MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108868863 · doi:10.1109/roman.2011.6005275

Minimizing task-induced stress in cognitively stimulating activities using an intelligent socially assistive robot

2011· article· en· W2108868863 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanie Chan, Goldie Nejat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychological interventionTask (project management)RobotPsychologyApplied psychologySocial robotCognitionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionCognitive psychologyMedicineArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPsychiatryMobile robotRobot control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is currently a growing epidemic, bringing forth severe health, social, and economic strains. As an alternative to pharmacological measures, current research supports the effectiveness of using cognitive training interventions to slow the decline of or even improve brain functioning in persons with dementia. However, implementing and sustaining these interventions on a long-term basis can be challenging as they demand considerable resources and people. Our research focuses on investigating the potential use of robotic assistants to allow for these interventions to become more accessible to users and caregivers. Namely, the aim of our work is to develop socially assistive robots that can provide cognitive and social stimulation for persons with dementia. In this paper, we study the social interaction attributes of the human-like robot, Brian 2.0, during a one-on-one person-centered cognitively stimulating activity to determine if the robot is capable of minimizing task-induced stress by providing assistance, encouragement, and celebration, while adapting its behavior to a user state during the course of the activity. Our preliminary study shows that the social intelligence of Brian 2.0 is effective in engaging individuals in a cognitively stimulating game while minimizing stress during gameplay.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.293
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207