International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 109–128 | Cite as

Nonverbal Immediacy as a Characterisation of Social Behaviour for Human–Robot Interaction

Article

Abstract

An increasing amount of research has started to explore the impact of robot social behaviour on the outcome of a goal for a human interaction partner, such as cognitive learning gains. However, it remains unclear from what principles the social behaviour for such robots should be derived. Human models are often used, but in this paper an alternative approach is proposed. First, the concept of nonverbal immediacy from the communication literature is introduced, with a focus on how it can provide a characterisation of social behaviour, and the subsequent outcomes of such behaviour. A literature review is conducted to explore the impact on learning of the social cues which form the nonverbal immediacy measure. This leads to the production of a series of guidelines for social robot behaviour. The resulting behaviour is evaluated in a more general context, where both children and adults judge the immediacy of humans and robots in a similar manner, and their recall of a short story is tested. Children recall more of the story when the robot is more immediate, which demonstrates an effect predicted by the literature. This study provides validation for the application of nonverbal immediacy to child–robot interaction. It is proposed that nonverbal immediacy measures could be used as a means of characterising robot social behaviour for human–robot interaction.

Keywords

Nonverbal immediacy Social behaviour Robots for education Social cues Human–robot interaction 

References

  1. 1.
    Gordon G, Breazeal C, Engel S (2015) Can children catch curiosity from a social robot? In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, ACMGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015c) The robot who tried too hard: social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, pp 67–74. doi:10.1145/2696454.2696457
  3. 3.
    Short E, Swift-Spong K, Greczek J, Ramachandran A, Litoiu A, Grigore EC, Feil-Seifer D, Shuster S, Lee JJ, Huang S, Levonisova S, Litz S, Li J, Ragusa G, Spruijt-Metz D, Matarić M, Scassellati B (2014) How to train your DragonBot: Socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, IEEE, RO-MAN, 2014, pp 924–929Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alemi M, Meghdari A, Ghazisaedy M (2014) Employing humanoid robots for teaching english language in Iranian junior high-schools. Int J Hum Robot. doi:10.1142/S0219843614500224
  5. 5.
    Leite I, McCoy M, Lohani M, Ullman D, Salomons N, Stokes C, Rivers S, Scassellati B (2015) Emotional storytelling in the classroom: individual versus group interaction between children and robots. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kyriakides L, Creemers BP, Antoniou P (2009) Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: suggestions for research on teacher training and professional development. Teach Teach Educ 25(1):12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, Janse MD (2010) Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI’10, pp 1613–1622. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753567
  8. 8.
    Blanson Henkemans OA, Bierman BP, Janssen J, Neerincx MA, Looije R, van der Bosch H, van der Giessen JA (2013) Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns 92(2):174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Scassellati B (2014) Personalizing robot tutors to individual learning differences. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interactionGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Janssen J, van der Wal C, Neerincx M, Looije R (2011) Motivating children to learn arithmetic with an adaptive robot game. Soc Robot 153–162Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bandura A, McClelland DC (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vygotsky LS (1980) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu R, Kirkham NZ (2010) No two cues are alike: depth of learning during infancy is dependent on what orients attention. J Exp Child Psychol 107(2):118–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roth WM, Lawless DV (2002) When up is down and down is up: body orientation, proximity, and gestures as resources. Lang Soc 31(01):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strong M, Gargani J, Hacifazlioğlu Ö (2011) Do we know a successful teacher when we see one? experiments in the identification of effective teachers. J Teach Educ 62(4):367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreijns K, Kirschner PA, Jochems W (2003) Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Comput Hum Behav 19(3):335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bloom B, Engelhart M, Furst E, Hill W, Krathwohl D (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain. Donald McKay, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy J, Baxter P, Senft E, Belpaeme T (2015d) Higher nonverbal immediacy leads to greater learning gains in child-robot tutoring interactions. In: International conference on social roboticsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Castellano G, Paiva A, Kappas A, Aylett R, Hastie H, Barendregt W, Nabais F, Bull S (2013) Towards empathic virtual and robotic tutors. Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, New York, pp 733–736. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_100
  20. 20.
    Sharma M, Hildebrandt D, Newman G, Young JE, Eskicioglu R (2013) Communicating affect via flight path: exploring use of the laban effort system for designing affective locomotion paths. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, HRI ’13, pp 293–300Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrist S, Spannan E, Mutlu B (2013) Rhetorical robots: making robots more effective speakers using linguistic cues of expertise. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, IEEE Press, pp 341–348Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cramer HS, Kemper NA, Amin A, Evers V (2009) The effects of robot touch and proactive behaviour on perceptions of human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, ACM, pp 275–276Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szafir D, Mutlu B (2012) Pay Attention!: designing adaptive agents that monitor and improve user engagement. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI’12, pp 11–20. doi:10.1145/2207676.2207679
  24. 24.
    Zaki J (2013) Cue integration a common framework for social cognition and physical perception. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3):296–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mehrabian A (1968) Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. behav res methods instrum 1(6):203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richmond VP, McCroskey JC, Johnson AD (2003) Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Commun Q 51(4):504–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Witt PL, Wheeless LR, Allen M (2004) A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Commun Monogr 71(2):184–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krathwohl D, Bloom B, Masia B (1964) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: the affective domain. Donald McKay, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract 41(4):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gorham J (1988) The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Commun Educ 37(1):40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chesebro JL, McCroskey JC (2000) The relationship between students’ reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: a validity test. Commun Educ 49(3):297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McCroskey JC, Sallinen A, Fayer JM, Richmond VP, Barraclough RA (1996) Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: a cross-cultural investigation. Commun Educ 45(3):200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015a) Can less be more? The impact of robot social behaviour on human learning. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on new frontiers in HRI at AISB 2015Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Christensen LJ, Menzel KE (1998) The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Commun Educ 47(1):82–90. doi:10.1080/03634529809379112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Christophel DM (1990) The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Commun Educ 39(4):323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chesebro JL (2003) Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Commun Educ 52(2):135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goodboy AK, Weber K, Bolkan S (2009) The effects of nonverbal and verbal immediacy on recall and multiple student learning indicators. J Classr Interact 44(1):4–12Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Witt PL, Wheeless LR (2001) An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Commun Educ 50(4):327–342. doi:10.1080/03634520109379259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chesebro JL, McCroskey JC (1998) The relationship of teacher clarity and teacher immediacy with students experiences of state receiver apprehension. Commun Q 46(4):446–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chidambaram V, Chiang YH, Mutlu B (2012) Designing persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, pp 293–300Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jeong S, Gu J, Shin DH (2015) I am interested in what you are saying: role of nonverbal immediacy cues in listening. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts, ACM, pp 129–130Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Comstock J, Rowell E, Bowers JW (1995) Food for thought: teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Commun Educ 44(3):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Witt PL, Schrodt P (2006) The influence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course. Commun Rep 19(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kelly SD, Manning SM, Rodak S (2008) Gesture gives a hand to language and learning: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology and education. Lang Linguist Compass 2(4):569–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Macedonia M, von Kriegstein K (2012) Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistics 6(3–4):393–416Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Goldin-Meadow S, Wagner SM (2005) How our hands help us learn. Trends Cogn Sci 9(5):234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goldin-Meadow S, Kim S, Singer M (1999) What the teacher’s hands tell the student’s mind about math. J Educ Psychol 91(4):720–730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goodwyn SW, Acredolo LP (1998) Encouraging symbolic gestures: A new perspective on the relationship between gesture and speech. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 79:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goldin-Meadow S, Nusbaum H, Kelly SD, Wagner S (2001) Explaining math: gesturing lightens the load. Psychol Sci 12(6):516–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cook SW, Mitchell Z, Goldin-Meadow S (2008) Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition 106(2):1047–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goldin-Meadow S, Wein D, Chang C (1992) Assessing knowledge through gesture: using children’s hands to read their minds. Cogn Instr 9(3):201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Valenzeno L, Alibali MW, Klatzky R (2003) Teachers gestures facilitate students learning: a lesson in symmetry. Contemp Educ Psychol 28(2):187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Roth WM (2001) Gestures: their role in teaching and learning. Rev Educ Res 71(3):365–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rumme P, Saito H, Ito H, Oi M, Lepe A (2008) Gestures as effective teaching tools: are students getting the point? In: Japanese Cognitive Science Society Meeting 2008Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang X, Williams MA, Gardenfors P, Vitale J, Abidi S, Johnston B, Kuipers B, Huang A (2014) Directing human attention with pointing. In: 23rd IEEE international symposium on IEEE robot and human interactive communication, 2014 RO-MAN, pp 174–179Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gullberg M, Holmqvist K (2002) Visual attention towards gestures in face-to-face interaction vs. on screen. In: Wachsmuth I, Sowa T (eds) Gesture and sign language in human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wu R, Gopnik A, Richardson DC, Kirkham NZ (2010) Social cues support learning about objects from statistics in infancy. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society, pp 1228–1233Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yu C, Ballard DH (2007) A unified model of early word learning: integrating statistical and social cues. Neurocomputing 70(13):2149–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Houston-Price C, Plunkett K, Duffy H (2006) The use of social and salience cues in early word learning. J Exp Child Psychol 95(1):27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Powell KL, Roberts G, Nettle D (2012) Eye images increase charitable donations: evidence from an opportunistic field experiment in a supermarket. Ethology 118(11):1096–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Boucher JD, Ventre-Dominey J, Dominey PF, Fagel S, Bailly G (2010) Facilitative effects of communicative gaze and speech in human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on affective interaction in natural environments, ACM, New York, NY, USA, AFFINE ’10, pp 71–74. doi:10.1145/1877826.1877845
  62. 62.
    Okumura Y, Kanakogi Y, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Itakura S (2013) The power of human gaze on infant learning. Cognition 128(2):127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Admoni H, Bank C, Tan J, Toneva M, Scassellati B (2011) Robot gaze does not reflexively cue human attention. In: Processings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (2011), pp 1983–1988Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sherwood JV (1987) Facilitative effects of gaze upon learning. Percept Mot Skills 64(3c):1275–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Otteson JP, Otteson CR (1979) Effect of teacher’s gaze on children’s story recall. Percept Mot Skills 50(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dalzel-Job O, Oberlander J, Smith TJ (2011) Don’t look now: the relationship between mutual gaze, task performance and staring in second life. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society, pp 832–837Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015b) Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. Int J Social Robot 7(2):293–308. doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0277-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Looije R, van der Zalm A, Neerincx MA, Beun RJ (2012) Help, I need some body the effect of embodiment on playful learning. In: The 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, IEEE, RO-MAN 2012, pp 718–724. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343836
  69. 69.
    Atkinson RK, Mayer RE, Merrill MM (2005) Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: examining the impact of an animated agents voice. Contemp Educ Psychol 30(1):117–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mayer RE, Sobko K, Mautone PD (2003) Social cues in multimedia learning: role of speaker’s voice. J Educ Psychol 95(2):419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19(2):98–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Baylor A, Ryu J, Shen E (2003) The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation and perceived persona. In: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, pp 452–458Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Remland MS, Jones TS (1994) The influence of vocal intensity and touch on compliance gaining. J Soc Psychol 134(1):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Simonds BK, Meyer KR, Quinlan MM, Hunt SK (2006) Effects of instructor speech rate on student affective learning, recall, and perceptions of nonverbal immediacy, credibility, and clarity. Commun Res Rep 23(3):187–197. doi:10.1080/08824090600796401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fulford CP (1992) Systematically designed text enhanced with compressed speech audio. In: Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the convention of the association for educational communications and technologyGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Velez JJ, Cano J (2008) The relationship between teacher immediacy and student motivation. J Agric Educ 49(3):76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Becker-Asano C, Stahl P, Ragni M, Courgeon M, Martin JC, Nebel B (2013) An affective virtual agent providing embodied feedback in the paired associate task: system design and evaluation. In: Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer, pp 406–415Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Peters P (2007) Gaining compliance through non-verbal communication. Pepperdine Dispute Resolut Law J 7(1):87–112Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Segrin C (1993) The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance gaining attempts. Commun Stud 44(3–4):169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Greene LR (1977) Effects of verbal evaluation feedback and interpersonal distance on behavioral compliance. J Couns Psychol 24(1):10MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hiroi Y, Ito A (2011) Influence of the size factor of a mobile robot moving toward a human on subjective acceptable distance. Mob Robots Curr Trends. doi:10.5772/26512
  82. 82.
    Kim Y, Mutlu B (2014) How social distance shapes humanrobot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 72(12):783–795. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, Kaouri C, Woods S, Nehaniv C, Lee D, Werry I (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In: IEEE international workshop on Robot and human interactive communication, 2005. ROMAN 2005, IEEE, pp 347–352Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2014) Children comply with a robot’s indirect requests. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp 198–199. doi:10.1145/2559636.2559820
  85. 85.
    Aiello JR, Aiello TDC (1974) The development of personal space: proxemic behavior of children 6 through 16. Hum Ecol 2(3):177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Huettenrauch H, Severinson Eklundh K, Green A, Topp E (2006) Investigating spatial relationships in human-robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 5052–5059. doi:10.1109/IROS.2006.282535
  87. 87.
    Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 5495–5502. doi:10.1109/IROS.2009.5354145
  88. 88.
    Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, HRI ’11, pp 331–338. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957786
  89. 89.
    Rae I, Takayama L, Mutlu B (2013) The influence of height in robot-mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, IEEE Press, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fisher JD, Rytting M, Heslin R (1976) Hands touching hands: affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry 39(4):416–421Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Fukuda H, Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Ueda K (2012) ‘Midas touch’ in human-robot interaction: evidence from event-related potentials during the ultimatum game. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, pp 131–132Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gurung RA, Vespia K (2007) Looking good, teaching well? linking liking, looks, and learning. Teach Psychol 34(1):5–10Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Guéguen N (2002) Touch, awareness of touch, and compliance with a request. Perceptual and motor skills 95(2):355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Salter T, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R (2006) Learning about natural human-robot interaction styles. Robot Auton Syst 54(2):127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Byrd CE, McNeil N, D’Mello S, Cook SW (2014) Gesturing may not always make learning last. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society, pp 1982–1987Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Langton SR (2000) The mutual influence of gaze and head orientation in the analysis of social attention direction. Q J Exp Psychol A 53(3):825–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Langton SR, Bruce V (2000) You must see the point: automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26(2):747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lohan KS, Rohlfing K, Saunders J, Nehaniv C, Wrede B (2012) Contingency scaffolds language learning. In: IEEE international conference on development and learning and epigenetic robotics, ICDL, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Anderson LW (1975) Student involvement in learning and school achievement. Calif J Educ Res 26(2):53–62Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Richmond VP, McCroskey JC (1998) Nonverbal communication in interpersonal relationships, 3rd edn. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Hulme C, Tordoff V (1989) Working memory development: the effects of speech rate, word length, and acoustic similarity on serial recall. J Exp Child Psychol 47(1):72–87. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90063-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Borgers N, Sikkel D, Hox J (2004) Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: the effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Qual Quant 38(1):17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Borgers N, De Leeuw E, Hox J (2000) Children as respondents in survey research: cognitive development and response quality 1. Bulletin de methodologie Sociologique 66(1):60–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Dede C (2009) Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323(5910):66–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Pickett CL, Gardner WL, Knowles M (2004) Getting a cue: the need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30(9):1095–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Witkin HA, Moore CA, Goodenough DR, Cox PW (1977) Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Rev Educ Res 1–64Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Bauminger N (2002) The facilitation of social-emotional understanding and social interaction in high-functioning children with autism: intervention outcomes. J Autism Dev Disord 32(4):283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Hall CW, Peterson AD, Webster RE, Bolen LM, Brown MB (1999) Perception of nonverbal social cues by regular education, ADHD, and ADHD/LD students. Psychol Sch 36(6):505–514Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Jellema T, Lorteije J, van Rijn S, van t’Wout M, de Haan E, van Engeland H, Kemner C (2009) Involuntary interpretation of social cues is compromised in autism spectrum disorders. Autism Res 2(4):192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Bailenson J, Blascovich J, Beall A, Loomis J (2001) Equilibrium theory revisited: mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence 10(6):583–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2003) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29(7):819–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Bailenson JN, Beall AC, Loomis J, Blascovich J, Turk M (2005) Transformed social interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments. Hum Commun Res 31(4):511–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Bull R, Gibson-Robinson E (1981) The influences of eye-gaze, style of dress, and locality on the amounts of money donated to a charity. Hum Relat 34(10):895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Baylor AL, Kim Y (2004) Pedagogical agent design: the impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, New York, pp 592–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Coe R, Aloisi C, Higgns S, Major LE (2014) What makes great teaching?. Review of the underpinning research. Tech. rep, Sutton TrustGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Hill HC, Rowan B, Ball DL (2005) Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. Am Educ Res J 42(2):371–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Askew M, Brown M, Rhodes V, Johnson D, Wiliam D (1997) Effective teachers of numeracy. Kings College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Garner PW (2010) Emotional competence and its influences on teaching and learning. Educ Psychol Rev 22(3):297–321MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Ronfeldt M, Loeb S, Wyckoff J (2012) How teacher turnover harms student achievement. Am Educ Res J 50(1):4–36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Wang N, Johnson WL, Gratch J (2010) Facial expressions and politeness effect in foreign language training system. In: Intelligent tutoring systems, Springer, pp 165–173Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Bloom BS (1984) The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educ Res 13:4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    VanLehn K (2011) The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educ Psychol 46(4):197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Beebe B, Jaffe J, Lachmann F (1992) A dyadic systems view of communication. In: Warshaw S (ed) Relational perspectives in psychoanalysis. Analytic Press, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Jaffe J, Beebe B, Feldstein S, Crown CL, Jasnow MD, Rochat P, Stern DN (2001) Rhythms of dialogue in infancy: coordinated timing in development. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 66(2):i–149Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Green J, Weade R (1985) Reading between the words: social cues to lesson participation. Theory Pract 24(1):14–21. doi:10.1080/00405848509543141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Nicol D, Minty I, Sinclair C (2003) The social dimensions of online learning. Innov Educ Teach Int 40(3):270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Baxter P, Wood R, Baroni I, Kennedy J, Nalin M, Belpaeme T (2013) Emergence of turn-taking in unstructured child-robot social interactions. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, IEEE Press, pp 77–78Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149(3681):269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Robotics and Neural Systems, Cognition InstitutePlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations