MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391254124 · doi:10.2196/45494

The Role of Coherent Robot Behavior and Embodiment in Emotion Perception and Recognition During Human-Robot Interaction: Experimental Study

2024· article· en· W4391254124 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Fiorini, Grazia D’Onofrio, Alessandra Sorrentino, Federica Gabriella Cornacchia Loizzo, Sergio Russo, Filomena Ciccone, Francesco Giuliani, Daniele Sancarlo, Filippo Cavallo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotPerceptionGestureHuman–robot interactionValence (chemistry)Computer scienceHuman–computer interactionBehavior-based roboticsStimulus (psychology)Social robotArtificial intelligencePsychologyHumanoid robotArousalCognitive psychologyRoboticsMobile robotRobot controlSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social robots are becoming increasingly important as companions in our daily lives. Consequently, humans expect to interact with them using the same mental models applied to human-human interactions, including the use of cospeech gestures. Research efforts have been devoted to understanding users' needs and developing robot's behavioral models that can perceive the user state and properly plan a reaction. Despite the efforts made, some challenges regarding the effect of robot embodiment and behavior in the perception of emotions remain open. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is dual. First, it aims to assess the role of the robot's cospeech gestures and embodiment in the user's perceived emotions in terms of valence (stimulus pleasantness), arousal (intensity of evoked emotion), and dominance (degree of control exerted by the stimulus). Second, it aims to evaluate the robot's accuracy in identifying positive, negative, and neutral emotions displayed by interacting humans using 3 supervised machine learning algorithms: support vector machine, random forest, and K-nearest neighbor. METHODS: Pepper robot was used to elicit the 3 emotions in humans using a set of 60 images retrieved from a standardized database. In particular, 2 experimental conditions for emotion elicitation were performed with Pepper robot: with a static behavior or with a robot that expresses coherent (COH) cospeech behavior. Furthermore, to evaluate the role of the robot embodiment, the third elicitation was performed by asking the participant to interact with a PC, where a graphical interface showed the same images. Each participant was requested to undergo only 1 of the 3 experimental conditions. RESULTS: A total of 60 participants were recruited for this study, 20 for each experimental condition for a total of 3600 interactions. The results showed significant differences (P<.05) in valence, arousal, and dominance when stimulated with the Pepper robot behaving COH with respect to the PC condition, thus underlying the importance of the robot's nonverbal communication and embodiment. A higher valence score was obtained for the elicitation of the robot (COH and robot with static behavior) with respect to the PC. For emotion recognition, the K-nearest neighbor classifiers achieved the best accuracy results. In particular, the COH modality achieved the highest level of accuracy (0.97) when compared with the static behavior and PC elicitations (0.88 and 0.94, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the use of multimodal communication channels, such as cospeech and visual channels, as in the COH modality, may improve the recognition accuracy of the user's emotional state and can reinforce the perceived emotion. Future studies should investigate the effect of age, culture, and cognitive profile on the emotion perception and recognition going beyond the limitation of this work.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207