ArticlePloS one2023
Use of a humanoid robot for auditory psychophysical testing.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluating speech-in-speech perception via a humanoid robot.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Use of a humanoid robot for auditory psychophysical testing.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tasks in psychophysical tests can at times be repetitive and cause individuals to lose engagement during the test. To facilitate engagement, we propose the use of a humanoid NAO robot, named Sam, as an alternative interface for conducting psychophysical tests. Specifically, we aim to evaluate the performance of Sam as an auditory testing interface, given its potential limitations and technical differences, in comparison to the current laptop interface. We examine the results and durations of two voice perception tests, voice cue sensitivity and voice gender categorisation, obtained from both the conventionally used laptop interface and Sam. Both tests investigate the perception and use of two speaker-specific voice cues, fundamental frequency (F0) and vocal tract length (VTL), important for characterising voice gender. Responses are logged on the laptop using a connected mouse, and on Sam using the tactile sensors. Comparison of test results from both interfaces shows functional similarity between the interfaces and replicates findings from previous studies with similar tests. Comparison of test durations shows longer testing times with Sam, primarily due to longer processing times in comparison to the laptop, as well as other design limitations due to the implementation of the test on the robot. Despite the inherent constraints of the NAO robot, such as in sound quality, relatively long processing and testing times, and different methods of response logging, the NAO interface appears to facilitate collecting similar data to the current laptop interface, confirming its potential as an alternative psychophysical test interface for auditory perception tests.
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.