How Non-experts Kinesthetically Teach a Robot over Multiple Sessions: Diversity in Teaching Styles and Effects on Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In real-world applications, robots should adapt to users and environments; however, users may not know how to teach new tasks to a robot. We studied whether participants without any experience in teaching a robot would become more proficient robot teachers through repeated kinesthetic human–robot teaching interactions. An experiment was conducted with twenty-eight participants who were asked to kinesthetically teach a humanoid robot different cleaning tasks in five repeated sessions, each session including four tasks. Throughout the sessions, participants’ gaze patterns, methods of manipulating the robot’s arm, their perceived workload, and some physical properties of the demonstrated actions were measured. Our data analyses revealed a diversity in non-experts’ human–robot teaching styles in repeated interactions. Three clusters of human teachers were identified based on participants’ performance in providing the demonstrations. The majority of participants significantly improved their success and speed of kinesthetic demonstrations by performing multiple rounds of teaching the robot. Overall, participants gazed less often at the robot’s hand and perceived less effort over repeated sessions. Our findings highlight how non-experts adapt to robot teaching by being exposed repeatedly to human–robot teaching tasks, without any formal training or external intervention, and we identify the characteristics of successful and improving human teachers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".