The Social Life of Industrial Arms: How Arousal and Attention Shape Human-Robot Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".