Robots Improve Judgments on Self-generated Actions: An Intentional Binding Study

  • Cecilia RoselliEmail author
  • Francesca Ciardo
  • Agnieszka Wykowska
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11876)


In near future, robots will become a fundamental part of our daily life; therefore, it appears crucial to investigate how they can successfully interact with humans. Since several studies already pointed out that a robotic agent can influence human’s cognitive mechanisms such as decision-making and joint attention, we focus on Sense of Agency (SoA). To this aim, we employed the Intentional Binding (IB) task to implicitly assess SoA in human-robot interaction (HRI). Participants were asked to perform an IB task alone (Individual condition) or with the Cozmo robot (Social condition). In the Social condition, participants were free to decide whether they wanted to let Cozmo press. Results showed that participants performed the action significantly more often than Cozmo. Moreover, participants were more precise in reporting the occurrence of a self-made action when Cozmo was also in charge of performing the task. However, this improvement in evaluating self-performance corresponded to a reduction in SoA. In conclusion, the present study highlights the double effect of robots as social companions. Indeed, the social presence of the robot leads to a better evaluation of self-generated actions and, at the same time, to a reduction of SoA.


Human robot interaction Sense of Agency Intentional Binding 



This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant awarded to AW, titled “InStance: Intentional Stance for Social Attunement.” G.A. No: ERC-2016-StG-715058).


  1. 1.
    Glasauer, S., Huber, M., Basili, P., Knoll, A., Brandt, T.: Interacting in time and space: investigating human-human and human-robot joint action. In: 19th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 252–257 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wykowska, A., Chaminade, T., Cheng, G.: Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Philos. Trans. B 371, 20150375 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shinozawa, K., Naya, F., Yamato, J., Kogure, K.: Differences in effect of robot and screen-agent recommendations on human decision-making. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 62(2), 267–279 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bainbridge, W.A., Hart, J., Kim, E.S., Scassellati, B.: The Effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany, 1–3 August 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kompatsiari, K., Pèrez-Osorio, J., De Tommaso, D., Metta, G., Wykowska, A.: Neuroscientifically-grounded research for improved human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Madrid, Spain, 1–5 October 2018, pp. 3403–3408. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kompatsiari, K., Ciardo, F., Tikhanoff, V., Metta, G., Wykowska, A.: On the role of eye contact in gaze-cueing. Sci. rep. 14, 8(1), 17842 (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W.: Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition 88, B11–B21 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciardo, F., Wykowska, A.: Response coordination emerges in cooperative but not competitive joint task. Front. Psychol. 9, 1919 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado Bou, M.A., Del Pobil, A.P., Lappe, M., Liepelt, R.: When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: corepresentation of robotic actions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 38(5), 1073–1077 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallagher, S.: Philosophical conception of the self: implication for cognitive science. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4(1), 14–21 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daprati, E., Franck, N., Georgieff, N., Proust, J., Pacherie, E., Dalery, J., et al.: Looking for the agent: an investigation into consciousness of action and self-consciousness in schizophrenic patients. Cognition 65, 7186 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallagher, S.: Multiple aspects in the sense of agency. New Ideas in Psychology 30, 15–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ciardo, F., De Tommaso, D., Beyer, F., Wykowska, A.: Attribution of intentional agency toward robots reduces one’s own sense of agency. Cognition 194, 104109 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haggard, P.: Sense of agency in the human brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 18(4), 196–207 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haggard, P., Clark, S.: Kalogeras, J: Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 382–385 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haggard, P., Clark, S.: Intentional action: conscious experience and neural prediction. Conscious. Cogn. 12, 695–707 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsakiris, M., Haggard, P.: Awareness of somatic events associated with a voluntary action. Exp. Brain Res. 149, 439–446 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahaï, A., Desantis, A., Grynszpan, O., Pacherie, E., Berberian, B.: Action co-representation and the sense of agency during a joint Simon task: comparing human and machine co-agents. Conscious. Cogn. 67, 44–55 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Obhi, S.S., Hall, P.: Sense of agency in joint actions: influence of human and computer co-actors. Exp. Brain Res. 211, 663–670 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strother, L., House, K.A., Obhi, S.S.: Subjective agency and awareness of shared actions. Conscious. Cogn. 19, 12–20 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cozmo SDK Installation for Windows. Accessed 22 May 2019
  22. 22.
    Android Debug Bridge., Accessed 22 May 2019
  23. 23.
    Obhi, S.S., Hall, P.: Sense of agency and intentional binding in joint actions. Exp. Brain Res. 22, 655–662 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chambon, V., Moore, J.W., Haggard, P.: TMS stimulation over the inferior parietal cortex disrupts prospective sense of agency. Brain Struct. Funct. 220(6), 3627–3639 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zajonc, R.B.: Social facilitation. Science 149(3681), 269–274 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beyer, F., Sidarus, N., Bonicalzi, S., Haggard, P.: Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 12(1), 138–145 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia Roselli
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Francesca Ciardo
    • 1
  • Agnieszka Wykowska
    • 1
  1. 1.Social Cognition in Human Robot Interaction, Fondazione Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Center for Human TechnologiesGenoaItaly
  2. 2.DIBRIS, Dipartimento di InformaticaBioingegneria, Robotica e Ingegneria dei SistemiGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations