How does the robot feel? Perception of valence and arousal in emotional body language
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human-robot interaction in social robotics applications could be greatly enhanced by robotic behaviors that incorporate emotional body language. Using as our starting point a set of pre-designed, emotion conveying animations that have been created by professional animators for the Pepper robot, we seek to explore how humans perceive their affect content, and to increase their usability by annotating them with reliable labels of valence and arousal, in a continuous interval space. We conducted an experiment with 20 participants who were presented with the animations and rated them in the two-dimensional affect space. An inter-rater reliability analysis was applied to support the aggregation of the ratings for deriving the final labels. The set of emotional body language animations with the labels of valence and arousal is available and can potentially be useful to other researchers as a ground truth for behavioral experiments on robotic expression of emotion, or for the automatic selection of robotic emotional behaviors with respect to valence and arousal. To further utilize the data we collected, we analyzed it with an exploratory approach and we present some interesting trends with regard to the human perception of Pepper’s emotional body language, that might be worth further investigation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it