Children perseverate to a human's actions but not to a robot's actions

Previous research has shown that young children commit perseverative errors from their observation of another person's actions. The present study examined how social observation would lead children to perseverative tendencies, using a robot. In Experiment 1, preschoolers watched either a human model or a robot sorting cards according to one dimension (e.g. shape), after which they were asked to sort according to a different dimension (e.g. colour). The results showed that children's behaviours in the task were significantly influenced by the human model's actions but not by the robot's actions. Experiment 2 excluded the possibility that children's behaviours were not affected by the robot's actions because they did not observe its actions. We concluded that children's perseverative errors from social observation resulted, in part, from their socio-cognitive ability.     

Force Control Characteristics for Generation and Relaxation in the Lower Limb

We investigated the characteristics for force generation and relaxation using graded isometric contractions of the knee extensors. Participants performed the following tasks as quickly and accurately as possible. For the force generation task, force was increased from 0% to 20%, 40% and 60% of the maximal voluntary force (MVF). For the force relaxation task, force was decreased from 60% to 40%, 20% and 0%. The following parameters of the recorded force were calculated: error, time, and rate of force development. The error was consistently greater for force relaxation than generation. Reaction and adjustment times were independent of the tasks. The control strategy was markedly different for force relaxation and generation, this tendency was particularly evident for the lower limb compared to the upper limb.     

Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons

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 10-month-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.     

Visual Dominance in Amending the Directional Parameter of Feedforward Control

The authors examined visual dominance between trials in which the movement program was amended (i.e., off-line processing). Weighting between visual and proprioceptive feedback was examined in a trial-by-trial analysis of the directional parameter of feedforward control. Eight participants moved a cursor to a target displayed on a computer screen by manipulating a hand-held stylus on a digitizing tablet. In the first 30 trials, the cursor followed the stylus movement (practice condition). In the next 30 trials, the directional error of the stylus movement was presented in the opposite direction (reversal condition). Subjects knew the presence and the nature of the reversal. In the last 10 trials, the reversal was withdrawn (transfer condition). Directional error of feedforward control was relatively small in the practice condition, and it increased gradually in 1 of 2 directions as trials proceeded in the reversal condition. Positive aftereffect was observed in the transfer condition. A constant increment of the directional error indicated that both visual and proprioceptive feedback are registered, with higher weight on vision, and that weighting between those inputs is determined automatically or is fixed without any strategic control.