ArticleFundamental research2025
Exploring behavior patterns in human and machine interactions.
Article in Fundamental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A compensation strategy of end-effector pose precision based on the virtual constraints for serial robots with RDOFs.Fundamental research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A framework based on response-dependence theory is proposed to analyze human and machine interaction patterns. The interaction is an information processing and exchanging system with agents responding to signals from the decision perspective on multiple channels. Agents' pattern differences may emerge via a multiple-input multiple-output model on the sequential machine data. The connectivity with different decision-making factors embodies the interactive narrative features. The magnitude of the frequency response is compared in a parallel analysis. The interaction relationship will emerge in frequency response comparison. In the empirical study, we compare AlphaGo and human professional players' behaviors in the game of Go. We find a similar connectivity structure in vertical analysis and coincidences with the interaction relationship in the game. However, the response magnitude interval differs between AlphaGo and human professional players in several stimulus-response pairs. Integrated with static comparison, we find AlphaGo is more sensitive to long-term payoff changes than human professional players. The framework and empirical studies indicate that theory and techniques from cross-disciplinary can provide a perceptive and objective explanation of behavior patterns in human and machine interaction. The proposed framework might benefit scientists in research on AI ethics and machine behavior interpretation with big data techniques.
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.