Children’s reliance on the non-verbal cues of a robot versus a human
Autoři:
Josje Verhagen aff001; Rianne van den Berghe aff001; Ora Oudgenoeg-Paz aff001; Aylin Küntay aff003; Paul Leseman aff001
Působiště autorů:
Utrecht University, Department of Special Education: Cognitive and Motor Disabilities, Heidelberglaan 1, CS Utrecht, the Netherlands
aff001; University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, Spuistraat,VB Amsterdam, the Netherlands
aff002; Koç University, Department of Psychology, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sarıyer, Istanbul, Turkey
aff003
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217833
Souhrn
Robots are used for language tutoring increasingly often, and commonly programmed to display non-verbal communicative cues such as eye gaze and pointing during robot-child interactions. With a human speaker, children rely more strongly on non-verbal cues (pointing) than on verbal cues (labeling) if these cues are in conflict. However, we do not know how children weigh the non-verbal cues of a robot. Here, we assessed whether four- to six-year-old children (i) differed in their weighing of non-verbal cues (pointing, eye gaze) and verbal cues provided by a robot versus a human; (ii) weighed non-verbal cues differently depending on whether these contrasted with a novel or familiar label; and (iii) relied differently on a robot’s non-verbal cues depending on the degree to which they attributed human-like properties to the robot. The results showed that children generally followed pointing over labeling, in line with earlier research. Children did not rely more strongly on the non-verbal cues of a robot versus those of a human. Regarding pointing, children who perceived the robot as more human-like relied on pointing more strongly when it contrasted with a novel label versus a familiar label, but children who perceived the robot as less human-like did not show this difference. Regarding eye gaze, children relied more strongly on the gaze cue when it contrasted with a novel versus a familiar label, and no effect of anthropomorphism was found. Taken together, these results show no difference in the degree to which children rely on non-verbal cues of a robot versus those of a human and provide preliminary evidence that differences in anthropomorphism may interact with children’s reliance on a robot’s non-verbal behaviors.
Klíčová slova:
Behavior – Eyes – Children – Language – Learning – Robotic behavior – Robots – Sensory perception
Zdroje
1. Belpaeme T., Kennedy J., Ramachandran A., Scassellati B., Tanaka F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954. doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
2. Bartneck C., & Forlizzi J. (2004). A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the Ro-Man (pp. 591–594). New York, NY: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827
3. van den Berghe R., Verhagen J., Oudgenoeg-Paz O., van der Ven S., & Leseman P. (2019). Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research, 89 259–295. doi: 10.3102/0034654318821286
4. Kanero J., Geçkin V., Oranç C., Mamus E., Küntay A.C., & Göksun T. (2018). Social robots for early language learning: Current evidence and future directions. Child Development Perspectives, 12, 146–151. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12277
5. Baldwin D.A. (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62, 875–890. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01577.x 1756664
6. Baldwin D.A., Markman E.M., Bill B., Desjardins N., Irwin J.M., & Tidball G. (1996). Infants’ reliance on a social criterion for establishing word-object relations. Child Development, 67, 3135–3153. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01906.x 9071774
7. Brojde C.L., Ahmed S., & Colunga E. (2012). Bilingual and monolingual children attend to different cues when learning new words. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:155. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00155 22654777
8. Grassmann S., & Tomasello M. (2010). Young children follow pointing over words in interpreting acts of reference. Developmental Science, 13, 252–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00871.x 20121881
9. Meyer M., & Baldwin D.A. (2013). Pointing as a socio-pragmatic cue to particular vs. generic reference. Language Learning and Development, 9, 245–265. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2013.753802
10. Alemi M., Meghdari A., & Ghazisaedy M. (2014). Employing humanoid robots for teaching English language in Iranian junior high-schools. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 11, 1450022-1–1450022-25. doi: 10.1142/S0219843614500224
11. de Wit J., Schodde T., Willemsen B., Bergmann K., de Haas M., Kopp S., … Vogt P. (2018). The effect of a robot’s gestures and adaptive tutoring on children’s acquisition of second language vocabularies. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 50–58). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3171221.3171277
12. Vogt P., van den Berghe R., de Haas M., Hoffmann L., Kanero J., Mamus E., … Kumar Pandey A. (2019). Second language tutoring using social robots: A large-scale study. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 497–505). New York, NY: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HRI.2019.8673077
13. Hansen M.B., & Markman E.M., (2009). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to learn labels for parts of objects. Developmental Psychology, 45, 592–596. doi: 10.1037/a0014838 19271842
14. Verhagen J., Grassmann S., & Küntay A.K. (2017). Monolingual and bilingual children’s resolution of referential conflicts; Effects of bilingualism and relative language proficiency. Cognitive Development, 41, 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.10.003
15. Jaswal V.K., & Hansen M.B. (2006). Learning words: Children disregard some pragmatic information that conflicts with mutual exclusivity. Developmental Science, 9, 158–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00475.x 16472316
16. Moore C., Angelopoulos M., & Bennett P. (1999). Word learning in the context of referential and salience cues. Developmental Psychology, 35, 60–68. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.1.60 9923464
17. Ateş, S.B. (2016). Developing verbal and non-verbal referential communication skills in young children’s naturalistic and experimental interactions with adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Koç University, Turkey.
18. Grassmann, S., Magister, C., & Tomasello, M. (2011). What children do when pointing and naming conflict. Paper presented at the SRCD Biennial Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
19. Golinkoff R.M., Hirsh-Pasek K., Bailey L.M., & Wenger N.R. (1992). Young children and adults use lexical principles to learn new nouns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 99–108. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.99
20. Markman E.M., & Wachtel G.F. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5 3365937
21. Kory Westlund J.M., Dickens L., Jeong S., Harris P.L., DeSteno D., & Breazeal C.L. (2017). Children use non-verbal cues to learn new words from robots as well as people. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 13, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.04.001
22. Bartneck C., Kulić D., Croft E., & Zoghbi S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. doi: 10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
23. Breazeal C., Kidd C. D., Thomaz A. L., Hoffman G., & Berlin M. (2005). Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 708–713). New York, NY: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2005.1545011
24. Eyssel F., Kuchenbrandt D., Hegel F., & de Ruiter L. (2012). Activating elicited agent knowledge: How robot and user features shape the perception of social robots. In Proceedings of the 2012 RO-MAN (pp. 851–857). New York, NY: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343858
25. Hegel F., Krach S., Kircher T., Wrede B., & Sagerer G. (2008). Understanding social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism. In The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 574–579). New York, NY: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600728
26. Moon A., Troniak D. M., Gleeson B., Pan M. K., Zheng M., Blumer B. A., … & Croft E. A. (2014). Meet me where I'm gazing: How shared attention gaze affects human-robot handover timing. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 334–341). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2559636.2559656
27. Riek L. D., Rabinowitch T. C., Chakrabarti B., & Robinson P. (2009). How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 245–246). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1514095.1514158
28. Beran T.N., Ramirez-Serrano A., Kuzyk R., Fior M., & Nugent S. (2011). Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child- robot interaction. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 69, 539–550. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003
29. Di Dio C., Isernia S., Ceolaro C., Marchetti A., & Massaro D. (2018). Growing up thinking of God’s beliefs: Theory of mind and ontological knowledge. Sage Open, 8(4). doi: 10.1177/2158244018809874
30. Kahn P. H. Jr, Kanda T., Ishiguro H., Freier N. G., Severson R. L., Gill B. T., … & Shen S. (2012). “Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now”: Children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48, 303–314. doi: 10.1037/a0027033 22369338
31. Yow W.Q., & Markman E.M. (2011). Young bilingual children’s heightened sensitivity to referential cues. Journal of Cognition and Development, 12, 12–31. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2011.539524
32. Blom E., Küntay A. C., Messer M., Verhagen J., & Leseman P. (2014). The benefits of being bilingual: Working memory in bilingual Turkish–Dutch children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 128, 105–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.007 25160938
33. de Bree E., Verhagen J., Kerkhoff A., Doedens W., & Unsworth S. (2017). Language learning from inconsistent input: Bilingual and monolingual toddlers compared. Infant and Child Development, 26(4), e1996. doi: 10.1002/icd.1996
34. Mulder H., Verhagen J., van der Ven S. H., Slot P. L., & Leseman P. P. (2017). Early executive function at age two predicts emergent mathematics and literacy at age five. Frontiers in Psychology, 8:1706. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01706 29075209
35. Jipson J.L., & Gelman S.A. (2007). Robots and rodents: Children’s inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Development, 78, 1675–1688. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01095.x 17988314
36. R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
37. Bates D.M., Maechler B. Bolker S., & Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
38. Baguley T. (2012). Serious Stats. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
39. Powell M.J.D. (2009). The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Technical Report, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge.
40. Law F., & Edwards J.R. (2014). Effects of vocabulary size on online lexical processing by preschoolers. Language Learning and Development, 11, 331–335. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2014.961066 26508903
41. Merriman W.E., & Bowman L.L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children’s word learning. Monograph of the Society for Research on Child Development, 54, 1–132. doi: 10.2307/1166130
42. Grassmann S., Schulze C., & Tomasello M. (2015). Children’s level of word knowledge predicts their exclusion of familiar objects as referents of novel words. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1200. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01200 26322005
43. Merriman W.E., & Marazita J.M. (1995). The effect of hearing similar-sounding words on young 2-year-olds’ disambiguation of novel reference. Developmental Psychology, 31, 973–984. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.973
44. Graham S.A., Nilsen E.S., Collins S., & Olineck K. (2010). The role of gaze direction and mutual exclusivity in guiding 24-month-olds’ word mappings. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 449–465. doi: 10.1348/026151009x424565 20481397
45. Gibson E.J. (1988). Exploration behavior in the development of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 1–41.
46. Kita S. (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwha, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 12
- Proč zapomínáme na nocebo efekt, přestože je silnější než placebo?
- Vyhodnocuje AI zdravotní stav pacientů přesněji než lékaři?
- Další krok vpřed v managementu péče o pacienty s RS – skeny mozku vyhodnotí AI
- Budou elektronické močové svěrače na dálkové ovládání?
- FDA varuje před selfmonitoringem cukru pomocí chytrých hodinek. Jak je to v Česku?
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Methylsulfonylmethane increases osteogenesis and regulates the mineralization of the matrix by transglutaminase 2 in SHED cells
- Oregano powder reduces Streptococcus and increases SCFA concentration in a mixed bacterial culture assay
- The characteristic of patulous eustachian tube patients diagnosed by the JOS diagnostic criteria
- Parametric CAD modeling for open source scientific hardware: Comparing OpenSCAD and FreeCAD Python scripts
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy