MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Social Life of Industrial Arms: How Arousal and Attention Shape Human-Robot Interaction

2025· article· W7131129112 on OpenAlexaff
Roy EI-Helou, Matthew Pan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionArousalFocus (optics)Human–robot interactionRobotSocial robotLow arousal theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores how human perceptions of a non-anthropomorphic robotic manipulator can be shaped by two key dimensions of behaviour: arousal, defined as the robot's movement energy and expressiveness, and attention, defined as the robot's capacity to selectively orient toward and engage with a user. We present an integrated behaviour system that applies and extends existing movement-centric design principles to non-anthropomorphic robots. Our system combines a gaze-like attention engine with an arousal-modulated motion layer to explore how expressive and interactive behaviours influence social perception in robotic manipulators. In a user study, we find that robots exhibiting high attention-actively directing their focus toward users-are perceived as warmer and more competent, intentional, and lifelike. In contrast, high arousal-characterized by fast, expansive, and energetic motions-increases perceptions of discomfort and disturbance. Importantly, a combination of focused attention and moderate arousal yields the highest ratings of trust and sociability, while excessive arousal diminishes social engagement. These findings offer design insights for endowing non-humanoid robots with expressive, intuitive behaviours that support more natural human-robot interaction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207