We designed an fMRI experiment comparing perception of human faces and robotic faces producing emotional expressions. The purpose of our experiment was to investigate engagement of different parts of the social brain by viewing these animate and inanimate agents. Both human and robotic face expressions evoked activity in face-responsive regions in the fusiform gyrus and STS and in the putative human mirror neuron system. These results suggest that these areas mediate perception of agency, independently of whether the agents are living or not. By contrast, the human faces evoked stronger activity than did robotic faces in the medial pFC and the anterior temporal cortex--areas associated with the representation of others' mental states (theory of mind), whereas robotic faces evoked stronger activity in areas associated with perception of objects and mechanical movements. Our data demonstrate that the representation of the distinction between animate and inanimate agents involves areas that participate in attribution of mental stance.
Robots are slowly, but certainly, entering people's professional and private lives. They require the attention of regulators due to the challenges they present to existing legal frameworks and the new legal and ethical questions they raise. This paper discusses four major regulatory dilemmas in the field of robotics: how to keep up with technological advances; how to strike a balance between stimulating innovation and the protection of fundamental rights and values; whether to affirm prevalent social norms or nudge social norms in a different direction; and, how to balance effectiveness versus legitimacy in techno-regulation. The four dilemmas are each treated in the context of a particular modality of regulation: law, market, social norms, and technology as a regulatory tool; and for each, we focus on particular topicssuch as liability, privacy, and autonomythat often feature as the major issues requiring regulatory attention. The paper then highlights the role and potential of the European framework of rights and values, responsible research and innovation, smart regulation and soft law as means of dealing with the dilemmas.
This paper is about design and acceptability of service robots that interact with individuals and coexist in environments inhabited by humans. In its current usage, we argue, the term acceptability is "user-specific" or "usercentred", that is, it is based exclusively on the study of the relationships between a product and its users. In this paper, we argue that resistance towards service robots operating in public environments may also originate from properties which are not related to the user. For example, fear of the robot may generate resistance at the bystander level; lack of legal regulations for robots' deployment may generate resistance at the legal level; concerns about possible job reductions caused by the robot may generate resistance at the worker level. Therefore, it is necessary to go beyond the "user-centred" notion of acceptability and widen its scope so as to include any kind of potential resistance and not just those originating from the users. By adopting a broader view of the possible critical factors affecting service robots' acceptability, it will be possible to design robots that are good for users and acceptable to other people and society.
This paper describes and discusses the preliminary results of a behavioural study on robot social acceptability, which was carried out during a public demonstration in South Korea. Data was collected by means of direct observation of people behaviour during interaction with robots. The most interesting result to emerge is that of young people: they tended to react to the robots presence with extreme curiosity and, quite often, to treat them aggressively. In this paper, the word bullying is used to describe any kind of improper and violent behaviour, intended to cause damages or impede the robot operation. It is the authors' opinion that if not tackled appropriately, abuses towards robots may become a serious hindrance to their future deployment, and safety. Hence, the necessity to tackle this issue with dedicated solutions during the early phases of design
Current initiatives and laboratories concerning Educational Robotics (ER) are often not based on strong pedagogical backgrounds. Additionally, they are carried out by inadequately trained teachers, and are not evaluated properly in terms of effectiveness. Moreover, according to teachers, ER usability is often neglected. The main goal of the present article is to present a training course on ER (Edu.Ro.Co.), grounded in pedagogical insights, and to discuss the results of the course and teacher's opinion about ER in terms of: (i) teachers' attitudes and perceptions of using ER; (ii) the potential impact of ER on students' key competences for lifelong learning; and (iii) strengths and weaknesses of ER. These aspects were analysed by means of questionnaires specifically designed by the authors, and administered before and after the training course. A total of 339 teachers attended the training course and 254 completed the questionnaires. The article describes the methodology utilised in the realisation of the course and analyses the questionnaire's results. In particular, the number of teachers that considered themselves prepared to apply ER significantly improved after the training course. ER is considered by teachers an important tool for the improvement of students' motivation, planning skills, team working, problem solving and creativity development. Finally, the results from questionnaires indicate that teachers consider ER, a method that improves team-working abilities and motivation in the students. In contrast, the main disadvantage is the cost of the robotic kits. Based on these results, new directions for future research in ER are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.