ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
Systematic analysis of video data from different human-robot interaction studies: a categorization of social signals during error situations.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-Robot Interaction Strategy of Service Robot with Insufficient Capability in Self-Service Shop.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gaze and movement adaptation in response to delayed robotic movement during turn-taking.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Should robots display what they hear? Mishearing as a practical accomplishment.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- Helping or watching it happen: how participants respond to robot failures in a turn-taking game.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- The impact of intelligent robot service failures on customer responses --a perspective based on mind perception theory.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Review
- Human-in-the-loop error detection in an object organization task with a social robot.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
- Working with roubles and failures in conversation between humans and robots: workshop report.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2023Article
- When neuro-robots go wrong: A review.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2023Review
- Designing Acceptable Robots for Assisting Older Adults: A Pilot Study on the Willingness to Interact.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Expect the Unexpected: Leveraging the Human-Robot Ecosystem to Handle Unexpected Robot Failures.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
- The Role of Frustration in Human-Robot Interaction - What Is Needed for a Successful Collaboration?Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Trouble and Repair in Child-Robot Interaction: A Study of Complex Interactions With a Robot Tutee in a Primary School Classroom.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2020Article
- Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.