Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41726780›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2025

Helping or watching it happen: how participants respond to robot failures in a turn-taking game.

Samantha Stedtler, Katherine Harrison, Valentina Fantasia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Samantha StedtlerDepartment of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Katherine HarrisonDepartment of Thematic Studies (TEMA), Linkopings Universitet, Linköping, Sweden.
Valentina FantasiaDepartment of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot failures in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), though often stemming from technical limitations, can have severe effects on the interactional dynamics between humans and robots. Prior empirical research has led to conflicting findings on how such failures influence user perceptions and the overall success of the interaction. In this study, we investigate how human participants respond to robot failures on a moment-to-moment basis, with a particular focus on how social roles, responsibilities, and agency are negotiated as these episodes unfold. We examine how responses and helping behaviors are instantiated, and which factors facilitate or hinder recovery strategies. We focus on kinematic failures, such as interruptions in motion, unsuccessful grasping, or dropping objects, that occurred during Tic-Tac-Toe games between human participants (n = 17) and the humanoid robot Epi. Our analysis combines multimodal conversation analysis (MCA) and thick description, drawing on our interdisciplinary backgrounds in cognitive science and feminist Science and Technology Studies (STS). We present selected interactional sequences that illustrate a range of participant responses, including physical repair and scaffolding, interpretive support, emotional care, sustained monitoring, and dynamic negotiation of agency. These observations demonstrate how humans co-construct interactional continuity and robot competence through distributed, multimodal, and affective forms of help. They also reveal how agency is dynamically reconfigured, and how roles and responsibilities are distributed across human and robotic actors. We show how the burden of repair often falls to the human participant and conclude by reflecting on the setting and methods used, specifically in regards to the role of the robot as a research tool.

Indexed as

feminist STSinteractional repairmultimodal conversation analysisrobot failuressocial robotics

Identifiers

PMID41726780
PMCPMC12921409

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.