Look at Me Now: Investigating Delayed Disengagement for Ambiguous Human-Robot Stimuli

Smith, Melissa A.; Wiese, Eva

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_93

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the best of our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence that ambiguous faces induce delayed disengagement because of automatic threat detection. In fact, Smith and Wiese (2016) have shown that while processing face-like stimuli caused delayed disengagement effects in general, the effect was not stronger for humanoid faces than for human and robot stimuli, making the threat detection hypothesis an unlikely explanation for our findings (i.e., one would expect no difference in vigilance decrements between agents in Experiment 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Implicit mind perception alters vigilance performance because of cognitive conflict processing.

Wiese¹,

Mandell²,

Shaw³

et al. 2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing the internal states of others is essential to predicting behavior in social interactions and requires that the general characteristic of “having a mind” is granted to our interaction partners. Mind perception is a highly automatic process and can potentially cause a cognitive conflict when interacting with agents whose mind status is ambiguous, such as artificial agents. We investigate whether mind perception negatively impacts performance on tasks involving artificial agents because of cognitive conflict processing caused by a potentially increased difficulty to categorize them as human versus nonhuman. Experiment 1 shows that an ambiguous humanoid stimulus negatively impacts performance on a vigilance task that is known to be sensitive to the drainage of cognitive resources. This negative effect on performance vanishes when participants are preexposed to the stimulus before the vigilance task (Experiment 2 and 3). The effect of preexposure on performance recovery is independent of whether participants explicitly resolve the cognitive conflict by answering mind-related questions (Experiment 2) or implicitly by judging the stimuli on a set of physical features (Experiment 3). Together, the findings suggest that mind perception is so automatic that it cannot be suppressed even if it has negative effects on cognitive performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Implicit mind perception alters vigilance performance because of cognitive conflict processing.

Wiese¹,

Mandell²,

Shaw³

et al. 2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strait et al (2015) exposed participants to pictures of real humans and robots varying in humanlikeness (low, medium, high) and found participants to fixate highly humanlike robots less than the other agents when the whole body was taken into account, and more than the artificial agents when the head and the eyes were considered. Smith and Wiese (2016) studied the effects of a robot's appearance on delayed disengagement. They asked participants to orient their gaze to a target dot appearing on the sides of a screen after fixating an agent in the center of it and measured the time it took for participants to reorient their gaze.…”

Section: Stigma Staring and The Uncanny Valleymentioning

confidence: 99%

I Can See It in Your Eyes: Gaze as an Implicit Cue of Uncanniness and Task Performance in Repeated Interactions With Robots

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past years, extensive research has been dedicated to developing robust platforms and data-driven dialog models to support long-term human-robot interactions. However, little is known about how people's perception of robots and engagement with them develop over time and how these can be accurately assessed through implicit and continuous measurement techniques. In this paper, we explore this by involving participants in three interaction sessions with multiple days of zero exposure in between. Each session consists of a joint task with a robot as well as two short social chats with it before and after the task. We measure participants' gaze patterns with a wearable eye-tracker and gauge their perception of the robot and engagement with it and the joint task using questionnaires. Results disclose that aversion of gaze in a social chat is an indicator of a robot's uncanniness and that the more people gaze at the robot in a joint task, the worse they perform. In contrast with most HRI literature, our results show that gaze toward an object of shared attention, rather than gaze toward a robotic partner, is the most meaningful predictor of engagement in a joint task. Furthermore, the analyses of gaze patterns in repeated interactions disclose that people's mutual gaze in a social chat develops congruently with their perceptions of the robot over time. These are key findings for the HRI community as they entail that gaze behavior can be used as an implicit measure of people's perception of robots in a social chat and of their engagement and task performance in a joint task.

show abstract

“…To the best of our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence that ambiguous faces induce delayed disengagement due to automatic threat detection. In fact, Smith and Wiese (2016) have shown that while processing facelike stimuli caused delayed disengagement effects in general, the effect was not stronger for humanoid faces than for human and robot stimuli, making the threat detection hypothesis an unlikely explanation for our findings (i.e., one would expect no difference in vigilance decrements between agents in Experiment 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Implicit mind perception alters vigilance performance due to cognitive conflict processing

Wiese¹,

Mandell²,

Shaw³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing the internal states of others is essential to predicting behavior in social interactions and requires that the general characteristic of ‘having a mind’ is granted to our interaction partners. Mind perception is a highly automatic process and can potentially cause a cognitive conflict when interacting with agents whose mind status is ambiguous, such as artificial agents. We investigate whether mind perception negatively impacts performance on tasks involving artificial agents due to cognitive conflict processing caused by a potentially increased difficulty to categorize them as human versus non-human. Experiment 1 shows that an ambiguous humanoid stimulus negatively impacts performance on a vigilance task that is known to be sensitive to the drainage of cognitive resources. This negative effect on performance vanishes when participants are pre-exposed to the stimulus be-fore the vigilance task (Experiment 2 and 3). The effect of pre-exposure on performance recovery is independent of whether participants explicitly resolve the cognitive conflict by answering mind-related questions (Experiment 2) or implicitly by judging the stimuli on a set of physical features (Experiment 3). Together, the findings suggest that mind perception is so automatic that it cannot be suppressed even if it has negative effects on cognitive performance.

show abstract

Look at Me Now: Investigating Delayed Disengagement for Ambiguous Human-Robot Stimuli

Cited by 6 publications

References 27 publications

Implicit mind perception alters vigilance performance because of cognitive conflict processing.

Implicit mind perception alters vigilance performance because of cognitive conflict processing.

I Can See It in Your Eyes: Gaze as an Implicit Cue of Uncanniness and Task Performance in Repeated Interactions With Robots

Implicit mind perception alters vigilance performance due to cognitive conflict processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About