Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction

By Kerstin Dautenhahn. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2007

1,227 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0008a082e953c180482e38fb7fc40220d598a099

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

On the Impact of Robotics in Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences: From Insect Navigation to Human Cognitive Development (2010, neutral): “ming of robots [4], [6], [10], [15], [36], [52].”
From high-touch to high-tech: COVID-19 drives robotics adoption (2020, background): “Researchers have gradually come to classify human-robot interaction (HRI) into three categories: robot-centered approaches, human-centered approaches, and robot cognition-center approaches (Dautenhahn, 2007).”
Judgment of the Humanness of an Interlocutor Is in the Eye of the Beholder (2011, background): “As the use of the Internet and virtual reality applications is largely spreading into everyday situations, the need for human-like autonomous agents is rapidly growing [1,2].”
Scaffoldings of the affective mind (2015, background): “[3] There is evidence that older children are responsive to “socially intelligent robots” (Dautenhahn, 2007).”
Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor (2010, background): “In the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) community it is still under debate what characteristics deﬁne a social robot [9, 12].”
Watch-And-Help: A Challenge for Social Perception and Human-AI Collaboration (2020, background): “However, prior work in HRI has been mainly restricted in lab environments (Goodrich & Schultz, 2007; Dautenhahn, 2007; Nikolaidis et al., 2015; Rozo et al., 2016), and the goals in the collaborative tasks were either shared by both agents or were deﬁned in a small space.”
Continual Learning for Affective Robotics: Why, What and How? (2020, background): “This is particularly beneficial when using robots in interventions with sensitive user groups such as providing care for the elderly and assisting children in learning [52], [53].”
Why Robots? A Survey on the Roles and Benefits of Social Robots in the Therapy of Children with Autism (2013, background): “While robots are programmed and are thus deterministic, they are more suited to the needs of predictability and repetition of a child with autism [40, 46, 49, 60, 68].”
Title of paper : KASPAR – A Minimally Expressive Humanoid Robot for Human-Robot Interaction Research (2009, neutral): “Their acceptance of the robot and willingness to engage with the robot will not only fundamentally influence the outcome of human-robot interaction experiments, but will also impact the acceptance of any robots designed for use in human society as companions or assistants (Dautenhahn, 2007; Dautenha”
Cooperating with machines (2017, neutral): “, costless signals) is important to human cooperation in repeated interactions [15, 16], as it helps people coordinate quickly on desirable equilibrium and create shared representations [18, 19, 20, 21].”
The Perception And Measurement Of Human-robot Trust (2013, background): “The primary factors that impacts initial robot trustworthiness are reputation (Daellenbach & Davenport, 2004; Lee & See, 2004), physical form (e.g., anthropomorphism; Dautenhahn, 2007), robot type, robot personality, intelligence, level of automation and perceived function (e.”
The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions (2011, methodology): “Humanoid robots and artificial agents are increasingly part of our daily lives (Kanda et al., 2004; Dautenhahn, 2007; Tapus et al., 2007).”
Communicating Intent of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians (2018, background): “Insummary, a robot providing humans with its intentions appears more reliable, predictable, and transparent to humans, which, in turn, facilitates trust that is a key for safety and comfort of humans involved in the interaction (Lee and See, 2004; Dautenhahn, 2007; Hoﬀ and Bashir, 2014).”
Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots (2009, methodology): “We can not offer an exhaustive framework for the perception of robots similar to the frameworks that have already been developed for social robots [9–11] that would justify”