Definition of the problem This article critically addresses the conceptualization of trust in the ethical discussion on artificial intelligence (AI) in the specific context of social robots in care. First, we attempt to define in which respect we can speak of ‘social’ robots and how their ‘social affordances’ affect the human propensity to trust in human–robot interaction. Against this background, we examine the use of the concept of ‘trust’ and ‘trustworthiness’ with respect to the guidelines and recommendations of the High-Level Expert Group on AI of the European Union. Arguments Trust is analyzed as a multidimensional concept and phenomenon that must be primarily understood as departing from trusting as a human functioning and capability. To trust is an essential part of the human basic capability to form relations with others. We further want to discuss the concept of responsivity which has been established in phenomenological research as a foundational structure of the relation between the self and the other. We argue that trust and trusting as a capability is fundamentally responsive and needs responsive others to be realized. An understanding of responsivity is thus crucial to conceptualize trusting in the ethical framework of human flourishing. We apply a phenomenological–anthropological analysis to explore the link between certain qualities of social robots that construct responsiveness and thereby simulate responsivity and the human propensity to trust. Conclusion Against this background, we want to critically ask whether the concept of trustworthiness in social human–robot interaction could be misguided because of the limited ethical demands that the constructed responsiveness of social robots is able to answer to.

We didn't find any impact of lack of wrist motion on finger movement during forceful hand grip at normal speed. However, a significant loss of grip strength in flexed position of the wrist joint should be considered in patients with an indication for bilateral wrist fusion.

Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die Eignung unterschiedlicher neuropsychologischer Verfahren zur Diagnostik von nicht-authentischen Störungen zu ermitteln. Darüber hinaus soll untersucht werden, ob Beschwerdenvalidierungstests (BVT) eine höhere Validität gegenüber anderen neuropsychologischen Verfahren zum Nachweis von nicht authentischen Störungen aufweisen. Dazu wurden 59 Probanden untersucht, die zwischen 2003 bis 2013 forensisch-neuropsychologisch begutachtet wurden. Sie wurden hinsichtlich ihrer Authentizität ihrer neuropsychologischen Beschwerden beurteilt. Neben neuropsychologischen Tests wurden auch BVT eingesetzt. Es zeigte sich, dass die BVT hoch signifikant mit der gutachterlichen Gesamtbeurteilung korrelieren. Zwischen den neuropsychologischen Standardverfahren und der gutachterlichen Gesamtbeurteilung konnten keine signifikanten Zusammenhänge nachgewiesen werden. Es sind demnach nur diejenigen Verfahren, die speziell für den Nachweis von nicht-authentischen Störungen entwickelt worden, dazu geeignet, die Authentizität der Beschwerdenschilderung zu messen.