Top

International Journal of Social Robotics

Published in:

31-03-2021

People Do not Automatically Take the Level-1 Visual Perspective of Humanoid Robot Avatars

Authors: Chengli Xiao, Ya Fan, Jingyu Zhang, Renlai Zhou

Published in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Issue 1/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Taking the perspective of others is critical for both human–human and human–robot interactions. Previous studies using the dot perspective task have revealed that people could automatically process what other people can see. In this study, following the classical dot perspective task, we showed that Chinese participants could not automatically process humanoid robot avatars’ perspective when only judging from self-perspective (Experiment 1) or randomly judging between self and avatar’s perspectives (Experiment 2), and people’s anthropomorphism tendency was related to the efficiency but not the automaticity of perspective-taking. These results revealed that human–human and human–robot interactions might be different in the basic visual process, and suggested the anthropomorphism tendency in people as an influential factor in human–robot interaction.

previous article Top of the Class: Mining Product Characteristics Associated with Crowdfunding Success and Failure of Home Robots

next article iRoPro: An interactive Robot Programming Framework

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Broadbent E (2017) Interactions with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. Annu Rev Psychol 68:627–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958CrossRef

Trafton JG, Cassimatis NL, Bugajska MD, Brock DP, Mintz FE, Schultz AC (2005) Enabling effective human–robot interaction using perspective-taking in robots. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 35:460–470. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2005.850592CrossRef

Surtees A, Samson D, Apperly I (2016) Unintentional perspective-taking calculates whether something is seen, but not how it is seen. Cognition 148:97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.010CrossRef

Flavell JH, Everett BA, Croft K, Flavell ER (1981) Young children’s knowledge about visual perception: further evidence for the level 1-level 2 distinction. Dev Psychol 17:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.99CrossRef

Samson D, Apperly IA, Braithwaite JJ, Andrews BJ, Scott SEB (2010) Seeing it their way: evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018729CrossRef

Nielsen MK, Slade L, Levy JP, Holmes A (2015) Inclined to see it your way: Do altercentric intrusion effects in visual perspective taking reflect an intrinsically social process? Q J Exp Psychol 68:1931–1951. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1023206CrossRef

Todd AR, Cameron CD, Simpson AJ (2017) Dissociating processes underlying level-1 visual perspective taking in adults. Cognition 159:97–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.11.010CrossRef

Todd AR, Simpson AJ (2016) Anxiety impairs spontaneous perspective calculation: evidence from a level-1 visual perspective-taking task. Cognition 156:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.004CrossRef

Schurz M, Kronbichler M, Weissengruber S, Surtees A, Samson D, Perner J (2015) Clarifying the role of theory of mind areas during visual perspective taking: issues of spontaneity and domain-specificity. NeuroImage 117:386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.031CrossRef

10.

Hu YB, Li ZJ, Li GL, Yuan PJ, Yang CG, Song R (2017) Development of sensory-motor fusion-based manipulation and grasping control for a robotic hand-eye system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 47(7):1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.2016.2560530CrossRef

11.

Su H, Sandoval J, Makhdoomi M, Ferrigno G, De Momi E (2018) Safety-enhanced human–robot interaction control of redundant robot for teleoperated minimally invasive surgery. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. ICRA. Ieee Computer Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 6611–6616

12.

Fischer T, Demiris Y (2016) Markerless perspective taking for humanoid robots in unconstrained environments. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Stockholm, Sweden, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487504

13.

Breazeal C, Berlin M, Brooks A, Gray J, Thomaz AL (2006) Using perspective taking to learn from ambiguous demonstrations. Robot Auton Syst 54:385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2006.02.004CrossRef

14.

Pandey AK, Ali M, Alami R (2013) Towards a task-aware proactive sociable robot based on multi-state perspective-taking. Int J Social Robot 5:215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0181-3CrossRef

15.

Fischer T, Demiris Y (2020) Computational modeling of embodied visual perspective taking. IEEE Trans Cogn Dev Syst 12(4):723–732. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcds.2019.2949861CrossRef

16.

Schrodt F, Layher G, Neumann H, Butz MV (2015) Embodied learning of a generative neural model for biological motion perception and inference. Front Comput Neurosci https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2015.00079CrossRef

17.

Zhao X, Cusimano C, Malle BF (2016) Do people spontaneously take a robot’s visual perspective? In: HRI ’16: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, 2016. pp 335–342

18.

Li S, Scalise R, Admoni H, Rosenthal S, Srinivasa SS (2016) Spatial references and perspective in natural language instructions for collaborative manipulation. Paper presented at the 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, New York City

19.

MacDorman KF, Srinivas P, Patel H (2013) The uncanny valley does not interfere with level 1 visual perspective taking. Comput Hum Behav 29:1671–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.051CrossRef

20.

Moratz R, Fischer K, Tenbrink T (2001) Cognitive modeling of spatial reference for human–robot interaction. Int J Artif Intell Tools 10:589–611. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218213001000672CrossRef

21.

Fischer K (2006) The role of users’ concepts of the robot in human–robot spatial instruction. In: Spatial cognition V reasoning, action, interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75666-8_5CrossRef

22.

Carlson L, Skubic M, Miller J, Huo Z, Alexenko T (2014) Strategies for human-driven robot comprehension of spatial descriptions by older adults in a robot fetch task. Topics Cogn Sci 6:513–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12101CrossRef

23.

Galati A, Avraamides MN (2015) Social and representational cues jointly influence spatial perspective-taking. Cogn Sci 39:739–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12173CrossRef

24.

Tversky B, Lee P, Mainwaring S (1999) Why do speakers mix perspectives? Spatial Cogn Comput 1:399–412. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010091730257CrossRef

25.

Clark HH, Wilkes-Gibbs D (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22:1–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7CrossRef

26.

Conway JR, Lee D, Ojaghi M, Catmur C, Bird G (2017) Submentalizing or mentalizing in a level 1 perspective-taking task: a cloak and goggles test. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 43:454–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000319CrossRef

27.

Santiesteban I, Kaurb S, Bird G, Catmur C (2017) Attentional processes, not implicit mentalizing, mediate performance in a perspective-taking task: evidence from stimulation of the temporoparietal junction. NeuroImage 155:305–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.055CrossRef

28.

Furlanetto T, Becchio C, Samson D, Apperly I (2016) Altercentric interference in level 1 visual perspective taking reflects the ascription of mental states, not submentalizing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 42:158–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000138CrossRef

29.

Krach S, Hegel F, Wrede B, Sagerer G, Binkofski F, Kircher T (2008) Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS ONE 3:e2597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002597CrossRef

30.

Cole GG, Millett AC (2019) The closing of the theory of mind: a critique of perspective-taking. Psychon Bull Rev 26(6):1787–1802. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01657-yCrossRef

31.

Cole GG, Millett AC, Samuel S, Eacott MJ (2020) Perspective-Taking: In Search of a Theory. Vision (Basel Switzerland) 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/vision4020030

32.

Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Social Robot 1:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3CrossRef

33.

Severson RL, Lemm KM (2016) Kids see human too: adapting an individual differences measure of anthropomorphism for a child sample. J Cogn Dev 17:122–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2014.989445CrossRef

34.

Waytz A, Cacioppo J, Epley N (2010) Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect Psychol Sci 5:219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336CrossRef

35.

Xiao C, Xu L, Sui Y, Zhou R (2021) Do people regard robots as human-like social partners? Evidence from perspective-taking in spatial descriptions. Front Psychol 11:578244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.578244CrossRef

36.

Michael J, Wolf T, Letesson C, Butterfill S, Skewes J, Hohwy J (2018) Seeing it both ways: using a double-cuing task to investigate the role of spatial cuing in level-1 visual perspective-taking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 44:693–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000486CrossRef

37.

Bukowski H, Hietanen JK, Samson D (2015) From gaze cueing to perspective taking: revisiting the claim that we automatically compute where or what other people are looking at. Visual Cognition 23:1020–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2015.1132804CrossRef

38.

Townsend JT, Ashby FG (1978) Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In: John Castellan N, Restle J F (eds) Cognitive theory, vol III. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp 199–239

39.

Bruyer R, Brysbaert M (2011) Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: Is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)? Psychol Belgica 51:5–13. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-51-1-5CrossRef

40.

Heyes C (2014) Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspect Psychol Sci 9:131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613518076CrossRef

41.

Fan Y, Xiao C (2020) [The role of attention in spontaneous visual perspective-taking]. Unpublished raw data. Nanjing University

42.

Bukowski H, Samson D (2017) New Insights into the inter-individual variability in perspective taking. Vision (Basel Switzerland) 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/vision1010008

43.

Kessler K, Cao L, O’Shea KJ, Wang H (2014) A cross-culture, cross-gender comparison of perspective taking mechanisms. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20140388. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0388

44.

Tversky B, Chow T (2017) Language and culture in visual narratives. Cogn Semiot 10:77–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2017-0008CrossRef

45.

Chua HF, Boland JE, Nisbett RE (2005) Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(35):12629–12633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506162102CrossRef

46.

Cole GG, Atkinson M, Le ATD, Smith DT (2016) Do humans spontaneously take the perspective of others? Acta Physiol (Oxf) 164:165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.01.007CrossRef

47.

Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Social Robot 7:347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6CrossRef

48.

Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42:177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3CrossRefMATH

49.

Ferguson HJ, Brunsdon VEA, Bradford EEF (2018) Age of avatar modulates the altercentric bias in a visual perspective-taking task: ERP and behavioral evidence. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 18(6):1298–1319. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0641-1CrossRef

50.

Park B, Knörzer L, Plass JL, Brünken R (2015) Emotional design and positive emotions in multimedia learning: an eyetracking study on the use of anthropomorphisms. Comput Educ 86:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.016CrossRef

51.

Stárková T, Lukavský J, Javora O, Brom C (2019) Anthropomorphisms in multimedia learning: attract attention but do not enhance learning? J Comput Assist Learn 35:555–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12359CrossRef

52.

Takahashi K, Watanabe K (2015) Seeing objects as faces enhances object detection. i-Perception 6:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669515606007CrossRef

53.

Erle TM, Topolinski S (2017) The grounded nature of psychological perspective-taking. J Pers Soc Psychol 112:683–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000081CrossRef

54.

Zanatto D, Patacchiola M, Cangelosi A, Goslin J (2020) Generalisation of anthropomorphic stereotype. Int J Social Robot 12:163–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00549-4CrossRef

55.

Bartneck C, Bleeker T, Bun J, Fens P, Riet L (2010) The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. J Behav Robot 1:109–115. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13230-010-0011-3CrossRef

Title: People Do not Automatically Take the Level-1 Visual Perspective of Humanoid Robot Avatars
Authors: Chengli Xiao
Ya Fan
Jingyu Zhang
Renlai Zhou
Publication date: 31-03-2021
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Social Robotics / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Electronic ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00773-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

The Effects of Interface Views on Performing Aerial Telemanipulation Tasks Using Small UAVs

Top of the Class: Mining Product Characteristics Associated with Crowdfunding Success and Failure of Home Robots

It’s a Match: Task Assignment in Human–Robot Collaboration Depends on Mind Perception

Body Language for Personal Robot Arm Assistant

DSD - Dynamic Stack Decider

Editorial

Premium Partners