Neural dynamics of mental state attribution to social robot faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interplay of mind attribution and emotional responses is considered crucial in shaping human trust and acceptance of social robots. Understanding this interplay can help us create the right conditions for successful human-robot social interaction in alignment with societal goals. Our study shows that affective information about robots describing positive, negative, or neutral behaviour leads participants (N = 90) to attribute mental states to robot faces, modulating impressions of trustworthiness, facial expression, and intentionality. Electroencephalography recordings from 30 participants revealed that affective information influenced specific processing stages in the brain associated with early face perception (N170 component) and more elaborate stimulus evaluation (late positive potential). However, a modulation of fast emotional brain responses, typically found for human faces (early posterior negativity), was not observed. These findings suggest that neural processing of robot faces alternates between being perceived as mindless machines and intentional agents: people rapidly attribute mental states during perception, literally seeing good or bad intentions in robot faces, but are emotionally less affected than when facing humans. These nuanced insights into the fundamental psychological and neural processes underlying mind attribution can enhance our understanding of human-robot social interactions and inform policies surrounding the moral responsibility of artificial agents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".