Perception of Robotic Actions and the Influence of Gender

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2024 Feb 15

PMID 38356771

Authors

Miriam Abel

Giovanni Buccino

Ferdinand Binkofski

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In our society interaction with robots is becoming more and more frequent since robots are not only used in the industry, but increasingly often in assistance and in health system. Perception of robots and their movements is crucial for their acceptance. Here we shortly review basic mechanisms of perception of actions, and then of perception of robotic and human movements. The literature demonstrates that there are commonalities, but also differences in the perception of human and robotic movements. Especially interesting are biologic gender differences in the perception of robotic movements. The results show that males seem to be more sensitive to the differences between robotic and anthropomorphic movements, whereas females seem not to perceive such differences. However, females transfer more anthropomorphic features to robotic movements. While looking at the brain activation during perception of humanoid and robotic movements in different genders one can conclude that different strategies are used; female seem to analyse robotic movements online, while male seem to use previous knowledge from interaction with robots. Further research is needed to specify more such gender differences.

References

Chaminade T, Zecca M, Blakemore S, Takanishi A, Frith C, Micera S . Brain response to a humanoid robot in areas implicated in the perception of human emotional gestures. PLoS One. 2010; 5(7):e11577. PMC: 2908128. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011577. View

Buccino G, Vogt S, Ritzl A, Fink G, Zilles K, Freund H . Neural circuits underlying imitation learning of hand actions: an event-related fMRI study. Neuron. 2004; 42(2):323-34. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(04)00181-3. View

Cross E, Liepelt R, F de C Hamilton A, Parkinson J, Ramsey R, Stadler W . Robotic movement preferentially engages the action observation network. Hum Brain Mapp. 2011; 33(9):2238-54. PMC: 6870135. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.21361. View

Binkofski F, Buxbaum L . Two action systems in the human brain. Brain Lang. 2012; 127(2):222-9. PMC: 4311762. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.07.007. View

Goodale M, Milner A . Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 1992; 15(1):20-5. DOI: 10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8. View

Mukamel R, Ekstrom A, Kaplan J, Iacoboni M, Fried I . Single-neuron responses in humans during execution and observation of actions. Curr Biol. 2010; 20(8):750-6. PMC: 2904852. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.02.045. View

Vogt S, Buccino G, Wohlschlager A, Canessa N, Jon Shah N, Zilles K . Prefrontal involvement in imitation learning of hand actions: effects of practice and expertise. Neuroimage. 2007; 37(4):1371-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.005. View

Gallese V, Keysers C, Rizzolatti G . A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004; 8(9):396-403. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.002. View

Gallese V, Goldman A . Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 2(12):493-501. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01262-5. View

10.

Buccino G, Colage I, Gobbi N, Bonaccorso G . Grounding meaning in experience: A broad perspective on embodied language. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016; 69:69-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.033. View

11.

Krach S, Hegel F, Wrede B, Sagerer G, Binkofski F, Kircher T . Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS One. 2008; 3(7):e2597. PMC: 2440351. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002597. View

12.

Ramsey R, F de C Hamilton A . Triangles have goals too: understanding action representation in left aIPS. Neuropsychologia. 2010; 48(9):2773-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.04.028. View

13.

Calvo-Merino B, Glaser D, Grezes J, Passingham R, Haggard P . Action observation and acquired motor skills: an FMRI study with expert dancers. Cereb Cortex. 2004; 15(8):1243-9. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhi007. View

14.

Gallese V, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Rizzolatti G . Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain. 1996; 119 ( Pt 2):593-609. DOI: 10.1093/brain/119.2.593. View

15.

di Pellegrino G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G . Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study. Exp Brain Res. 1992; 91(1):176-80. DOI: 10.1007/BF00230027. View

16.

Liepelt R, Prinz W, Brass M . When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions. Cognition. 2010; 115(3):426-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.003. View

17.

Hardwick R, Caspers S, Eickhoff S, Swinnen S . Neural correlates of action: Comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018; 94:31-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.08.003. View

18.

F de C Hamilton A, Grafton S . Action outcomes are represented in human inferior frontoparietal cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2007; 18(5):1160-8. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhm150. View

19.

Gazzola V, Rizzolatti G, Wicker B, Keysers C . The anthropomorphic brain: the mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage. 2007; 35(4):1674-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.003. View

20.

Keysers C, Gazzola V . Social neuroscience: mirror neurons recorded in humans. Curr Biol. 2011; 20(8):R353-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.03.013. View