-cheloveka-kotoryj-hotel-prokatitsya
5. 5. Цифровой робот-консьерж 2024 – Цифровой робот-консьерж появится в жилом комплексе в Москве // iot.ru. 30.10.2024. https://iot.ru/gorodskaya-sreda/tsifrovoy-robot-konserzh-poyavitsya-v-zhilom-komplekse-v-moskve
6. 6. Человекоподобный робот 2024 – Человекоподобный робот “Егорка” будет помогать дефектологам в занятиях с детьми // Фарммедпром. 18.11.2024. https://pharmmedprom.ru/news/v-rossii-ispitali-robota-pomoschnika-defektologa-dlya-zanyatii-s-detmi
7. 7. Weller 2017 – Weller C. Meet the First-Ever Robot Citizen – A Humanoid Named Sophia That Once Said It Would “Destroy Humans” // Foundation for Jewish Camp. 27.10.2017. https://jewishcamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Sophia-Article-Golem.pdf
8. 8. Бутовская М.Л. Язык тела: природа и культура. М.: Научный мир, 2004.
9. 9. Бутовская М.Л., Левашова В.В. Скорость движения и язык тела пешеходов в условиях современного города: этологический анализ // Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии. 2004. № 3 (19). С. 147–156.
10. 10. Зильберман Н.Н., Стефанцова М.А. Социальный робот: подходы к определению понятия // Современные исследования социальных проблем. 2016. № 11 (67). C. 297–312. https://doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2016-11-297-312
11. 11. Морозов И.А. “Кодекс робота”: к вопросу об этических основах “постгуманистической цивилизации” // Технологии и телесность / Отв. ред. С.В. Соколовский. М.: ИЭА РАН, 2018. С. 309–358.
12. 12. Соколовский С.В. Тело киборга: человек и концепция расширенного организма // Сибирские исторические исследования. 2022. № 2. С. 6–26. https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/36/1
13. 13. Феденок Ю.Н. Коммуникативное поведение русских школьников (сравнительный аспект) // Этнографическое обозрение. 2012. № 5. С. 119–138.
14. 14. Феденок Ю.Н., Буркова В.Н. Подходы и методы в изучении проксемического поведения человека: аналитический обзор // Этнографическое обозрение. 2021. № 6. С. 165–188. https://doi.org/10.31857/S086954150017940-4
15. 15. Юревич Е.И. Основы роботехники: учебное пособие. СПб.: БВХ-Петербург, 2017.
16. 16. Aiello J.R. A Further Look at Equilibrium Theory: Visual Interaction as a Function of Interpersonal Distance // Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior. 1977. Vol. 1 (2). P. 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01145461
17. 17. Albeaino G., Jeelani I., Gheisari M., Issa R.R.A. Assessing Proxemics Impact on Human-Robot Collaboration Safety in Construction: A Virtual Reality Study with Four-Legged Robots // Safety Science. 2025. Vol. 181. P. 106682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106682
18. 18. Allen A., Drummond T., Kulić D. Sound Judgment: Properties of Consequential Sounds Affecting Human-Perception of Robots // arXiv:2502.02051v1 [cs.RO]. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.02051
19. 19. Bailenson J.N., Blascovich J., Beall A.C., Loomis J.M. Equilibrium Theory Revisited: Mutual Gaze and Personal Space in Virtual Environments // Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 2001. Vol. 10 (6). P. 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601753272844
20. 20. Bartneck C. et al. Cultural Differences in Attitudes Towards Robots // Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Human-Robot Interaction. 2005. P. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22507.34085
21. 21. Bera A. et al. The Emotionally Intelligent Robot: Improving Social Navigation in Crowded Environments // arXiv:1903.03217v1 [cs.RO]. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.03217
22. 22. Breazeal C., Scassellati B. Infant-Like Social Interactions Between a Robot and a Human Caregiver // Adaptive Behavior. 2000. Vol. 8 (1). P. 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/105971230000800104
23. 23. Butler J.T., Agah A. Psychological Effects of Behavior Patterns of a Mobile Personal Robot. 2001. Vol. 10. P. 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008986004181
24. 24. Čapek K. R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots). Fayetteville: Penguin Classics, 2004.
25. 25. Castelo N., Sarvary M. Cross-Cultural Differences in Comfort with Humanlike Robots // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2022. Vol. 14 (8). P. 1865–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00920-y
26. 26. Chik S.F. et al. Neural-Network Based Adaptive Proxemics-Costmap for Human-Aware Autonomous Robot Navigation // International Journal of Integrated Engineering. 2019. Vol. 11 (4). P. 101–111. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2019.11.04.011
27. 27. Clavero J.G. et al. Defining Adaptive Proxemic Zones for Activity-Aware Navigation // arXiv:2009.04770v1 [cs.RO]. 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.0477
28. 28. Crick C., Doniec M., Scassellati B. Who Is It? Inferring Role and Intent from Agent Motion // Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Development and Learning. Bern, Switzerland. 11–13 July 2007. P. 134–139.
29. 29. Dubois M., Claret J.A., Basañez L., Venture G. Influence of Emotional Motions in Human-Robot Interactions // Proceedings of the International Symposium on Experimental Robotics. Nagasaki. 03–08 October 2016. P. 799–808.
30. 30. Eresha G. et al. Investigating the Influence of Culture on Proxemic Behaviors for Humanoid Robots // Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Ro-Man. Gyeongju. 02–29 August 2013. P. 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2013.6628517
31. 31. Fiore S.M. et al. Axelrod Toward Understanding Social Cues and Signals in Human-Robot Interaction: Effects of Robot Gaze and Proxemic Behavior // Frontiers in Psychology. 2013. Vol. 4. P. 8–59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00859
32. 32. Friedman D., Steed A., Slater M. Spatial Social Behavior in Second Life // Intelligent Virtual Agents. 2007. № 4722. P. 252–263.
33. 33. Frith C.D., Frith U. How We Predict What Other People Are Going to Do // Brain Research. 2006. Vol. 1079 (1). P. 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.126
34. 34. Ginés J. et al. Social Navigation in a Cognitive Architecture Using Dynamic Proxemic Zones // Sensors. 2019. Vol. 19 (23). P. 5189. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19235189
35. 35. Hall E.T. The Hidden Dimension. N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966.
36. 36. Haring K.S., Mougenot C., Ono F., Watanabe K. Cultural Differences in Perception and Attitude Towards Robots // International Journal of Impact Engineering. 2014. Vol. 13 (3). P. 149–157. https://doi.org/10.5057/ijae.13.149
37. 37. Hasegawa Y., Dias C., Iryo-Asan M., Nishiuchi H. Modeling Pedestrians’ Subjective Danger Perception Toward Personal Mobility Vehicles // Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2018. Vol. 56. P. 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2018.04.016
38. 38. He K. et al. Robot Gaze During Autonomous Navigation and Its Effect on Social Presence // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2024. Vol. 16. P. 879–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01023-y
39. 39. Hirose M., Ogawa K. Honda Humanoid Robots Development // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2007. Vol. 365 (1850). P. 11–19. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2006.1917
40. 40. Joosse M., Poppe R.W., Lohse M., Evers V. Cultural Differences in how an Engagement-Seeking Robot Should Approach a Group of People // Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Collaboration Across Boundaries: Culture, Distance & Technology. Kyoto, Japan. 20–22 August 2014. P. 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1145/2631488.2631499
41. 41. Jung S. et al. Proximity Zones Based on Perceived Danger in Human-Robot Interaction // Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Melbourne, Australia. 04–06 March 2025. P. 1378–1382.
42. 42. Kamide H. et al. A Comparative Psychological Evaluation of a Robotic Avatar in Dubai and Japan // Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2025. Vol. 11. P. 1426717. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2024.1426717
43. 43. Kaplan F. Who Is Afraid of the Humanoid? Investigating Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Robots // International Journal of Humanoid Robotics. 2004. Vol. 1 (4). P. 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219843604000289
44. 44. Kastner K. et al. Determinants of the Acceptability of Autonomous (Cargo) Mobility // Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 2021. Vol. 11 (10). P. 100448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100448
45. 45. Kilner J.M., Friston K.J., Frith C.D. Predictive Coding: An Account of the Mirror Neuron System // Cognitive Processing. 2007. Vol. 8 (3). P. 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0170-2
46. 46. Koay K.L. et al. Social Roles and Baseline Proxemic Preferences for a Domestic Service Robot // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2014. Vol. 6 (4). P. 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0232-4
47. 47. Kruse T., Pandey A.K., Alami R., Kirsch A. Human-Aware Robot Navigation: A Survey // Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 2013. Vol. 61 (12). P. 1726–1743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.05.007
48. 48. Lehmann H., Rojik A., Hoffmann M. Should a Small Robot Have a Small Personal Space? Investigating Personal Spatial Zones and Proxemic Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction // arXiv:2009.01818v1 [cs.HC]. 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.01818
49. 49. Li Y. et al. How Service Robots’ Human-Like Appearance Impacts Consumer Trust: A Study Across Diverse Cultures and Service Settings // International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2024. Vol. 36 (9). P. 3151–3167. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2023-0845
50. 50. Lim V., Rooksby M., Cross E.S. Social Robots on a Global Stage: Establishing a Role for Culture During Human–Robot Interaction // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021. Vol. 13 (6). P. 1307–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00710-4
51. 51. Mead R., Matarić M.J. Perceptual Models of Human-Robot Proxemics // Experimental Robotics. 2016. Vol. 109. P. 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23778-7_18
52. 52. Mertens A. et al. Human-Robot Interaction: Testing Distances That Humans Will Accept Between Themselves and a Robot Approaching at Different Speeds // Ambient Assisted Living: 6. AAL-Kongress 2013, Berlin, Germany, January 22–23, 2013 / Eds. R. Wichert, H. Klausing. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin, 2014. P. 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37988-8_17
53. 53. Mu X. et al. Online Robot Motion Planning Methodology Guided by Group Social Proxemics Feature // arXiv:2502.04837v1 [cs.RO]. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.04837
54. 54. Mumm J., Mutlu B. Human-Robot Proxemics: Physical and Psychological Distancing in Human-Robot Interaction // Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Lausanne, Switzerland. 06–09 March 2011. P. 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957786
55. 55. Murakami H., Feliciani C., Nishiyama Y., Nishinari K. Mutual Anticipation Can Contribute to Self-Organization in Human Crowds // Science Advances. 2021. Vol. 7 (12). P. eabe7758. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe7758
56. 56. Mutlu B., Forlizzi J. Robots in Organizations: The Role of Workflow, Social, and Environmental Factors in Human-Robot Interaction // Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 12–15 March 2008. P. 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349860
57. 57. Nassiri N., Powell N., Moore D. Human Interactions and Personal Space in Collaborative Virtual Environments // Virtual Reality. 2010. Vol. 14 (4). P. 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-010-0169-3
58. 58. Neef N.E., Zabel S., Lauckner M., Otto S. What is Appropriate? On the Assessment of Human-Robot Proxemics for Casual Encounters in Closed Environments // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2023. Vol. 15. P. 953–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01004-1
59. 59. Neggers M.M.E., Cuijpers R.N., Ruijten P.A.M., Ijsselsteijn W.A. Determining Shape and Size of Personal Space of a Human when Passed by a Robot // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021. Vol. 14. P. 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00805-6
60. 60. Nomura T., Shintani T., Fujii K., Hokabe K. Experimental Investigation of Relationships Between Anxiety, Negative Attitudes, and Allowable Distance of Robots // Proceedings of the 2nd IASTED International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Chamonix, France. 14–16 March 2007. P. 13–18.
61. 61. Obaid M. et al. Stop! That Is Close Enough: How Body Postures Influence Human-Robot Proximity // 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). New York, USA. 26–31 August 2016. P. 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745155
62. 62. Oskoei M.A., Walters M.L., Dautenhahn K. An Autonomous Proxemic System for a Mobile Companion Robot // Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction. Leicester, UK. 29 March – 01 April 2010. P. 9–15.
63. 63. Pacchierotti E., Christensen H.I., Jensfelt P. Evaluation of Passing Distance for Social Robots // The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Hatfield, UK. 06–08 September 2006. P. 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314436
64. 64. Paterson M. Why Robot Embodiment Matters: Questions of Disability, Race and Intersectionality in the Design of Social Robots // Medical Humanities. 2024. Vol. 50 (4). P. 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2024-013028
65. 65. Patompak P., Jeong S., Nilkhamhang I., Chong N.Y. Learning Proxemics for Personalized Human–Robot Social Interaction // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2019. Vol. 12 (2). P. 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00560-9
66. 66. Rossi S. et al. User’s Personality and Activity Influence on HRI Comfortable Distances // Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics. Tsukuba, Japan. 22–24 November 2017. P. 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_17
67. 67. Samarakoon S.M.B.P., Muthugala M.A.V.J., Jayasekara A.G.B.P. A Review on Human–Robot Proxemics // Electronics. 2022. Vol. 11 (16). P. 2490. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11162490
68. 68. Stange S. et al. Self-Explaining Social Robots: An Explainable Behavior Generation Architecture for Human-Robot Interaction // Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2022. Vol. 5. P. 866920. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.866920
69. 69. Stratton L.O., Tekippe D.J., Flick G.L. Personal Space and Self-Concept // Sociometry. 1973. Vol. 36 (3). P. 424–429. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786344
70. 70. Syrdal D.S., Koay K.L., Walters M.L., Dautenhahn K. A Personalized Robot Companion? The Role of Individual Differences on Spatial Preferences in HRI Scenarios // RO-MAN 2007: The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Jeju, Korea (South). 26–29 August 2007. P. 1143–1148. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415252
71. 71. Takayama L., Pantofaru C. Influences on Proxemic Behaviors in Human-Robot Interaction // International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. St. Louis, USA. 10–15 October 2009. P. 5495–5502. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354145
72. 72. Thrun S. Toward a Framework for Human-Robot Interaction // Human–Computer Interaction. 2004. Vol. 19 (1–2). P. 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2004.9667338
73. 73. Trovato G. et al. Cross-Cultural Study on Human-Robot Greeting Interaction: Acceptance and Discomfort by Egyptians and Japanese // Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics. 2013. Vol. 4 (2). P. 83–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjbr-2013-0006
74. 74. Trovato G. et al. The Sound or Silence: Investigating the Influence of Robot Noise on Proxemics // Proceedings of the 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). Nanjing, China. 27–31 August 2018. P. 713–718. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525795
75. 75. Vega A. et al. Socially Aware Robot Navigation System in Human-Populated and Interactive Environments Based on an Adaptive Spatial Density Function and Space Affordances // Pattern Recognition Letters. 2019. Vol. 118. P. 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2018.07.015
76. 76. Vigni F., Maglietta D., Rossi S. Too Close to You? A Study on Emotion-Adapted Proxemics Behaviours // 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Pasadena, USA. 26–30 August 2024. P. 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731458
77. 77. Walters M.L., Oskoei M.A., Syrdal D.S., Dautenhahn K. A Long-Term Human-Robot Proxemic Study // Proceedings – IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Atlanta, USA. 2011. P. 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005274
78. 78. Wang I., Ruiz J., Kappas A. Body Language Between Humans and Machines // Body Language Communication / Eds. D. Chadee, A. Kostić. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024. P. 443–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70064-4_18
79. 79. Weiss A. et al. Transferring Human-Human Interaction Studies to HRI Scenarios in Public Space // 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT). Lisbon, Portugal. 05–09 September 2011. P. 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23771-3_18
80. 80. Wilcox L.M., Allison R.S., Elfassy S., Grelik C. Personal Space in Virtual Reality // ACM Transactions on Applied Perception. 2006. Vol. 3 (4). P. 412–428. https://doi.org/10.1145/1190036.1190041
81. 81. Yang S. et al. Experiences Developing Socially Acceptable Interactions for a Robotic Trash Barrel // 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). Kobe, Japan. 31 August – 01 September 2015. P. 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333693
82. 82. Yeh A. et al. Exploring Proxemics for Human-Drone Interaction // HAI 17 – Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction. Bielefeld, Germany. 17–20 October 2017. P. 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3125773
83. 83. Yu W., Kok S.Y., Srivastava G. EmoiPlanner: Human Emotion and Intention Aware Socially Acceptable Robot Navigation in Human-Centric Environments // Expert Systems. 2025. Vol. 42 (2). P. e13718. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.13718
84. 84. Zeelenberg M., Nelissen R., Breugelmans S.M., Pieters R. On Emotion Specificity in Decision Making: Why Feeling Is for Doing // Judgment and Decision Making. 2008. Vol. 3 (1). P. 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000139