Human-robot interaction (HRI) research needs to leverage the theories and findings from multiple disciplines to inform subsequent empirical investigation and robot design. Utilizing evidence and suggestions from social cognitive and neurocognitive disciplines for human-human interaction, we propose an approach for conceptualizing HRI. Comparing HRI to human-human interaction at the surface level and deeper levels allows for the generation and evaluation of testable hypotheses in multiple disciplines to inform the design of future robotic systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllmanJ. M.WatsonK. K.TetreaultN. A.HakeemA. Y. (2005). Intuition and autism: A possible role for Von Economo neurons. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(8), 367-373.
2.
ApperlyI. A. (2012). What is “theory of mind”? Concepts, cognitive processes, and individual differences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 825-839.
3.
ApperlyI. A.ButterfillS. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states?Psychological Review, 116(4), 953-970.
4.
BlakemoreS. J.DecetyJ. (2001). From the perception of action to the understanding of intention. (2001). Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(8), 561-567.
5.
Bockelman MorrowP.FioreS. (2012). Supporting human-robot teams in social dynamicism: An overview of the metaphoric inference framework. Proceedings of 56th Annual Meeting of the HFES (pp. 1718-1722). Boston, MA: HFES.
6.
BohlV.van den BosW. (2012). Toward an integrative account of social cognition: Marrying theory of mind and interactionism to study the interplay of type 1 and type 2 processes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(274), 1-15.
7.
ButterfillS. A.ApperlyI. A. (in press). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language.
8.
De JaegherH. (2009). Social understanding through direct perception? Yes, by interacting. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 535-542.
9.
De JaegherH. D.Di PaoloE. D.GallagherS. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441-447.
10.
Di PellegrinoG.FadigaL.FogassiL.GalleseV.RizzolattiG. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91(1), 176-180.
11.
EliasJ.Bockelman MorrowP.StreaterJ.GallagherS.FioreS. M. (2011). Towards Triadic Interactions in Autism and Beyond: Transitional Objects, Joint Attention, and Social Robotics. Proceedings of 55th Annual Meeting of the HFES (pp. 1486-1490). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
12.
EvansJ. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255-278.
13.
EvansJ. S. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 313-326.
14.
EtkinA.EgnerT.KalischR. (2011). Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(2), 85-93.
15.
FerrariE.RobinsB.DautenhahnK. (2009). Therapeutic and educational objectives in Robot Assisted Play for children with autism. Presented at 18th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication -RO-MAN 2009, Toyama, Japan.
16.
FogassiL.FerrariP. F.GesierichB.RozziS.ChersiF.RizzolattiG. (2005). Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding. Science, 308(5722), 662-667.
17.
FrithC. D.FrithU. (2007) Social cognition in humans. Current Biology, 60, 503-510.
18.
FrithC. D.FrithU. (2008) Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron, 17, 724-732.
19.
FrithC. D.FrithU. (2012) Mechanisms of social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 287-313.
20.
GallagherS. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535-543.
21.
GallagherS.HuttoD. (2008). Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In Zlateve (Eds.) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity, (pp. 17-38).Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
22.
GalleseV.GoldmanA. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493-501.
23.
GalleseV.FogassiL.FadigaL.RizzolattiG. (2002). Action representation and the inferior parietal lobule. Attention and Performance, 19, 247-266.
24.
GalleseV. (2007). Before and below ‘theory of mind’: embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362(1480), 659-669.
25.
GazzolaV.RizzolattiG.WickerB.KeysersC. (2007). The anthropomorphic brain: the mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage, 35(4), 1674-1684.
26.
GuX.LiuX.Van DamN. T.HofP. R.FanJ. (2013). Cognition– emotion integration in the anterior insular cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 23(1), 20-27.
27.
KahnP. H.KandaT.IshiguroH.FreirN. G.SeversonR. L.GillB. T.RuckertJ. H.ShenS. (2012a). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303-314.
28.
KahnP. H.KandaT.IshiguroH.GillB. T.RuckertJ. H.ShenS.SeversonR. L. (2012b, March). Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 33-40). ACM.
29.
KahnemanD.FrederickS. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD.(Eds) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, (pp. 49-81). New York: Cambridge Press.
30.
KnoblichG.SebanzN. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 99-104.
31.
LakinJ.L. (2006). Automatic cognitive processes and nonverbal communication. In ManusovV.PattersonM.L. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication (pp. 59–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
LowJ.WattsJ. (2013). Attributing False Beliefs About Object Identity Reveals a Signature Blind Spot in Humans’ Efficient Mind-Reading System. Psychological Science, 24(3), 305-311.
33.
MukamelR.EkstromA.D.KaplanJ.IacoboniM.FriedI. (2010). Single-neuron responses in humans during execution and observation of actions. Current Biology, 20(8), 750-756.
34.
NassC.MoonY. (2002). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
35.
NoëA. (2004). Action in Perception. The Enactive Approach to Perception. Cambridge: MIT Press
36.
ObermanL. M.McCleeryJ. P.RamachandranV. S.PinedaJ. A. (2007). EEG evidence for mirror neuron activity during the observation of human and robot actions: Toward an analysis of the human qualities of interactive robots. Neurocomputing, 70(13), 2194-2203.
37.
PerkinsT.StokesM.McGillivrayJ.BittarR. (2010). Mirror neuron dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of clinical neuroscience, 17(10), 1239.
38.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.GroveJ.JentschF. (2011, September). From Tools to Teammates Toward the Development of Appropriate Mental Models for Intelligent Robots. Proceedings of 55th Annual Meeting of the HFES (pp. 1491-1495). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
39.
RobinsBDautenhahnKDickersonP. (2009). From isolation to communication: A case study evaluation of robot assisted play for children with Autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot. Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 205-211).
40.
SatputeA. B.LiebermanM. D. (2006). Integrating automatic and controlled processes in to neurocognition models of social cognition. Brain Research, 1079, 86-97.
41.
SciuttiA.BisioA.NoriF.MettaG.FadigaL.PozzoT.SandiniG. (2012). Measuring human-robot interaction through motor resonance. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-12.
42.
TakayamaL. (2012). Perspectives on agency interacting with and through personal robots. Human-Computer Interaction: The Agency Perspective, 195-214.
43.
ThompsonE. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 407–427.
44.
VinciarelliA.PanticM.BourlardH. (2009).Social signal processing: survey of an emerging domain. Image and Vision Computing, 27(12), 1743-1759.
45.
WaytzA.GrayK.EpleyN.WegnerD. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383-388.
