Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Mixed-Agent Museum Tour Guide Design Improves Gendered Learning Outcomes and Visitor Preferences

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A physical robot and a projected avatar that banter can improve museum learning for female visitors without reducing engagement or enjoyment.

desk verdict Genuinely clever single-platform mixed-agent tour system, but the headline gender-learning effect isn't established by the statistics as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14468 v1 pith:H73DXU7G submitted 2026-07-16 cs.RO cs.MAcs.SYeess.SY

Annette M. Masterson , Wonse Jo , Helena C. Sieh , Lionel P. Robert , Jr. , Dawn Tilbury This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.MAcs.SYeess.SY
keywords mixed-agentteamtourguiderobothuman-robotinteractiongenderedlearningconversationalstylemuseumwithin-subjectsstudyvirtualavatar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a mixed-agent team—one physical robot plus a projected virtual avatar that trade humorous banter—raises learning gains for female museum visitors compared with a single cheerful robot, while leaving self-reported engagement and quality of experience unchanged. The authors build a single platform that achieves the interaction richness of a two-robot tour, then test three conditions in a within-subjects experiment with 30 participants. They find the bantering mixed-agent condition significantly improved quiz scores for women but not men, and interviews show most participants preferred the mixed-agent team regardless of gender. If true, conversational style becomes a design lever for gendered learning outcomes in human-robot interaction, and museums can offer two-agent pedagogy from one robot.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the mixed-agent team: a Toyota HSR physical robot combined with a cartoon-style virtual avatar projected by a gimbal-mounted laser projector, with both agents' speech and movements coordinated through ROS. The bantering conversational style—humorous back-and-forth dialogue between the two agents—is the experimental variable claimed to drive the gendered learning effect. The projector's inverse kinematics position the avatar at exhibit locations, and ArUco-marker tracking provides behavioral metrics such as distance, head angle, and reaction time.

What would settle it

A between-subjects replication with unique exhibit scripts and quizzes for each condition would settle whether the bantering mixed-agent learning gain for women persists, or a simple check of whether learning scores improve across sessions for all participants regardless of condition order—if they do, the effect could be practice, not the agents.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that in a within-subjects museum-tour experiment with 30 participants, the mixed-agent bantering condition (C3) outperformed the single-robot cheerful baseline (C1) on learning performance, with a significant mean improvement of 0.21 for female participants (p = 0.028), while no significant condition effect appeared for males. Engagement and quality-of-experience scores did not differ across conditions, yet 17 of 29 interviewed participants favored the mixed-agent team regardless of gender, citing interaction and multi-modal delivery. The authors interpret this as evidence that dyadic conversational style—specifically bantering dialogue between physical and virtual agents—i

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that randomizing condition order eliminates practice and carryover effects from repeated exposure to the same exhibit scripts and identical quiz questions, so the measured learning gains reflect conversational style rather than familiarity with the material.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Museums could deploy a single physical robot with a projected avatar to simulate a two-robot tour, lowering hardware cost while preserving interaction richness.
  • Conversational style can be tuned to improve learning for female visitors without perceived engagement or enjoyment penalties.
  • The negative correlation between engagement and learning (r = -0.37) cautions that designs optimized only for engagement may not improve retention.
  • Behavioral measures—physical distance, head angle, reaction time—can be embedded in the robot's control loop for real-time engagement assessment.
  • The gender-moderated effect suggests future tour-guide systems may require personalized or adaptive conversational styles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not establish the mechanism behind the gendered effect; a plausible reading is that collaborative, talkative banter aligns with women's interaction preferences, but this remains speculative and could be tested by varying dialogue content while holding agent number constant.
  • Because the projected avatar is a single-platform solution, the design may transfer to other mobile service robots, making two-agent pedagogical interactions cheaper than dual-robot deployments.
  • The negative engagement-learning correlation raises a testable hypothesis: highly entertaining tours may distract from retention, so an adaptive system could use measured reaction times to throttle information flow during high-engagement moments.
  • The within-subjects design leaves open the possibility that practice effects, not conversational style, drive the learning gain; a between-subjects replication with fresh quiz content per condition would clarify this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a museum tour-guide system in which a physical Toyota HSR robot is augmented with a gimbal-mounted projector that renders a virtual avatar, enabling a two-agent tour from a single mobile platform. The authors report a within-subjects user study (N=30, 14 female) with three conditions: C1, a single robot with cheerful dialogue; C2, mixed agents with storytelling dialogue; C3, mixed agents with bantering dialogue. They measured self-reported engagement (UES), quality of experience (QoE), learning performance (pre-post quiz difference normalized to 0-1), behavioral metrics (physical distance, head angle, reaction times), and semi-structured interviews. No significant condition effects were found for UES or QoE. Overall learning performance was higher in C3 than C1 (mean difference 0.16, p=0.018), and a female-subgroup repeated-measures ANOVA suggested higher learning performance in C3 than C1 (mean difference 0.21, p=0.028). Interviews indicated a preference for the mixed-agent team. The paper concludes that a mixed-agent bantering team can enhance learning performance for women and that the mixed-agent configuration is preferred regardless of gender.

Significance. If the gender-moderated learning effect is robust, this is a meaningful contribution to HRI and museum-guide personalization, and the system is a useful engineering contribution: it couples a physical robot and projected virtual agent on one platform with synchronized dialogue and integrated behavioral sensing. The study includes real users, both quantitative and qualitative measures, and a detailed system description. It also identifies an interesting potential trade-off between engagement and learning. However, the statistical support for the central gender-specific claim is currently fragile: the key missing evidence is a formal gender-by-condition interaction test, control for condition order and repeated exposure to the same quiz, and a contrast that separates agent configuration from conversational style. The contribution is therefore valuable but not yet established as reported.

major comments (5)
  1. [§V.A (Gender-specific analysis)] The central conclusion that the mixed-agent bantering team improves learning for women is based on separate rmANOVAs within male and female subgroups. This does not test whether the effect differs by gender; a gender moderation claim requires a model with a condition-by-gender interaction term (or at least a formal interaction contrast). With only 14 women, the reported female-subgroup F(2,26)=3.86, p=0.034 cannot establish that the effect is gender-specific. Please report the interaction test and, ideally, a mixed-effects model with gender, condition, and their interaction.
  2. [§IV.B and §V.A (Condition design and H2)] The three conditions vary in two dimensions simultaneously: C1 is a single agent with cheerful dialogue, while C2 and C3 are mixed-agent conditions with storytelling and bantering styles, respectively. The female C3-vs-C1 contrast therefore conflates the presence of the virtual agent with the bantering style. Moreover, the overall C2-vs-C3 contrast, which holds the agent configuration fixed, was nonsignificant (t(29)=-0.32, p=0.752), and no female C2-vs-C3 contrast is reported. Consequently, the statement that the bantering mixed-agent team specifically enhances women's learning over the storytelling mixed-agent team (H2) is not supported by the reported data. Please report the female C2-vs-C3 comparison and, if possible, a model that estimates configuration and style separately.
  3. [§IV.B and §V.A (Order/carryover)] The experiment is within-subjects and repeats the same six exhibit posters and identical quiz questions in every condition. The authors state that conditions were presented in random order to minimize practice effects, but no order term, no condition-order balance check, and no first-exposure-only analysis are reported. With N=30, randomization does not guarantee that female C3 scores were not inflated by memory of the same quiz from earlier conditions. Please include condition order in the analysis or provide a first-exposure contrast, and report the condition-order distribution by gender.
  4. [§V.C (Correlation analysis)] The Pearson correlations are computed over variables that include repeated within-subject observations across conditions (LP, UES, QoE, physical distance, head angle). Standard Pearson correlation assumes independent observations; pooling repeated measures from the same participant inflates the effective sample size and can produce misleading p-values. The reported negative LP-UES correlation (r=-0.37, p<.001) and the gender-distance/head-angle correlations should be re-estimated using a repeated-measures correlation or a multilevel model that accounts for participant clustering.
  5. [§V.A and Fig. 5 (Multiple comparisons and reporting consistency)] The analysis includes multiple pairwise comparisons across three conditions, separate male and female subgroup analyses, and additional behavioral pairwise tests, without multiplicity adjustment or a pre-specified analysis plan. The p-values near .02-.05 may not survive even a simple Bonferroni correction. In addition, the reported female means are inconsistent: the text reports a female C3-C1 mean difference of 0.21, while the Fig. 5 caption gives female C1 mean=0.5 and C3 mean=0.77, implying a difference of 0.27; the main text also reports an overall C1 mean of 0.61. Please reconcile these numbers and provide adjusted p-values or a clear justification for the unadjusted inferences.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§Abstract and §V.A] The abstract says 'the mixed-agent conditions improved learning performance for female participants,' but the significant female contrast reported is only C3 vs C1. Female C2 vs C1 and C2 vs C3 are not reported. Please make the wording consistent with the contrasts actually tested.
  2. [§IV.E and §V.D] The text states 'All 30 participants completed the interview,' but the preference count is '17 out of 29 participants favored the team, with one neutral.' Please clarify the denominator and the status of the neutral participant.
  3. [§V.A and Fig. 5] The asterisk convention in Fig. 5 uses '**' for p<0.05; standard convention is '*' for p<0.05 and '**' for p<0.01. Please adjust the notation and add explicit error bars/confidence intervals to the figure.
  4. [§IV.A] The power analysis is described as 'post-hoc.' Please clarify whether N=30 was determined prospectively; if the analysis is post-hoc, report a sensitivity analysis or describe the target effect size explicitly.
  5. [§V.A] The rmANOVA results do not report sphericity tests (e.g., Mauchly's test) or effect sizes/confidence intervals for pairwise contrasts. Please add these details.
  6. [§III] The phrase 'achieving the interaction richness of two mobile agents from a single platform' is presented as a design goal. Consider softening it or providing a direct comparison, since the current study does not compare against a second mobile robot.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical user study with hypotheses tested against collected data

full rationale

This paper is an empirical within-subjects user study, not a derivation or modeling exercise. The central claims (H1, H2) are evaluated by comparing measured outcomes—engagement surveys, quality-of-experience scales, and pre/post quiz learning performance—across three conditions. There is no fitted parameter that is later relabeled as a prediction, no definitional identity between an input and an output, and no formal model whose conclusion is equivalent to its assumptions. The only self-citation is reference [25], used to justify randomizing condition order to minimize practice effects; this is a standard methodological citation and is not load-bearing for the main result. Some reported statistical choices (e.g., separate within-gender rmANOVAs rather than a gender-by-condition interaction test, and apparent discrepancies in reported means) raise questions about the strength of the evidence, but those are correctness or interpretability concerns, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity: the conclusions do not reduce to the inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters were fitted to the data, and no new theoretical entities are postulated. The virtual avatar is a designed system artifact, not an unobserved entity. The main assumptions are statistical and experimental-design choices that the paper does not fully validate.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Randomizing condition order controls for practice or carryover effects from repeated identical quiz content
    The within-subjects design (Section IV-B) presents the same exhibit facts and quiz content in all three conditions; if order effects remain, the condition effect on learning performance is confounded.
  • standard math Repeated-measures ANOVA assumptions (normality, sphericity, no carryover) hold for LP, UES, and QoE
    Section V-A runs rmANOVA via Pingouin without reporting assumption checks or sphericity corrections.
  • domain assumption Self-reported binary gender can be analyzed by separate rmANOVAs without a formal gender-by-condition interaction test
    Section V-A splits participants into male and female groups instead of testing an interaction; this is the statistical basis for the 'gender-moderated' wording.
  • domain assumption The pre/post quiz difference is a valid measure of learning performance and quiz difficulty was balanced by pilot testing
    Section IV-C describes researcher-written quizzes, ChatGPT-4 complexity checks, and pilot tests, but no psychometric validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed-Agent Museum Tour Guide Design Improves Gendered Learning Outcomes and Visitor Preferences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H73DXU7G

@misc{pith2026260714468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed-Agent Museum Tour Guide Design Improves Gendered Learning Outcomes and Visitor Preferences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H73DXU7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14468}
}
read the original abstract

Robots are increasingly integrated into everyday contexts, including museums, where they can both entertain and educate visitors. To enhance visitor experience and engagement, we present a novel mixed-agent tour guide system that combines a physical robot with a projected virtual agent that actively participates in the tour through conversation and interaction, achieving the interaction richness of two mobile agents from a single platform. We validate the system through a within-subjects study with 30 participants to assess engagement, quality of experience, and learning performance. Participants experienced different conversational styles and agent configurations, and data were collected via surveys, behavioral sensors, and interviews. Results showed that engagement and quality of experience remained consistent across conditions. Learning performance revealed a significant gender-moderated difference: the mixed-agent conditions improved learning performance for female participants. This suggests that the proposed dyadic conversational style in this paper influenced learning performance differently by gender. Nonetheless, in interviews, participants reported a greater preference for mixed-agent teams regardless of gender, citing interaction as a key factor in their experience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Details of the robot platform, including the robot’s head display [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Customized projector to augment the virtual avatar. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the experimental setup and protocol: (a) Experiment environment and (b) Procedures for the user experiment, in which the order of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Behavioral measurement setup. ArUco marker tracking provides: (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gender comparison of normalized Learning Performance (LP) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Behavioral measures by gender across conditions. Error bars repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Heatmap of Pearson correlation coefficients among study vari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Next- gen museum guides: Autonomous navigation and visitor interaction with an agentic robot,

    L. Garello, F. Cocchella, A. Sciutti, M. Catalano, and F. Rea, “Next- gen museum guides: Autonomous navigation and visitor interaction with an agentic robot,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12273, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Which one? choosing favorite robot after different styles of storytelling and robots’ conver- sation,

    A.-M. Velentza, N. Fachantidis, and S. Pliasa, “Which one? choosing favorite robot after different styles of storytelling and robots’ conver- sation,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 700005, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Mixed reality guided museum tour: digital enhancement of museum experience,

    S. Aoki, N. Itabashi, R. Adha, S. Sameshima, Y . Kinoshita, and T. Kotoku, “Mixed reality guided museum tour: digital enhancement of museum experience,” in2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 2023, pp. 809–810

    2023

  4. [4]

    Towards a more anthropomorphic interaction with robots in museum settings: An experimental study,

    U. Maniscalco, A. Minutolo, P. Storniolo, and M. Esposito, “Towards a more anthropomorphic interaction with robots in museum settings: An experimental study,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 171, p. 104561, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Impact of table- top robots on questionnaire response rates at a science museum,

    T. Natori, T. Iio, Y . Yoshikawa, and H. Ishiguro, “Impact of table- top robots on questionnaire response rates at a science museum,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 729–742, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    A robot tour guide for people with sight loss in a robotic assisted living environment,

    S. Stals, L. Baillie, and F. Jacob, “A robot tour guide for people with sight loss in a robotic assisted living environment,” in2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1644–1649

    2025

  7. [7]

    Museum robot guides or conventional audio guides? an experimental study,

    A.-M. Velentza, D. Heinke, and J. Wyatt, “Museum robot guides or conventional audio guides? an experimental study,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 34, no. 24, pp. 1571–1580, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Using sociometers to quantify social interaction patterns,

    J.-P. Onnela, B. N. Waber, A. Pentland, S. Schnorf, and D. Lazer, “Using sociometers to quantify social interaction patterns,”Scientific reports, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 5604, 2014

    2014

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Robot interaction styles for conversation practice in second language learning,

    O. Engwall, J. Lopes, and A. Åhlund, “Robot interaction styles for conversation practice in second language learning,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 251–276, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Gender differences and social design in human-ai collaboration: Insights from virtual cobot interactions under varying task loads,

    C. Wienrich, M. E. Latoschik, and D. Obremski, “Gender differences and social design in human-ai collaboration: Insights from virtual cobot interactions under varying task loads,” inExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  3. [11]

    Design and user experience analysis of ar intelligent virtual agents on smartphones,

    Q. Gan, Z. Liu, T. Liu, Y . Zhao, and Y . Chai, “Design and user experience analysis of ar intelligent virtual agents on smartphones,” Cognitive systems research, vol. 78, pp. 33–47, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Tour guide robot: a 5g-enabled robot museum guide,

    S. Rosa, M. Randazzo, E. Landini, S. Bernagozzi, G. Sacco, M. Pic- cinino, and L. Natale, “Tour guide robot: a 5g-enabled robot museum guide,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 10, p. 1323675, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Projection-based augmented reality robot prototype with human- awareness,

    H. Ro, J.-H. Byun, I. Kim, Y . J. Park, K. Kim, and T.-D. Han, “Projection-based augmented reality robot prototype with human- awareness,” in2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2019, pp. 598–599

    2019

  6. [14]

    Application of intuitive mixed reality interactive system to museum guide activity,

    K.-F. Lee, Y .-L. Chen, H.-C. Hsieh, and K.-Y . Chin, “Application of intuitive mixed reality interactive system to museum guide activity,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Taiwan (ICCE-TW). IEEE, 2017, pp. 257–258

    2017

  7. [15]

    Interaction of a social robot with visitors inside a museum through rfid technology,

    S. Pliasa, A. M. Velentza, A. G. Dimitriou, and N. Fachantidis, “Interaction of a social robot with visitors inside a museum through rfid technology,” in2021 6th International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech). IEEE, 2021, pp. 01–06

    2021

  8. [16]

    Museum tour guide robot with augmented reality,

    B.-O. Han, Y .-H. Kim, K. Cho, and H. S. Yang, “Museum tour guide robot with augmented reality,” in2010 16th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. IEEE, 2010, pp. 223–229

    2010

  9. [17]

    Robot-assisted language learning: Integrating artificial intelligence and virtual reality into english tour guide practice,

    Y .-L. Chen, C.-C. Hsu, C.-Y . Lin, and H.-H. Hsu, “Robot-assisted language learning: Integrating artificial intelligence and virtual reality into english tour guide practice,”Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 437, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Human interaction and improving knowledge through collaborative tour guide robots,

    A.-M. Velentza, D. Heinke, and J. Wyatt, “Human interaction and improving knowledge through collaborative tour guide robots,” in2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–7

    2019

  11. [19]

    Human-robot inter- action methodology: Robot teaching activity,

    A.-M. Velentza, N. Fachantidis, and I. Lefkos, “Human-robot inter- action methodology: Robot teaching activity,”MethodsX, vol. 9, p. 101866, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Ros: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, B. Gerkey, K. Conley, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, E. Berger, R. Wheeler, and A. Ng, “Ros: an open-source robot operating system,” inProc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) Workshop on Open Source Robotics, Kobe, Japan, May 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Openai text-to-speech api,

    OpenAI, “Openai text-to-speech api,” https://platform.openai.com/ docs/guides/text-to-speech, 2024, accessed: 2026-02-20

    2024

  14. [22]

    Mea- suring engagement elicited by eye contact in human-robot interaction,

    K. Kompatsiari, F. Ciardo, D. De Tommaso, and A. Wykowska, “Mea- suring engagement elicited by eye contact in human-robot interaction,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 6979–6985

    2019

  15. [23]

    Follow me: Anthropomorphic appearance and communication im- pact social perception and joint navigation behavior,

    P. Dautzenberg, S. Ladwig, and A. M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, “Follow me: Anthropomorphic appearance and communication im- pact social perception and joint navigation behavior,” inProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2024, pp. 175–183

    2024

  16. [24]

    G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences,

    F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, and A. Buchner, “G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences,”Behavior research methods, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 175–191, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Cognitive load-based affective workload allocation for multihuman multirobot teams,

    W. Jo, R. Wang, B. Yang, D. Foti, M. Rastgaar, and B.-C. Min, “Cognitive load-based affective workload allocation for multihuman multirobot teams,”IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (ues) and new ues short form,

    H. L. O’Brien, P. Cairns, and M. Hall, “A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (ues) and new ues short form,”International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, vol. 112, pp. 28–39, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Robotic gaze and human views: A systematic exploration of robotic gaze aversion and its effects on human behaviors and attitudes,

    M. Koller, A. Weiss, M. Hirschmanner, and M. Vincze, “Robotic gaze and human views: A systematic exploration of robotic gaze aversion and its effects on human behaviors and attitudes,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 10, p. 1062714, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Strategies for qualitative data analysis,

    J. Corbin and A. Strauss, “Strategies for qualitative data analysis,” inBasics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2008, pp. 65–86

    2008

  21. [29]

    M. Q. Patton,Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis,

    V . Braun and V . Clarke, “Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis,” Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 589–597, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Using thematic analysis in psychology,

    ——, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,”Qualitative research in psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    N. K. Denzin and Y . S. Lincoln,The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    Pingouin: statistics in python,

    R. Vallat, “Pingouin: statistics in python,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 3, no. 31, p. 1026, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction,

    L. Takayama and C. Pantofaru, “Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction,” in2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, 2009, pp. 5495–5502

    2009

  27. [35]

    Sequential model based on human cognitive processing to robot acceptance,

    W. Saeki and Y . Ueda, “Sequential model based on human cognitive processing to robot acceptance,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 11, p. 1362044, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Impact of cultural differences and politeness on joining small groups of humans, robots, and virtual characters,

    S. Zojaji, Y . I. Nakano, and C. Peters, “Impact of cultural differences and politeness on joining small groups of humans, robots, and virtual characters,” in2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 479–488

    2025

  29. [37]

    The effect of tour type on visitors’ perceived cognitive load and learning,

    C. M. Van Winkle, “The effect of tour type on visitors’ perceived cognitive load and learning,”Journal of Interpretation Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 45–57, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    The uncanny valley [from the field],

    M. Mori, K. F. MacDorman, and N. Kageki, “The uncanny valley [from the field],”IEEE Robotics & automation magazine, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 98–100, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Human expectations of social robots,

    M. Kwon, M. F. Jung, and R. A. Knepper, “Human expectations of social robots,” in2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2016, pp. 463–464

    2016

  32. [40]

    Guiding a person through combined robotic and projection movements,

    A. Tamai, S. Ono, T. Yoshida, T. Ikeda, and S. Iwaki, “Guiding a person through combined robotic and projection movements,”Inter- national Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 515–528, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    R. A. Martin and T. Ford,The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Academic press, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.