↓ Skip to main content

Affordance Equivalences in Robotics: A Formalism

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Affordance Equivalences in Robotics: A Formalism
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2018.00026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mihai Andries, Ricardo Omar Chavez-Garcia, Raja Chatila, Alessandro Giusti, Luca Maria Gambardella

Abstract

Automatic knowledge grounding is still an open problem in cognitive robotics. Recent research in developmental robotics suggests that a robot's interaction with its environment is a valuable source for collecting such knowledge about the effects of robot's actions. A useful concept for this process is that of an affordance, defined as a relationship between an actor, an action performed by this actor, an object on which the action is performed, and the resulting effect. This paper proposes a formalism for defining and identifying affordance equivalence. By comparing the elements of two affordances, we can identify equivalences between affordances, and thus acquire grounded knowledge for the robot. This is useful when changes occur in the set of actions or objects available to the robot, allowing to find alternative paths to reach goals. In the experimental validation phase we verify if the recorded interaction data is coherent with the identified affordance equivalences. This is done by querying a Bayesian Network that serves as container for the collected interaction data, and verifying that both affordances considered equivalent yield the same effect with a high probability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 29%
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 17 35%
Engineering 12 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Design 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 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 17 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,535,385
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#464
of 886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,298
of 328,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 886 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 328,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.