Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41948703›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in robotics and AI2025

Social robots: a meta-analysis of learning outcomes.

J C F de Winter, D Dodou, F Moorlag, J Broekens

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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

4 authors.

J C F de WinterFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
D DodouFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
F MoorlagFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
J BroekensLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous meta-analyses show that social robots aid learning but were often limited in scope or grouped diverse control conditions together. This meta-analysis examined learning outcomes, focusing on control condition type. We retrieved 146 studies (Google Scholar and reference searches) where a physical social robot was used for training cognitive skills, comprising 183 post-test effect sizes between the robot and the control group, and 372 pre-post effect sizes. Analysis of the 78 studies with control groups indicated that robots generally improved learning, most notably when compared to a no-training control group (

Indexed as

cognitive skillseducational roboticshuman-robot interactionlearningsocial robot

Identifiers

PMID41948703
PMCPMC13051544

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.