David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
AI and Society 26 (4):339-345 (2011)
The automatic tendency to anthropomorphize our interaction partners and make use of experience acquired in earlier interaction scenarios leads to the suggestion that social interaction with humanoid robots is more pleasant and intuitive than that with industrial robots. An objective method applied to evaluate the quality of human–robot interaction is based on the phenomenon of motor interference (MI). It claims that a face-to-face observation of a different (incongruent) movement of another individual leads to a higher variance in one’s own movement trajectory. In social interaction, MI is a consequence of the tendency to imitate the movement of other individuals and goes along with mutual rapport, sense of togetherness, and sympathy. Although MI occurs while observing a human agent, it disappears in case of an industrial robot moving with piecewise constant velocity. Using a robot with human-like appearance, a recent study revealed that its movements led to MI, only if they were based on human prerecording (biological velocity), but not on constant (artificial) velocity profile. However, it remained unclear, which aspects of the human prerecorded movement triggered MI: biological velocity profile or variability in movement trajectory. To investigate this issue, we applied a quasi-biological minimum-jerk velocity profile (excluding variability in the movement trajectory as an influencing factor of MI) to motion of a humanoid robot, which was observed by subjects performing congruent or incongruent arm movements. The increase in variability in subjects’ movements occurred both for the observation of a human agent and for the robot performing incongruent movements, suggesting that an artificial human-like movement velocity profile is sufficient to facilitate the perception of humanoid robots as interaction partners.
|Keywords||Motor interference Humanoid robot Motor resonance Mirror neuron system Action–perception coupling Interaction|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Natalie Sebanz, Harold Bekkering & Günther Knoblich (2006). Joint Action: Bodies and Minds Moving Together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (2):70-76.
David Premack (1990). The Infant's Theory of Self-Propelled Objects. Cognition 36 (1):1-16.
C. Neil Macrae, Oonagh K. Duffy, Lynden K. Miles & Julie Lawrence (2008). A Case of Hand Waving: Action Synchrony and Person Perception. Cognition 109 (1):152-156.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Adriana Tapus, Andreea Peca, Amir Aly, Cristina Pop, Lavinia Jisa, Sebastian Pintea, Alina S. Rusu & Daniel O. David (2012). Children with Autism Social Engagement in Interaction with Nao, an Imitative Robot: A Series of Single Case Experiments. Interaction Studies 13 (3):315-347.
Christopher Grau (2011). There is No 'I' in 'Robot': Robots and Utilitarianism (Expanded & Revised). In Susan Anderson & Michael Anderson (eds.), Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press 451.
Rand D. LeBouvier, Reflections in a Robot's Eye: A Cultural History and Epistemological Critque of Humanoid Robotics.
Patrizia Marti (2010). Robot Companions: Towards a New Concept of Friendship? Interaction Studies 11 (2):220-226.
Dong-Hee Shin & Hyungseung Choo (2012). Modeling the Acceptance of Socially Interactive Robotics: Social Presence in Humanrobot Interaction. Interaction Studies 12 (3):430-460.
Ugo Pagallo (2010). Robotrust and Legal Responsibility. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 23 (3-4):367-379.
Min-Sun Kim & Eun-Joo Kim (2013). Humanoid Robots as “The Cultural Other”: Are We Able to Love Our Creations? [REVIEW] AI and Society 28 (3):309-318.
Christian Becker-Asano, Takayuki Kanda, Carlos Ishi & Hiroshi Ishiguro (2011). Studying Laughter in Combination with Two Humanoid Robots. AI and Society 26 (3):291-300.
Joanna Golinska-Pilarek & Emilio Munoz Velasco (2012). Reasoning with Qualitative Velocity: Towards a Hybrid Approach. In Emilio Corchado, Vaclav Snasel, Ajith Abraham, Michał Woźniak, Manuel Grana & Sung-Bae Cho (eds.), Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Systems. Springer 635--646.
Guy Hoffman (2012). Embodied Cognition for Autonomous Interactive Robots. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (4):759-772.
Franco Scalzone & Guglielmo Tamburrini (2013). Human-Robot Interaction and Psychoanalysis. AI and Society 28 (3):297-307.
Rodney A. Brooks, Cynthia Breazeal, Matthew Marjanovic, Brian Scassellati & Matthew Williamson (1999). The Cog Project: Building a Humanoid Robot. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1562:52-87.
Robert Rose, Matthias Scheutz & Paul Schermerhorn (2010). Towards a Conceptual and Methodological Framework for Determining Robot Believability. Interaction Studies 11 (2):314-335.
Added to index2011-10-28
Total downloads16 ( #164,320 of 1,725,822 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #134,315 of 1,725,822 )
How can I increase my downloads?