Implications of Robot Actions for Human Perception. How Do We Represent Actions of the Observed Robots?

Social robotics aims at developing robots that are to assist humans in their daily lives. To achieve this aim, robots must act in a comprehensible and intuitive manner for humans. That is, humans should be able to cognitively represent robot actions easily, in terms of action goals and means to achieve them. This yields a question of how actions are represented in general. Based on ideomotor theories (Greenwald Psychol Rev 77:73–99, 1970) and accounts postulating common code between action and perception (Hommel et al. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–878, 2001) as well as empirical evidence (Wykowska et al. J Exp Psychol 35:1755–1769, 2009), we argue that action and perception domains are tightly linked in the human brain. The aim of the present study was to examine if robot actions would be represented similarly, and in consequence, elicit similar perceptual effects, as representing human actions. Our results showed that indeed robot actions elicited perceptual effects of the same kind as human actions, arguing in favor of that humans are capable of representing robot actions in a similar manner as human actions. Future research will aim at examining how much these representations depend on physical properties of the robot actor and its behavior.

[1]  J. Priestley,et al.  TRPV1, but not P2X3, requires cholesterol for its function and membrane expression in rat nociceptors , 2006, The European journal of neuroscience.

[2]  Nathan G. Freier,et al.  The Fast-Paced Change of Children's Technological Environments , 2023, Children, Youth and Environments.

[3]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  C. Frith,et al.  How we predict what other people are going to do , 2006, Brain Research.

[5]  Agnieszka Wykowska,et al.  How you move is what you see: action planning biases selection in visual search. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[7]  David W. Franklin,et al.  Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? , 2004, Humanoids.

[8]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[9]  A. Schubö,et al.  Action Intentions Modulate Allocation of Visual Attention: Electrophysiological Evidence , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[10]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. , 1970, Psychological review.

[11]  S. Anderson,et al.  Spatial localization of colour and luminance stimuli in human peripheral vision , 2000, Vision Research.

[12]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system , 2007, Cognitive Processing.

[13]  B. Hommel,et al.  Action-induced effects on perception depend neither on element-level nor on set-level similarity between stimulus and response sets , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[14]  Luca Giulio Brayda,et al.  Measuring Human-Robots Interactions , 2012, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[15]  Vilayanur S. Ramachandran,et al.  EEG evidence for mirror neuron activity during the observation of human and robot actions: Toward an analysis of the human qualities of interactive robots , 2007, Neurocomputing.

[16]  C. Heyes,et al.  Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[17]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Computational principles of movement neuroscience , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Texture segmentation and visual search for pop-out targets. An ERP study. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[19]  B. Hommel,et al.  Imaging When Acting: Picture but Not Word Cues Induce Action-Related Biases of Visual Attention , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[20]  S. Baron-Cohen.  Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind , 1997 .

[21]  W. Prinz,et al.  Perceptual resonance: action-induced modulation of perception , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  W. Prinz,et al.  Inferring another's expectation from action: the role of peripheral sensation , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  Agnieszka Wykowska,et al.  Detecting pop-out targets in contexts of varying homogeneity: Investigating homogeneity coding with event-related brain potentials (ERPs) , 2007, Brain Research.

[24]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

[25]  H. Ishiguro,et al.  The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions , 2011, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[26]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[27]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Grounding Attention in Action Control: The Intentional Control of Selection , 2010 .

[28]  Cecilia Heyes,et al.  Bottom‐up, not top‐down, modulation of imitation by human and robotic models , 2006, The European journal of neuroscience.

[29]  Gordon Cheng,et al.  Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? , 2004, 4th IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2004..

[30]  Roger K. Moore.  A Bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny Valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[31]  J. Decety,et al.  Neural mechanisms subserving the perception of human actions , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  K. Vogeley,et al.  Toward a second-person neuroscience 1 , 2013, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.