A win-win situation: Does familiarity with a social robot modulate feedback monitoring and learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social species rely on the ability to modulate feedback-monitoring in social contexts to adjust one’s actions and obtain desired outcomes. When being awarded positive outcomes during a gambling task, feedback-monitoring is attenuated when strangers are rewarded, as less value is assigned to the awarded outcome. This difference in feedback-monitoring can be indexed by an event-related potential (ERP) component known as the Reward Positivity (RewP), whose amplitude is enhanced when receiving positive feedback. While the degree of familiarity influences the RewP, little is known about how the RewP and reinforcement learning are affected when gambling on behalf of familiar versus nonfamiliar agents, such as robots. This question becomes increasingly important given that robots may be used as teachers and/or social companions in the near future, with whom children and adults will interact with for short- or long- periods of time. In the present study, we examine whether feedback-monitoring when gambling on behalf of one-self compared to a robot is impacted by whether participants have familiarized themselves with the robot prior to the task. We expected enhanced RewP amplitude for self versus other for those who did not familiarize with the robot and that self-other differences in the RewP would be attenuated for those who familiarized with the robot. Instead, we observed that the RewP was larg-er when familiarization with the robot occurred, which corresponded to overall worse learning outcomes. These findings suggest that familiarization with robots may cause a positive motivational effect, which positively affects RewP amplitudes, but interferes with learning.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".