MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Expressive Motions based on the Framework of Laban Effort Features for Social Attributes of Robots

2022· article· en· W4298112256 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ebru Emir, Catherine M. Burns

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobotCompetence (human resources)Human–computer interactionSocial robotComputer scienceKinematicsArtificial intelligenceSimulationMobile robotPsychologyRobot controlSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today’s world, it is not uncommon to see robots adopted in various domains and environments. Robots take over several roles and tasks from manufacturing facilities to households and offices. It is crucial to measure people’s judgment of robots' social attributes since the findings can shape the future design for social robots. Using only a simple and mono-functional robotic vacuum cleaner, this paper investigates the impact of expressive motions on how people perceive the social attributes of the robot. The Laban Effort Features, a framework for movement analysis that emerged from dance, was modified to design expressive motions for a simple cleaning task. Participants were asked to rate the social attributes of the robot under several treatment conditions using a video-based online survey. The results indicated that velocity influenced people’s ratings of the robot’s warmth and competence, while path planning behavior influenced people’s ratings of the robot’s competence and discomfort. Limitations of this study include the kinematic constraints of the robot, potential issues with survey design, and technical constraints related to the open interface provided by the robot’s developer. The findings should be considered when incorporating expressive motions into domestic service robots operating in social settings.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207