Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Robots’ Character and Information Disclosure on Human–Robot Trust and the Mediating Role of Social Presence

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rapid development of artificial intelligence technology allows robots to have social functions. In the case of human individuals interacting directly with a robot with artificial intelligence, if the individual can perceive the same or similar feelings as they have when interacting with a real human, the robot can be considered to have social presence. Trust is an important factor that affects human–robot collaboration. This research explores the influence of the character and information disclosure of robots on trust in human–robot collaboration as well as the mediating role of social presence. This study uses the Columbia Card Task to design a human–robot cooperative experiment platform. During the experiment, robots provide different levels of character (introversion vs. extroversion) and information disclosure (high disclosure vs. low disclosure). The results show that the character of robots has a significant impact on emotional trust: the higher the level of extroversion is, the stronger the level of human emotional trust. Furthermore, the level of information disclosure by robots has a significant impact on cognitive trust: the higher the level of information disclosure is, the stronger the level of cognitive trust. Social presence has a mediating role in the effect of character on emotional trust and the impact of information disclosure on cognitive trust. The research results can provide suggestions for improving the acceptance of social robots in human–robot collaboration and improving the quality and efficiency of collaborative human–robot task decision-making. Research on robots’ character and information disclosure can provide a theoretical basis for related researchers and developers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

The data set generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Al-Fedaghi SS (2006) Personal management of private information. In: 2006 innovations in information technology. IEEE, pp 1–5

  2. Belanche D, Casaló LV, Flavián C, Schepers J (2020) Service robot implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda. J Serv Ind 40(3–4):203–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bente G, Rüggenberg S, Krämer NC, Eschenburg F (2008) Avatar-mediated networking: increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Hum Commun Res 34:287–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00322.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bernhaupt R, Weiss A, Wilfinger D, Tscheligi M (2009) Users’ needs, desires, and design preferences for recommendations in the living room. Multimed Syst 15(3):159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-009-0161-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biocca F, Harms C, Gregg J (2001) The networked minds measure of social presence: pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. In: Paper presented at the 4th annual international workshop on presence, pp 1–9

  6. Biocca F, Harms C, Burgoon J (2003) Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. J Presence 12(5):456–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. J Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Broadbent M (2013) Creating great teams is hard work. J Gov News 33(1):12–13

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cameron D, Gou MS, Sbaffi L (2020) Trust in robot-mediated health information. In: Paper presented at the The 29th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication ro-man, workshop on trust, acceptance and social cues in human–robot interaction (SCRITA). IEEE

  10. Casaccia S, Revel GM, Scalise L, Bevilacqua R, Nap HH (2020) A context-aware social robot to improve the quality of life of people with dementia. J Gerontechnol 19:15

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cauchard JR, Zhai KY, Spadafora M, Landay JA (2016) Emotion encoding in human-drone interaction. In: Paper presented at the 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 263–270

  12. Celiktutan O, Gunes H (2015) Computational analysis of human–robot interactions through first-person vision: character and interaction experience. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 815–820. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333602

  13. Charisi V, Merino L, Escobar M et al (2021) The effect of robot cognitive reliability and social positioning on child–robot team dynamics. In” Paper presented at the international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA202), pp 1–7

  14. Chen N, Liu X, Zhai Y, Hu X (2023) Development and validation of a robot social presence measurement dimension scale. Sci Rep 13(1):2911. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28817-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Churamani N, Barros P, Gunes H, Wermter S (2020) Affect-driven modelling of robot character for collaborative human–robot interactions, pp 1–13

  16. Correia F, Mascarenhas S, Prada R, Melo FS, Paiva A (2018) Group-based emotions in teams of humans and robots. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 261–269

  17. Dryer DC (1999) Getting personal with computers: How to design personalities for agents. Appl Artif Intell 13(3):273–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Esteban PG, Bagheri E, Elprama SA, Jewell C, Vanderborght B (2021) Should I be introvert or extrovert? A pairwise robot comparison assessing the perception of character-based social robot behaviors. Int J Soc Robot 5:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00715-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fong T, Thorpe CE, Baur C (2003) Collaboration, dialogue, human–robot interaction. In: Paper presented at the robotics research, the tenth international symposium, Isrr, Lorne, Victoria, Australia, November. DBLP, vol 6, pp 255–266

  20. Giffin K (1967) The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. J Psychol Bull 68(2):104–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gillath O, Ai T, Branicky MS, Keshmiri S, Davison RB, Spaulding R (2021) Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence. Comput Hum Behav 115:106607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, Devisser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. J Hum Factors 53(5):517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harms CM (2004) The effects of media type and personal relationship on perceptions of social presence. Michigan State University

  24. Hassanein K, Head MM (2007) Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping. Int J Hum Comput Stud 65(8):689–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holloman A, Egbert W, Stegman P, Cioli N, Crawford CS (2019) Leveraging neurophysiological information to augment interpretation of responses to vulnerable robot behaviors. In: Paper presented at the 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 566–567. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673290.

  26. Isbister K, Nass C (2000) Consistency of character in interactive characters: verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53(2):251–267. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bernotat J, Eyssel F, Sachse J (2019) The (fe)male robot: how robot body shape impacts first impressions and trust towards robots. Int J Soc Robot 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00562-7

  28. Jewell C, Elprama SA, Jacobs A, Esteban PG, Vanderborght B (2019) Why children prefer extrovert or introvert robots: a pilot study using pairwise robot comparison. In: Paper presented at the 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673189

  29. Jiao Y, Wang Y, Shen M, Zou T, Tian C (2020) Design of household items delivery robot. In: IOP conference series earth and environmental science, vol 474, p 072008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/474/7/072008

  30. Johnson CA, Adams JA, Kawamura K (2003) Evaluation of an enhanced human–robot interface. In: Paper presented at the systems, man and cybernetics, 2003. IEEE International conference on. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2003.1243929

  31. Joosse M, Lohse M, Pérez JG, Evers V (2013) What you do is who you are: the role of task context in perceived social robot character. In: Paper presented at the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 2134–2139. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630863.

  32. Joshi S, de Visser EJ, Abramoff B, Ayaz H (2020) Medical interviewing with a robot instead of a doctor: who do we trust more with sensitive information? In: HRI '20: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM

  33. Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y (2002) Kanawattanachai & yoo/dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. J Sprouts Work Pap Inf Syst 11(3–4):187–213

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kaplan AD, Sanders T, Hancock PA (2019) The relationship between extroversion and the tendency to anthropomorphize robots: a Bayesian analysis. J Front Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kee HW, Knox RE (1970) Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. J Conflict Resolut 14(3):357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kenny DA, Horner C, Kashy DA, Chu L-C (1992) Consensus at zero acquaintance: replication, behavioral cues, and stability. J Character Soc Psychol 62(1):88–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Klein G, Woods D, Bradshaw JM, Hoffman RR, Feltovich PJ (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a ‘team player’ in joint human–agent activity. In: Paper presented at the IEEE intelligent systems, vol 4, pp 1541–1672. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2004.74

  38. Komiak SX, Benbasat I (2004) Understanding customer trust in agent-mediated electronic commerce, web-mediated electronic commerce, and traditional commerce. J Inf Technol Manag 5(1–2):181–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITEM.0000008081.55563.d4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kozlowski, Steve WJ (2017) Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams: a reflection. Perspect Psychol Sci A 13(2):1745691617697078. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617697078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kramer RM (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu Rev Psychol 50(1):569–598

  41. Krupinski EA, Nodine CF, Kundel HL (1993) Perceptual enhancement of tumor targets in chest X-ray images. J Percept Psychophys 53:519–526. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee KM, Peng W, Jin SA, Yan C (2006) Can robots manifest character? An empirical test of character recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. J Commun 56(4):754–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lewis JD, Weigert A (1985) Trust as a social reality. J Soc Forces 63(4):967–985. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/63.4.967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lohse M, Hanheide M, Wrede B, Walters ML, Koay K, Syrdal DS et al (2008) Evaluating extrovert and introvert behaviour of a domestic robot—a video study. In: RO-MAN 2008 The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 488–493. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600714

  45. Lombard M, Ditton TB (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comput Med Commun. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Looije R, Neerincx MA, Cnossen F (2010) Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: design and evaluation of social behaviors. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(6):386–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lowe R, Andreasson R, Alenljung, Beatrice et al (2018) Designing for a wearable affective interface for the NAO robot: a study of emotion conveyance by touch. J Multimodal Technolog Interact 2(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2010002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Martelaro A, Nneji AC, Ju A et al (2016) Tell me more designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In: Paper presented at the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451750.

  49. Marusich LR, Bakdash JZ, Onal E et al (2016) Effects of information availability on command-and-control decision making: performance, trust, and situation awareness. J Hum Factors 58(2):301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815619515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mori Y, Saito Y, Kamide H (2012) Evaluation of impression for hug dolls. J Trans Jpn Soc Kansei Eng 11(1):9–15. https://doi.org/10.5057/jjske.11.9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moussawi S, Benbunan-Fich R (2021) The effect of voice and humour on users’ perceptions of personal intelligent agents. Behav Inf Technol 40(15):1603–1626. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1772368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Muir BM (1987) Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. Int J Man Robot Stud 27(5–6):527–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80013-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Muir BM, Moray N (1996) Trust in automation. Part II. experimental studies of trust and human intervention in automated systems. J Ergon 39(3):429–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nass C, Lee KM (2001) Does computer-generated speech manifest character? Experimental test of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistence-attraction. J Exp Psychol Appl 7:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nass C, Moon Y, Fogg B (1995) Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int J Hum Comput Stud 43:223–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Newman BA, Biswas A, Ahuja S, Girdhar S, Kitani KK, Admoni H (2020) Examining the effects of anticipatory robot assistance on human decision making, pp 590–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_49

  57. Paiva MA, Lessing et al (2017) The need for affective trust applied to trust and reputation models. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(4):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078833

  58. Pang Y, Huang C, Liu R (2021) Synthesized trust learning from limited human feedback for human-load-reduced multi-robot deployments. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 778–783). IEEE

  59. Parker EB, Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. J Contemp Sociol 7(1):1–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pasparakis A, De Vries J, De Koster MBM (2021) In control or under control? human–robot collaboration in warehouse order picking. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Rochester, pp 1–39

    Google Scholar 

  61. Paul, Kline (1997) Commentary on Michell, quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. Br J Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02642.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pennebaker JW, King LA (1999) Language use as an individual difference. J Personal Soc Psychol 77(6):1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pervin L, John O, Robins R (2008) Handbook of character theory and research, 3rd edn. The Guildford Press, New York, p 862

    Google Scholar 

  64. Peters RG, Covello VT, Mccallum DB (2010) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. J Risk Anal 17(1):43–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Polak RF, Tzedek SL (2020) Social robot for rehabilitation: expert clinicians and post-stroke Patients’ evaluation following a long-term intervention. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374797

  66. Powers A, Kiesler S (2006). The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: Paper presented at the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121280

  67. Rettie R (2003) Connectedness, awareness and social presence

  68. Robert LP (2018). Character in the human robot interaction literature: a review and brief critique. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 24th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2018). Aug 16–18. New Orleans, LA

  69. Saffarizadeh K, Boodraj M, Alashoor T (2017) Conversational assistants: investigating privacy concerns, trust, and self-disclosure. In: Paper presented at the Icis., pp 1–12

  70. Sahai A, Pacherie E, Grynszpan O et al (2017). Co-representation of human-generated actions vs. machine-generated actions: impact on our sense of we-agency? In: Paper presented at the 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 341–345. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172324

  71. Santini SJ, Genova DD, Maggi G, Verrotti A, Balsano C (2021) Emotional support from the social robot NAO at a pediatric emergency department meigs syndrome -a sheep in wolf’s clothing a case report. Eur J Case Rep Intern Med 396:15. 8(Sup1), 1

    Google Scholar 

  72. Savery R, Rose R, Weinberg G (2020) Establishing human–robot trust through music-driven robotic emotion prosody and gesture. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 28th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956386

  73. Schroeder R (2006) being there together and the future of connected presence. J Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 15(4):438–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Siino RM, Chung J, Hinds PJ (2008) Colleague vs. tool: Effects of disclosure in human–robot collaboration. In: Paper presented at the RO-MAN 2008 proceedings of the The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication IEEE international symposium on robot & human interactive communication, pp 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600725

  75. So H, Kim M, Oh K (2008). People’s perceptions of a personal service robot’s character and a personal service robot’s character design guide suggestions. In: Paper presented at the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN 2008. IEEE, August, pp 500–505. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600716

  76. Stever GS, Lawson K (2013) Twitter as a way for celebrities to communicate with fans: implications for the study of parasocial interaction. N Am J Psychol 15(2):339–354

    Google Scholar 

  77. Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Woods SN, Walters ML, Koay KL (2007) Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot character inferences at zero acquaintance. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics, Papers from the 2007 AAAI spring symposium, technical report SS-07-07, Stanford, California, USA, March 26–28, 2007. DBLP

  78. Semeraro F, Griffiths A, Cangelosi A (2023) Human–robot collaboration and machine learning: a systematic review of recent research. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 79:102432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Tapus A, Matarić MJ (2006) User character matching with a hands-off robot for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. In: Paper presented at the experimental robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77457-0_16

  80. Tay B, Jung Y, Park T (2014) When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and character in human–robot interaction. J Comput Hum Behav 38:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Vinanzi S, Cangelosi A, Goerick C (2021) The collaborative mind: intention reading and trust in human–robot interaction. J iScience 24(2):102130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Windhouwer D (2012) The effects of the task context on the perceived character of a Nao robot. In: Paper presented at the 16th twente student conference on IT, vol 4. Enschede, The Netherlands

  83. Yoganathan V, Osburg VS, Kunz WH et al (2021) Check-in at the robo-desk: effects of automated social presence on social cognition and service implications. J Tour Manag. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3806225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Yong JH, Suh J, Hyun G, Park S (2015) A psychological approach to define trust in exchange relationships—trust characterized by cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions. J SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2693386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. You S, Kim JH, Lee SH et al (2018) Enhancing perceived safety in human–robot collaborative construction using immersive virtual environments. J Autom Constr 96:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Zafar Z, Paplu SH, Berns K (2019) Automatic assessment of human character traits: a step towards intelligent human–robot interaction. In: Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE-RAS 18th international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids), pp 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2018.8624975

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a National Natural Science Foundation of China 71942005, a Beijing Social Science Fund 17SRC021 and a Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science project 19YJC840002.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China 72201023.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Na Chen and Xiaoyu Liu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, 100055, China

    Na Chen, Xiaoyu Liu & Xueyan Hu

Authors
  1. Na Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaoyu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xueyan Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Na Chen developed the study design and supervised the study. Xiaoyu Liu wrote the initial manuscript draft. Xueyan hu reviewed, revised and submitted the manuscript.All co-authors have read and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Na Chen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

All methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All study protocols were approved by the institutional review board of the Ethics Committee of Beijing University of Chemical Technology. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, N., Liu, X. & Hu, X. Effects of Robots’ Character and Information Disclosure on Human–Robot Trust and the Mediating Role of Social Presence. Int J of Soc Robotics 16, 811–825 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01114-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01114-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation