Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26217266›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015

Systematic analysis of video data from different human-robot interaction studies: a categorization of social signals during error situations.

Manuel Giuliani, Nicole Mirnig, Gerald Stollnberger, Susanne Stadler, Roland Buchner, Manfred Tscheligi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. When neuro-robots go wrong: A review.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2023
    Review
  9. Designing Acceptable Robots for Assisting Older Adults: A Pilot Study on the Willingness to Interact.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Manuel GiulianiDepartment of Computer Sciences, Center for Human-Computer Interaction, University of Salzburg Salzburg, Austria.
Nicole MirnigDepartment of Computer Sciences, Center for Human-Computer Interaction, University of Salzburg Salzburg, Austria.
Gerald StollnbergerDepartment of Computer Sciences, Center for Human-Computer Interaction, University of Salzburg Salzburg, Austria.
Susanne StadlerDepartment of Computer Sciences, Center for Human-Computer Interaction, University of Salzburg Salzburg, Austria.
Roland BuchnerDepartment of Computer Sciences, Center for Human-Computer Interaction, University of Salzburg Salzburg, Austria.
Manfred TscheligiDepartment of Computer Sciences, Center for Human-Computer Interaction, University of Salzburg Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-robot interactions are often affected by error situations that are caused by either the robot or the human. Therefore, robots would profit from the ability to recognize when error situations occur. We investigated the verbal and non-verbal social signals that humans show when error situations occur in human-robot interaction experiments. For that, we analyzed 201 videos of five human-robot interaction user studies with varying tasks from four independent projects. The analysis shows that there are two types of error situations: social norm violations and technical failures. Social norm violations are situations in which the robot does not adhere to the underlying social script of the interaction. Technical failures are caused by technical shortcomings of the robot. The results of the video analysis show that the study participants use many head movements and very few gestures, but they often smile, when in an error situation with the robot. Another result is that the participants sometimes stop moving at the beginning of error situations. We also found that the participants talked more in the case of social norm violations and less during technical failures. Finally, the participants use fewer non-verbal social signals (for example smiling, nodding, and head shaking), when they are interacting with the robot alone and no experimenter or other human is present. The results suggest that participants do not see the robot as a social interaction partner with comparable communication skills. Our findings have implications for builders and evaluators of human-robot interaction systems. The builders need to consider including modules for recognition and classification of head movements to the robot input channels. The evaluators need to make sure that the presence of an experimenter does not skew the results of their user studies.

Indexed as

error situationhuman–robot interactionsocial norm violationsocial signalstechnical failurevideo analysis

Identifiers

PMID26217266
PMCPMC4495306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.