ArticleScientific reports2023
Cultural differences in joint attention and engagement in mutual gaze with a robot face.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge of robotic identity modulates attentional orienting to humanoid robot motion.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Joint attention in autism: A narrative review of assessment techniques from behavioral observation to artificial intelligence.Behavior research methods · 2026Review
- Mapping EEG Metrics to Human Affective and Cognitive Models: An Interdisciplinary Scoping Review from a Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Tools and methods to study and replicate experiments addressing human social cognition in interactive scenarios.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Joint attention is a pivotal mechanism underlying human ability to interact with one another. The fundamental nature of joint attention in the context of social cognition has led researchers to develop tasks that address this mechanism and operationalize it in a laboratory setting, in the form of a gaze cueing paradigm. In the present study, we addressed the question of whether engaging in joint attention with a robot face is culture-specific. We adapted a classical gaze-cueing paradigm such that a robot avatar cued participants' gaze subsequent to either engaging participants in eye contact or not. Our critical question of interest was whether the gaze cueing effect (GCE) is stable across different cultures, especially if cognitive resources to exert top-down control are reduced. To achieve the latter, we introduced a mathematical stress task orthogonally to the gaze cueing protocol. Results showed larger GCE in the Singapore sample, relative to the Italian sample, independent of gaze type (eye contact vs. no eye contact) or amount of experienced stress, which translates to available cognitive resources. Moreover, since after each block, participants rated how engaged they felt with the robot avatar during the task, we observed that Italian participants rated as more engaging the avatar during the eye contact blocks, relative to no eye contact while Singaporean participants did not show any difference in engagement relative to the gaze. We discuss the results in terms of cultural differences in robot-induced joint attention, and engagement in eye contact, as well as the dissociation between implicit and explicit measures related to processing of gaze.
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.