A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2007; you can also visit <a rel="external noopener" href="http://www.irc.atr.jp/~kanda/pdf/arita-cognition.pdf">the original URL</a>. The file type is <code>application/pdf</code>.
Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons
<span title="">2005</span>
<i title="Elsevier BV">
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/container/wwxrdovfqrafvnk7lbwpujzttq" style="color: black;">Cognition</a>
</i>
Preserved Fulltext
As technology advances, many human-like robots are being developed. Although these humanoid robots should be classified as objects, they share many properties with human beings. This raises the question of how infants classify them. Based on the looking-time paradigm used by [Legerstee, M., Barna, J., & DiAdamo, C., (2000) . Precursors to the development of intention at 6 months: understanding people and their actions. Developmental Psychology, 36, 5, 627-634.], we investigated whether
<span class="external-identifiers">
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.001">doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.001</a>
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15788157">pmid:15788157</a>
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/release/d6iccdg72nff3ehczlij2zwbiq">fatcat:d6iccdg72nff3ehczlij2zwbiq</a>
</span>
more »
... old infants expected people to talk to a humanoid robot. In a familiarization period, each infant observed an actor and an interactive robot behaving like a human, a non-interactive robot remaining stationary, and a non-interactive robot behaving like a human. In subsequent test trials, the infants were shown another actor talking to the robot and to the actor. We found that infants who had previously observed the interactive robot showed no difference in looking-time between the two types of test events. Infants in the other conditions, however, looked longer at the test event where the second experimenter talked to the robot rather than where the second experimenter talked to the person. These results suggest that infants interpret the interactive robot as a communicative agent and the non-interactive robot as an object. Our findings imply that infants categorize interactive humanoid robots as a kind of human being. q
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070418130917/http://www.irc.atr.jp/~kanda/pdf/arita-cognition.pdf" title="fulltext PDF download" data-goatcounter-click="serp-fulltext" data-goatcounter-title="serp-fulltext">
<button class="ui simple right pointing dropdown compact black labeled icon button serp-button">
<i class="icon ia-icon"></i>
Web Archive
[PDF]
<div class="menu fulltext-thumbnail">
<img src="https://blobs.fatcat.wiki/thumbnail/pdf/7d/89/7d89de0db938e281ed6d091afe3be68d260acfb2.180px.jpg" alt="fulltext thumbnail" loading="lazy">
</div>
</button>
</a>
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.001">
<button class="ui left aligned compact blue labeled icon button serp-button">
<i class="external alternate icon"></i>
elsevier.com
</button>
</a>