Improved Cognitive Control in Presence of Anthropomorphized Robots
- 48 Downloads
There is evidence that attentional control mechanisms in humans can be boosted in performance contexts involving the presence of other human agents, compared with isolation. This phenomenon was investigated here with the presence of artificial agents, that is, humanoid robots in the context of the well-known Stroop task requiring attentional control for successful performance. We expected and found beneficial effects of robotic presence (compared with isolation) on standard Stroop performance and response conflict resolution (a specific component of Stroop performance) exclusively when robotic presence triggered anthropomorphic inferences based on prior verbal interactions with the robot (a social robot condition contrasted with the presence of the same robot without any prior interactions). Participants’ anthropomorphic inferences about the social robot actually mediated its influence on attentional control, indicating the social nature of this influence. These findings provide further reasons to pay special attention to human–robot interactions and open new avenues of research in social robotics.
KeywordsSocial facilitation Anthropomorphized robots Human–robot interaction Cognitive control Stroop task
This work was supported by a Grant (Social_Robot_2017-2018) from the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (MSH), Clermont-Ferrand, France.
This study was funded by a Grant (Social_Robot_2017-2018) awarded to all authors from the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (MSH), Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was approved by the Clermont-Ferrand Sud-Est 6 Statutory Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) Sud-Est 6, France; Authorization # 2016/CE 105) and was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
Mean reaction time data (for each participant and each condition) are publicly available via the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/38qg7/.
- 1.Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and machines. How robots will change us. Pantheon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 3.Riether N, Hegel F, Wrede B, Horstmann G (2012) Social facilitation with social robots? In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12, pp 41–18Google Scholar
- 4.Herberg JS, Feller S, Yengin I, Saerbeck M (2015) Robot watchfulness hinders learning performance. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 153–160Google Scholar
- 9.Guerin B (1983) Social facilitation and social monitoring: a test of three models. Br J Soc Psychol 22:203–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1983.tb00585.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hull CL (1952) A behavior system: an introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual organism. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- 33.Tabachnik BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics. Pearson/Ally & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 35.Christensen LB, Johnson RB, Turner LA (2010) Research methods, design, and analysis. Pearson Education Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 37.Hanington B, Martin B (2012) Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers, BeverlyGoogle Scholar
- 38.Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 372–377Google Scholar
- 43.Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 46.Chaminade T, Franklin DW, Oztop E, Cheng G (2005) Motor interference between humans and humanoid robots: effect of biological and artificial motion. In: Proceedings of 2005 4th IEEE international conference on development and learning, pp 96–101Google Scholar