Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot

By Aaron Powers, Sara B. Kiesler, Susan R. Fussell, C. Torrey. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2007

356 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Social Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/99068e5fd4964c06468a8fda95504ec4dd2d7f9d

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 Social Psychology

In Human-Computer Interaction

Citations in the corpus

Social robots for education: A review (2018, background): “Similar results have been demonstrated when coaching users to select healthier snacks (24) and when helping users continue a 6-week weight-loss program (28).”
The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents (2011, result): “Some studies have combined behavioral observations with participants’ self-reported perceptions [15, 18, 19, 27], and our methodology takes a similar approach.”
Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction (2017, background): “In an interaction with a health-care robot, people remembered less information provided by a physically co-located robot than information provided by a virtual representation of that robot (Powers, Kiesler, Fussell, & Torrey, 2007).”
The effect of presence on human-robot interaction (2008, background): “Other studies have used such a combination to examine comfort in humanrobot interaction [ 11 ],[12].”
The Clinical Use of Robots for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Critical Review (2012, background): “…motion (e.g., Klin et al., 2002; Klin & Jones, 2006; Klin et al., 2009), and emerging literature (e.g., Duffy, 2003; Powers & Kiesler, 2006; Powers, Kiesler, Fussell, & Torrey, 2007) examines how humans think about and classify different types of artificial entities, like robots or avatars.”
Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor (2010, background): “Furthermore, research has shown that the effect of being perceived as a social interaction partner can additionally be enhanced by a physical robotic embodiment [31, 42].”
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2020, background): “Moreover, attitudes toward robots could be different than attitudes toward autonomous agents embedded in a computer, yet attitudes play a role in interactions and communication (e.g., Nitsch & Glassen, 2015; Powers et al., 2007).”
Improving social skills in children with ASD using a long-term, in-home social robot (2018, background): “Third, in tutoring interactions with both adults and typically developing children, physically embodied robots increase learning outcomes (24, 25), increase compliance to instructions (25), and increase user engagement during the interaction (26, 27) over screen-based agents.”