↓ Skip to main content

Robot initiative in a team learning task increases the rhythm of interaction but not the perceived engagement

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Robot initiative in a team learning task increases the rhythm of interaction but not the perceived engagement
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2014.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serena Ivaldi, Salvatore M. Anzalone, Woody Rousseau, Olivier Sigaud, Mohamed Chetouani

Abstract

We hypothesize that the initiative of a robot during a collaborative task with a human can influence the pace of interaction, the human response to attention cues, and the perceived engagement. We propose an object learning experiment where the human interacts in a natural way with the humanoid iCub. Through a two-phases scenario, the human teaches the robot about the properties of some objects. We compare the effect of the initiator of the task in the teaching phase (human or robot) on the rhythm of the interaction in the verification phase. We measure the reaction time of the human gaze when responding to attention utterances of the robot. Our experiments show that when the robot is the initiator of the learning task, the pace of interaction is higher and the reaction to attention cues faster. Subjective evaluations suggest that the initiating role of the robot, however, does not affect the perceived engagement. Moreover, subjective and third-person evaluations of the interaction task suggest that the attentive mechanism we implemented in the humanoid robot iCub is able to arouse engagement and make the robot's behavior readable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 19 28%
Engineering 18 27%
Psychology 7 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2014.
All research outputs
#17,716,357
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#515
of 853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,790
of 305,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 853 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.