A win-win situation: Does familiarity with a social robot modulate feedback monitoring and learning?

Differences in Social Expectations About Robot Signals and Human Signals

In our daily lives, we are continually involved in decision-making situations, many of which take place in the context of social interaction. Despite the ubiquity of such situations, there remains a gap in our understanding of how decision-making unfolds in social contexts, and how communicative signals, such as social cues and feedback, impact the choices we make. Interestingly, there is a new social context to which humans are recently increasingly more frequently exposed-social interaction with not only other humans but also artificial agents, such as robots or avatars. Given these new technological developments, it is of great interest to address the question of whether-and in what way-social signals exhibited by non-human agents influence decision-making. The present study aimed to examine whether robot non-verbal communicative behavior has an effect on human decision-making. To this end, we implemented a two-alternative-choice task where participants were to guess which of two presented cups was covering a ball. This game was an adaptation of a "Shell Game." A robot avatar acted as a game partner producing social cues and feedback. We manipulated robot's cues (pointing toward one of the cups) before the participant's decision and the robot's feedback ("thumb up" or no feedback) after the decision. We found that participants were slower (compared to other conditions) when cues were mostly invalid and the robot reacted positively to wins. We argue that this was due to the incongruence of the signals (cue vs. feedback), and thus violation of expectations. In sum, our findings show that incongruence in pre- and post-decision social signals from a robot significantly influences task performance, highlighting the importance of understanding expectations toward social robots for effective human-robot interactions.

A Meta-Analysis on Remote HRI and In-Person HRI: What Is a Socially Assistive Robot to Do?

Recently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related social distancing measures, in-person activities have been significantly reduced to limit the spread of the virus, especially in healthcare settings. This has led to loneliness and social isolation for our most vulnerable populations. Socially assistive robots can play a crucial role in minimizing these negative affects. Namely, socially assistive robots can provide assistance with activities of daily living, and through cognitive and physical stimulation. The ongoing pandemic has also accelerated the exploration of remote presence ranging from workplaces to home and healthcare environments. Human-robot interaction (HRI) researchers have also explored the use of remote HRI to provide cognitive assistance in healthcare settings. Existing in-person and remote comparison studies have investigated the feasibility of these types of HRI on individual scenarios and tasks. However, no consensus on the specific differences between in-person HRI and remote HRI has been determined. Furthermore, to date, the exact outcomes for in-person HRI versus remote HRI both with a physical socially assistive robot have not been extensively compared and their influence on physical embodiment in remote conditions has not been addressed. In this paper, we investigate and compare in-person HRI versus remote HRI for robots that assist people with activities of daily living and cognitive interventions. We present the first comprehensive investigation and meta-analysis of these two types of robotic presence to determine how they influence HRI outcomes and impact user tasks. In particular, we address research questions regarding experience, perceptions and attitudes, and the efficacy of both humanoid and non-humanoid socially assistive robots with different populations and interaction modes. The use of remote HRI to provide assistance with daily activities and interventions is a promising emerging field for healthcare applications.

Mutual gaze with a robot affects human neural activity and delays decision-making processes

In most everyday life situations, the brain needs to engage not only in making decisions but also in anticipating and predicting the behavior of others. In such contexts, gaze can be highly informative about others’ intentions, goals, and upcoming decisions. Here, we investigated whether a humanoid robot’s gaze (mutual or averted) influences the way people strategically reason in a social decision-making context. Specifically, participants played a strategic game with the robot iCub while we measured their behavior and neural activity by means of electroencephalography (EEG). Participants were slower to respond when iCub established mutual gaze before their decision, relative to averted gaze. This was associated with a higher decision threshold in the drift diffusion model and accompanied by more synchronized EEG alpha activity. In addition, we found that participants reasoned about the robot’s actions in both conditions. However, those who mostly experienced the averted gaze were more likely to adopt a self-oriented strategy, and their neural activity showed higher sensitivity to outcomes. Together, these findings suggest that robot gaze acts as a strong social signal for humans, modulating response times, decision threshold, neural synchronization, as well as choice strategies and sensitivity to outcomes. This has strong implications for all contexts involving human-robot interaction, from robotics to clinical applications.

Examining Social Cognition with Embodied Robots: Does Prior Experience with a Robot Impact Feedback-associated Learning in a Gambling Task?

Social agents rely on the ability to use feedback to learn and modify their behavior. The extent to which this happens in social contexts depends on motivational, cognitive and/or affective parameters. For instance, feedback-associated learning occurs at different rates when the outcome of an action (e.g., winning or losing in a gambling task) affects oneself (“Self”) versus another human (“Other”). Here, we examine whether similar context effects on feedback-associated learning can also be observed when the “other” is a social robot (here: Cozmo). We additionally examine whether a “hybrid” version of the gambling paradigm, where participants are free to engage in a dynamic interaction with a robot, then move to a controlled screen-based experiment can be used to examine social cognition in human-robot interaction. This hybrid method is an alternative to current designs where researchers examine the effect of the interaction on social cognition during the interaction with the robot. For that purpose, three groups of participants (n total = 60) interacted with Cozmo over different time periods (no interaction vs. a single 20 minute interaction in the lab vs. daily 20 minute interactions over five consecutive days at home) before performing the gambling task in the lab. The results indicate that prior interactions impact the degree to which participants benefit from feedback during the gambling task, with overall worse learning immediately after short-term interactions with the robot and better learning in the “Self” versus “Other” condition after repeated interactions with the robot. These results indicate that “hybrid” paradigms are a suitable option to investigate social cognition in human-robot interaction when a fully dynamic implementation (i.e., interaction and measurement dynamic) is not feasible.