Motor inhibition—a key aspect of cognitive control—is crucial in interactive contexts, where partners must suppress and adjust actions for optimal coordination. Previous findings have shown that the presence of a human partner impairs motor inhibition in joint action tasks. This study investigated whether a similar effect would occur when replacing the human partner with a humanoid robot. To do so, we conducted four experiments using a Stop-Signal Task: (a) a non-engaging robot condition, (b) an engaging robot condition, (c) an engaging robot with disabled cameras, and (d) a human partner condition. Results showed that a humanoid robot does not impair motor inhibition, in contrast to human partners. Instead of increasing cognitive demands, the presence of a humanoid robot appeared to enhance attentional focus when perceived as monitoring, leading to improved motor inhibition. These findings suggest that humanoid robots can be integrated into joint action tasks without compromising cognitive control. Thus, we conclude that, if implemented ethically, robots could offer advantages in collaborative tasks where humans cannot, highlighting their potential for enhancing human performance in shared activities.
AbubshaitA.BeattyP. J.McDonaldC. G.HassallC. D.KrigolsonO. E.WieseE. (2021). A win-win situation: Does familiarity with a social robot modulate feedback monitoring and learning?Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(4), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-021-00895-9
2.
AbubshaitA.Perez-OsorioJ.De TommasoD.WykowskaA. (2024). Temporal interplay between cognitive conflict and attentional markers in social collaboration. Psychophysiology, 61(8), Article e14587. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14587
3.
AronA. (2007). The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. The Neuroscientist : A Review Journal Bringing Neurobiology, Neurology and Psychiatry, 13, 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407299288
BandG. P. H.van BoxtelG. J. M. (1999). Inhibitory motor control in stop paradigms: Review and reinterpretation of neural mechanisms. Acta Psychologica, 101(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00005-0
6.
BelgiovineG.ReaF.ZenzeriJ.SciuttiA. (2020). A humanoid social agent embodying physical assistance enhances motor training experience. 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223335
7.
BelkaidM.KompatsiariK.De TommasoD.ZablithI.WykowskaA. (2021). Mutual gaze with a robot affects human neural activity and delays decision-making processes. Science Robotics, 6(58), eabc5044. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abc5044
8.
BelpaemeT.KennedyJ.RamachandranA.ScassellatiB.TanakaF. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
CardellicchioP.DolfiniE.D’AusilioA. (2021). The role of dorsal premotor cortex in joint action stopping. iScience, 24(11), 103330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103330
11.
CardellicchioP.DolfiniE.FadigaL.D’AusilioA. (2020). Parallel fast and slow motor inhibition processes in Joint Action coordination. Cortex, 133, 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.09.029
12.
CardellicchioP.DolfiniE.HiltP. M.FadigaL.D’AusilioA. (2020). Motor cortical inhibition during concurrent action execution and action observation. NeuroImage, 208, 116445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116445
13.
CavalloA.CatmurC.SowdenS.IanìF.BecchioC. (2014). Stopping movements: When others slow us down. European Journal of Neuroscience, 40(5), 2842–2849. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12645
14.
CavicchiS.AbubshaitA.SiriG.MustileM.CiardoF. (2025). Can humanoid robots be used as a cognitive offloading tool?Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-025-00616-7
15.
CiardoF.BeyerF.De TommasoD.WykowskaA. (2020). Attribution of intentional agency towards robots reduces one’s own sense of agency. Cognition, 194, 104109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104109
16.
CiardoF.WykowskaA. (2022). Robot’s social gaze affects conflict resolution but not conflict adaptations. Journal of Cognition, 5(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.189
17.
CongdonE.MumfordJ. A.CohenJ. R.GalvanA.CanliT.PoldrackR. A. (2012). Measurement and reliability of response inhibition. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00037
18.
CristoforiI.Cohen-ZimermanS.GrafmanJ. (2019). Chapter 11—Executive functions. In D’EspositoM.GrafmanJ. H. (Eds.), Handbook of clinical neurology (Vol. 163, pp. 197–219). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804281-6.00011-2
19.
D’AusilioA.NovembreG.FadigaL.KellerP. E. (2015). What can music tell us about social interaction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.01.005
20.
DecetyJ.SommervilleJ. A. (2003). Shared representations between self and other: A social cognitive neuroscience view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(12), 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.004
21.
DennettD. C. (1987). The intentional stance. MIT Press.
22.
DennlerN.KianM.NikolaidisS.MatarićM. (2025). Designing robot identity: The role of voice, clothing, and task on robot gender perception. International Journal of Social Robotics, 17(4), 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01209-6
23.
DolfiniE.CardellicchioP.FadigaL.D’AusilioA. (2024). The role of dorsal premotor cortex in joint action inhibition. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 4675. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54448-4
24.
EderA.KollerW.MahlbergB. (2024). The contribution of industrial robots to labor productivity growth and economic convergence: A production frontier approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 61(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-023-00707-x
25.
FischerK.JensenL. C.KirsteinF.StabingerS.ErkentÖ.ShuklaD.PiaterJ. (2015). The effects of social gaze in human-robot collaborative assembly. In TapusA.AndréE.MartinJ.-C.FerlandF.AmmiM. (Eds.), Social robotics (pp. 204–213). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_21
GhiglinoD.De TommasoD.LukomskiA. W.WykowskaA. (2024). The presence of a humanoid robot can be detrimental to human performance in an attentional task. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000137
30.
GiamosD.DoucetO.LégerP.-M. (2024). Continuous performance feedback: Investigating the effects of feedback content and feedback sources on performance, motivation to improve performance and task engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 44(3), 194–213. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01608061.2023.2238029
31.
HayashiK. (2024). Investigation of joint action in go/no-go tasks: Development of a human-like eye robot and verification of action space. International Journal of Social Robotics, 16(9), 1919–1932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01168-4
32.
HervaultM.HuysR.BuissonJ.-C.FrancheteauM.SiguierP.ZanoneP.-G. (2021). To start or stop an action depends on which movement we perform: An appraisal of the horse–race model. Acta Psychologica, 217, 103332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103332
33.
HolmS. (2013). Declaration of helsinki. International encyclopedia of ethics, 1-4.
34.
HuangC.-M.ThomazA. L. (2011). Effects of responding to, initiating and ensuring joint attention in human-robot interaction. RO-MAN, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005230
35.
LeiteI.McCoyM.LohaniM.UllmanD.SalomonsN.StokesC.RiversS.ScassellatiB. (2017). Narratives with robots: The impact of interaction context and individual differences on story recall and emotional understanding. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frobt.2017.00029
36.
LoganG. D.CowanW. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91(3), 295–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.295
37.
LorenziniM.LagomarsinoM.FortiniL.GholamiS.AjoudaniA. (2023). Ergonomic human-robot collaboration in industry: A review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 813907. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.813907
38.
MarchesiS.GhiglinoD.CiardoF.Perez-OsorioJ.BaykaraE.WykowskaA. (2019). Do we adopt the intentional stance toward humanoid robots?Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00450
MarchesiS.TommasoD. D.Perez-OsorioJ.WykowskaA. (2022). Belief in sharing the same phenomenological experience increases the likelihood of adopting the intentional stance toward a humanoid robot. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(3: Autumn). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000072
NavareU. P.CiardoF.KompatsiariK.De TommasoD.WykowskaA. (2023). Performing actions with robots: Attribution of intentionality affects the joint sense of agency. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/djbn4/
43.
NovembreG.TiciniL. F.Schütz-BosbachS.KellerP. E. (2012). Distinguishing self and other in joint action. Evidence from a musical paradigm. Cerebral Cortex, 22(12), 2894–2903. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr364
44.
NovembreG.TiciniL. F.Schütz-BosbachS.KellerP. E. (2014). Motor simulation and the coordination of self and other in real-time joint action. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1062–1068. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst086
45.
Perez-OsorioJ.AbubshaitA.WykowskaA. (2021). Irrelevant robot signals in a categorization task induce cognitive conflict in performance, eye trajectories, the N2 component of the EEG signal, and frontal theta oscillations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34(1), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01786
PorthE.MattesA.StahlJ. (2024). Motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors differ systematically on neural and behavioural features of response monitoring. Scientific Reports, 14, 15966. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66364-8
48.
RoselliC.CiardoF.De TommasoD.WykowskaA. (2022). Human-likeness and attribution of intentionality predict vicarious sense of agency over humanoid robot actions. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 13845. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18151-6
49.
RoselliC.MarchesiS.SpatolaN.GhiglinoD.NavareU. P.BossiF. (2024). Factors influencing the adoption of the intentional stance: The human observer. In WykowskaA. (Ed.), Intentional stance towards humanoid robots: Lessons learned from studies in human-robot interaction (pp. 29–51). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65483-1_3
50.
SahaïA.CasparE.De BeirA.GrynszpanO.PacherieE.BerberianB. (2023). Modulations of one’s sense of agency during human–machine interactions: A behavioural study using a full humanoid robot. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(3), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221095841
51.
SebanzN.BekkeringH.KnoblichG. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
SpatolaN.BelletierC.NormandA.ChausseP.MonceauS.AugustinovaM.BarraV.HuguetP.FerrandL. (2018). Not as bad as it seems: When the presence of a threatening humanoid robot improves human performance. Science Robotics, 3. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5843
54.
SpatolaN.HuguetP. (2021). Cognitive impact of anthropomorphized robot gaze: Anthropomorphic gaze as social cues. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 10(4), 35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459994
55.
SpiliotisK.KahramanoglouG.StarkeJ.SmyrnisN.SiettosC. (2021). A biophysical network model reveals the link between deficient inhibitory cognitive control and major neurotransmitter and neural connectivity hypotheses in schizophrenia (No. arXiv:2107.09360). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.09360
56.
StenzelA.LiepeltR. (2016). Joint Simon effects for non-human co-actors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0994-2
57.
TiegoJ.TestaR.BellgroveM. A.PantelisC.WhittleS. (2018). A hierarchical model of inhibitory control. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01339
58.
UzielL. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 579–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008
59.
VerbruggenF.AronA. R.BandG. P.BesteC.BissettP. G.BrockettA. T.BrownJ. W.ChamberlainS. R.ChambersC. D.ColoniusH.ColzatoL. S.CorneilB. D.CoxonJ. P.DupuisA.EagleD. M.GaravanH.GreenhouseI.HeathcoteA.HusterR. J. . . .BoehlerC. N. (2019). A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task. eLife, 8, e46323. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46323
60.
VerbruggenF.LoganG. D. (2017). Control in response inhibition. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 97–110). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118920497.ch6
61.
VescovoE.CardellicchioP.TomassiniA.FadigaL.D’AusilioA. (2024). Excitatory/inhibitory motor balance reflects individual differences during joint action coordination. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 59(12), 3403–3421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16365
62.
Voelcker-RehageC.Motor-skill learning in older adults—a review of studies on age-related differences. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 5, 5–16 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11556-008-0030-9
63.
WieckiT. V.FrankM. J. (2012). A computational model of inhibitory control in frontal cortex and basal ganglia (No. arXiv:1112.0778). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1112.0778
64.
WillemseC.MarchesiS.WykowskaA. (2018). Robot faces that follow gaze facilitate attentional engagement and increase their likeability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00070
65.
WykowskaA. (2020). Social robots to test flexibility of human social cognition. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(6), 1203–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00674-5
66.
WykowskaA. (Ed.). (2024). Intentional stance ` humanoid robots: Lessons learned from studies in human-robot interaction. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65483-1
67.
WykowskaA.ChaminadeT.ChengG. (2016). Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1693), 20150375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0375
68.
WykowskaA.ChellaliR.Al-AminR.MullerH. J. (2012). Does observing artificial robotic systems influence human perceptual processing in the same way as observing humans? In GeS. SamKhatibO.CabibihanJ.-J.SimmonsR.WilliamsM.-A. (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 7621, pp. 327–337). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_33
69.
YoshieM.NagaiY.CritchleyH. D.HarrisonN. A. (2016). Why I tense up when you watch me: Inferior parietal cortex mediates an audience’s influence on motor performance. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 19305. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19305
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
