Enhancing emotional support in human-robot interaction: Implementing emotion regulation mechanisms in a personal drone
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose that social robots can enhance their social abilities by supporting peoples' emotional needs. We examined this concept by implementing four different mechanisms aimed at providing Emotional Support in a personal drone. These mechanisms (Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, Positive Emotion Regulation (PER), and a Reasoning mechanism (yoU-turn)) provide various aspects of support ranging on the Emotional-Reasoning spectrum. In an online study ( N = 95), first, participants were asked to sequentially recall situations where they experienced one of six emotional states (i.e., being calm, bored, excited, hyperactivated, scared, or sleepy). Following each induced emotion, participants ranked their preferred drone response to their specific emotional state. Results indicate that participants' preferences were based on the valence of their emotional state, emphasizing the need for social drones to have multiple response mechanisms to support their users. This work contributes to the field of human-robot interaction by implementing validated support mechanisms into a robotic system as its emotional responses. • A social drone providing appropriate responses can support users' emotional needs. • Social response mechanisms were implemented into a drone to form an emotional response. • The drone provides responses that match users' emotion-based preferences. • Affective Empathy was the most preferred response for positive valence emotions. • Positive Emotion Regulation was the preferred response for negative valence emotions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it