Infant Discrimination of Humanoid Robots

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2015 Oct 7

PMID 26441772

Citations 1

Authors

Goh Matsuda

Hiroshi Ishiguro

Kazuo Hiraki

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Recently, extremely humanlike robots called "androids" have been developed, some of which are already being used in the field of entertainment. In the context of psychological studies, androids are expected to be used in the future as fully controllable human stimuli to investigate human nature. In this study, we used an android to examine infant discrimination ability between human beings and non-human agents. Participants (N = 42 infants) were assigned to three groups based on their age, i.e., 6- to 8-month-olds, 9- to 11-month-olds, and 12- to 14-month-olds, and took part in a preferential looking paradigm. Of three types of agents involved in the paradigm-a human, an android modeled on the human, and a mechanical-looking robot made from the android-two at a time were presented side-by-side as they performed a grasping action. Infants' looking behavior was measured using an eye tracking system, and the amount of time spent focusing on each of three areas of interest (face, goal, and body) was analyzed. Results showed that all age groups predominantly looked at the robot and at the face area, and that infants aged over 9 months watched the goal area for longer than the body area. There was no difference in looking times and areas focused on between the human and the android. These findings suggest that 6- to 14-month-olds are unable to discriminate between the human and the android, although they can distinguish the mechanical robot from the human.

Citing Articles

Social robots in research on social and cognitive development in infants and toddlers: A scoping review.

Flatebo S, Tran V, Wang C, Bongo L PLoS One. 2024; 19(5):e0303704.

PMID: 38748722 PMC: 11095739. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.

References

Christie T, Slaughter V . Movement contributes to infants' recognition of the human form. Cognition. 2009; 114(3):329-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.004. View

McCLURE E . A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychol Bull. 2000; 126(3):424-53. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.424. View

Arita A, Hiraki K, Kanda T, Ishiguro H . Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons. Cognition. 2005; 95(3):B49-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.001. View

Frank M, Vul E, Johnson S . Development of infants' attention to faces during the first year. Cognition. 2008; 110(2):160-70. PMC: 2663531. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.010. View

Saygin A, Chaminade T, Ishiguro H, Driver J, Frith C . The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011; 7(4):413-22. PMC: 3324571. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsr025. View

Alexander G, Wilcox T, Woods R . Sex differences in infants' visual interest in toys. Arch Sex Behav. 2008; 38(3):427-33. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-008-9430-1. View

Lewkowicz D, Ghazanfar A . The development of the uncanny valley in infants. Dev Psychobiol. 2011; 54(2):124-32. PMC: 3197970. DOI: 10.1002/dev.20583. View

Macchi Cassia V, Turati C, Simion F . Can a nonspecific bias toward top-heavy patterns explain newborns' face preference?. Psychol Sci. 2004; 15(6):379-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00688.x. View

Goren C, Sarty M, Wu P . Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics. 1975; 56(4):544-9. View

10.

Bertenthal B, Proffitt D, Kramer S . Perception of biomechanical motions by infants: implementation of various processing constraints. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987; 13(4):577-85. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.4.577. View

11.

Farroni T, Johnson M, Csibra G . Mechanisms of eye gaze perception during infancy. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004; 16(8):1320-6. DOI: 10.1162/0898929042304787. View

12.

Farroni T, Johnson M, Menon E, Zulian L, Faraguna D, Csibra G . Newborns' preference for face-relevant stimuli: effects of contrast polarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(47):17245-50. PMC: 1287965. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0502205102. View

13.

Decasper A, Fifer W . Of human bonding: newborns prefer their mothers' voices. Science. 1980; 208(4448):1174-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.7375928. View

14.

Morita T, Slaughter V, Katayama N, Kitazaki M, Kakigi R, Itakura S . Infant and adult perceptions of possible and impossible body movements: an eye-tracking study. J Exp Child Psychol. 2012; 113(3):401-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.07.003. View

15.

Falck-Ytter T, Bakker M, von Hofsten C . Human infants orient to biological motion rather than audiovisual synchrony. Neuropsychologia. 2011; 49(7):2131-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.040. View

16.

Urgen B, Plank M, Ishiguro H, Poizner H, Saygin A . EEG theta and Mu oscillations during perception of human and robot actions. Front Neurorobot. 2013; 7:19. PMC: 3826547. DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2013.00019. View

17.

Moriguchi Y, Minato T, Ishiguro H, Shinohara I, Itakura S . Cues that trigger social transmission of disinhibition in young children. J Exp Child Psychol. 2010; 107(2):181-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.04.018. View

18.

Steckenfinger S, Ghazanfar A . Monkey visual behavior falls into the uncanny valley. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(43):18362-6. PMC: 2760490. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0910063106. View

19.

Csibra G, Gergely G . Natural pedagogy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009; 13(4):148-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005. View

20.

Kanakogi Y, Itakura S . Developmental correspondence between action prediction and motor ability in early infancy. Nat Commun. 2011; 2:341. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1342. View