The Impact of Robots' Facial Emotional Expressions on Light Physical Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address the global challenge of population aging, our goal is to enhance successful aging through the introduction of robots capable of assisting in daily physical activities and promoting light exercises, which would enhance the cognitive and physical well-being of older adults. Previous studies have shown that facial expressions can increase engagement when interacting with robots. This study aims to investigate how older adults perceive and interact with a robot capable of displaying facial emotions while performing a physical exercise task together. We employed a collaborative robotic arm with a flat panel screen to encourage physical exercise across three different facial emotion conditions. We ran the experiment with older adults aged between 66 and 88. Our findings suggest that individuals perceive robots exhibiting facial expressions as less competent than those without such expressions. Additionally, the presence of facial expressions does not appear to significantly impact participants' levels of engagement, unlike other state-of-the-art studies. This observation is likely linked to our study's emphasis on collaborative physical human-robot interaction (pHRI) applications, as opposed to socially oriented pHRI applications. Additionally, we foresee a requirement for more suitable non-verbal social behavior to effectively enhance participants' engagement levels.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".