ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2019
Human-Computer Interaction Problem in Learning: Could the Key Be Hidden Somewhere Between Social Interaction and Development of Tools?
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design and evaluation of children's education interactive learning system based on human computer interaction technology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Minds We Make: A Philosophical Inquiry into Theory of Mind and Artificial Intelligence.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025Article
- The Motor Function Evaluation of College Students' Physical Activity State From the Perspective of Educational Psychology.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care.Technology in society · 2020Article
- The Parasitic Nature of Social AI: Sharing Minds with the Mindless.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Homo sapiens is not just a tool-using species, they also can invent and develop tools. This is the feature that distinguishes humans from other species. It is necessary to get rid of the perceptual dominance of the present state of the material to invent and develop a tool. It is based on a mental process: designing. So how was that possible? In this article, I propose an evolutionary hypothesis in response to this question: the referential triangle. Accordingly, the relationship that people establish with things is mentally indirect, but the relationship they establish with each other is mentally direct. The hypothesis claims that the mental solutions of people have naturally established with each other are also used to invent and develop tools. The latest and most interesting product of this mechanism is artificial intelligence. Because artificial intelligence also acts as an inorganic system. What distinguishes it from other machines in this context is its social behavior. Artificial intelligence can generate social signals. So can artificial intelligence be both a tool and a partner at the same time in the referential triangle established with the tools by the human? In other words, can children, for instance, socially interact with artificial intelligence, just as they do naturally with people around? The article draws attention to that this problem should be included in the cultural psychological research agenda.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30826986What 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.