Impact of Multi-Robot Presence and Anthropomorphism on Human Cognition and Emotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring how robots impact human cognition and emotions has become increasingly important as robots gradually become ubiquitous in our lives. In this study, we investigate the impact of robotic presence on human cognition and emotion by examining various robot parameters such as anthropomorphism, number of robots, and multi-robot motion patterns. 16 participants completed two cognitive tasks in the presence of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic robots, alone, and with a human nearby. The non-anthropomorphic robot conditions were further varied in the number of robots and their motion patterns. We find that increasing the number of non-anthropomorphic robots generally leads to slower performance, but coordinated patterned motions can lower the completion time compared to random movements. An anthropomorphic robot induces an increased level of feelings of being judged compared to a non-anthropomorphic robot. These findings provide preliminary insights into how designers or users can purposefully integrate robots into our environment by understanding the effects of anthropomorphism, number of robots, and multi-robot motion patterns on human cognition and emotion.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".