Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction

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)
DOI 10.1007/s00146-010-0314-2
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 22,037
External links
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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
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.
Ugo Pagallo (2010). Robotrust and Legal Responsibility. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 23 (3-4):367-379.
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.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

20 ( #197,288 of 1,934,420 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #269,405 of 1,934,420 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.