Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Downloads 2
Views 90
Funded by 4

Total impact ?

    Send a

    Matthijs has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Matthijs A Pontier Trusted member

    Post Doctorate / matthijspon@gmail.com

    CAMeRA@VU University Amsterdam

    Robot communication - human contact with androids

    Export to Mendeley

    Five challenges face the design of lifelike humanoid robots – also called androids. Robots should live up to social needs – people are getting older, lonelier, and look for alternatives to face-to-face contact, for instance, in coaching and therapy (1). Surrogate partners substantiate the imaginative friends that people silently cherish and robot designers assume that the better they can simulate social and affective behavior, the more effective the robotic partner is. Yet, what should be regarded as natural behavior and does maximal human-likeness equal optimal user satisfaction (2)? In addition, multidisciplinary design teams prompt transdisciplinary theory to create mutual understanding and cover the wideranging facets of robot design. Yet, how to combine the diverse theories from various domains when confronted with major unification problems (3)? Empirical approaches to robot design usually miss out on logic consistency of the theory. As a mirror image, formalization and mathematical modeling often lack external validity. Verification before validation is the new way to go but not necessarily the easiest one (4). Finally, if we do succeed at creating lifelike, affective, sociable androids, the cognitive models underlying their behavior could be turned into spyware and malware (5).

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : Robot communication - human contact with androids
    Author(s) : Hoorn, J.F., and Pontier, M.A.
    Abstract : Five challenges face the design of lifelike humanoid robots – also called androids. Robots should live up to social needs – people are getting older, lonelier, and look for alternatives to face-to-face contact, for instance, in coaching and therapy (1). Surrogate partners substantiate the imaginative friends that people silently cherish and robot designers assume that the better they can simulate social and affective behavior, the more effective the robotic partner is. Yet, what should be regarded as natural behavior and does maximal human-likeness equal optimal user satisfaction (2)? In addition, multidisciplinary design teams prompt transdisciplinary theory to create mutual understanding and cover the wideranging facets of robot design. Yet, how to combine the diverse theories from various domains when confronted with major unification problems (3)? Empirical approaches to robot design usually miss out on logic consistency of the theory. As a mirror image, formalization and mathematical modeling often lack external validity. Verification before validation is the new way to go but not necessarily the easiest one (4). Finally, if we do succeed at creating lifelike, affective, sociable androids, the cognitive models underlying their behavior could be turned into spyware and malware (5).
    Keywords : Human-Robot Interaction

    Subject : Human-Robot Interaction
    Area : Social Sciences
    Language : English
    Year : 2008

    Affiliations CAMeRA@VU University Amsterdam
    Journal : Information Design Journal
    Volume : 16
    Url : http://www.few.vu.nl/~mpr210/IDJ08.pdf

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Matthijs's Peer Evaluation activity

    Downloads 2
    Views 90
    Funded by 4
    • PhD International Stimulation Fund, Grant Number 4 / Year 2011
    • PhD Research Fund, Grant Number 3 / Year 2009
    • PRIMA 2009 Student Scholarship Winner, Grant Number 2 / Year 2009
    • PhD Fund, Grant Number 1 / Year 2008

    Matthijs has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.