Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34456705›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurorobotics2021

Coordinating With a Robot Partner Affects Neural Processing Related to Action Monitoring.

Artur Czeszumski, Anna L Gert, Ashima Keshava, Ali Ghadirzadeh, Tilman Kalthoff, Benedikt V Ehinger, Max Tiessen, Mårten Björkman, Danica Kragic, Peter König

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

10 authors.

Artur CzeszumskiInstitute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Anna L GertInstitute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Ashima KeshavaInstitute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Ali GhadirzadehRobotics, Perception and Learning, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tilman KalthoffInstitute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Benedikt V EhingerInstitute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Max TiessenInstitute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Mårten BjörkmanRobotics, Perception and Learning, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Danica KragicRobotics, Perception and Learning, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter KönigInstitute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robots start to play a role in our social landscape, and they are progressively becoming responsive, both physically and socially. It begs the question of how humans react to and interact with robots in a coordinated manner and what the neural underpinnings of such behavior are. This exploratory study aims to understand the differences in human-human and human-robot interactions at a behavioral level and from a neurophysiological perspective. For this purpose, we adapted a collaborative dynamical paradigm from the literature. We asked 12 participants to hold two corners of a tablet while collaboratively guiding a ball around a circular track either with another participant or a robot. In irregular intervals, the ball was perturbed outward creating an artificial error in the behavior, which required corrective measures to return to the circular track again. Concurrently, we recorded electroencephalography (EEG). In the behavioral data, we found an increased velocity and positional error of the ball from the track in the human-human condition vs. human-robot condition. For the EEG data, we computed event-related potentials. We found a significant difference between human and robot partners driven by significant clusters at fronto-central electrodes. The amplitudes were stronger with a robot partner, suggesting a different neural processing. All in all, our exploratory study suggests that coordinating with robots affects action monitoring related processing. In the investigated paradigm, human participants treat errors during human-robot interaction differently from those made during interactions with other humans. These results can improve communication between humans and robot with the use of neural activity in real-time.

Indexed as

action monitoringEEGembodied cognitionERPhuman-robot interactionjoint actionsocial neuroscience

Identifiers

PMID34456705
PMCPMC8386170

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.