Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

LLM-enhanced Interactions in Human-Robot Collaborative Drawing with Older Adults

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an eight-week course, older adults preferred to act as curators of a drawing robot's suggestions, with the robot as coach, and valued spoken dialogue while finding its feedback insufficiently personalized.

desk verdict Genuinely useful exploratory fieldwork, but the headline 'curator role preference' is entangled with added dialogue capability and session order; needs a cautious rewrite rather than rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18711 v1 pith:7RIOKVD5 submitted 2025-06-23 cs.HC

Marianne Bossema , Somaya Ben Allouch , Aske Plaat , Rob Saunders This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords human-robotinteractionolderadultsco-creativitylargelanguagemodelsparticipatorydesigncollaborativedrawingcreativitysupportspokendialogue
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

In an eight-week participatory drawing course, 18 adults aged 65 and over tried collaborative drawing with several robots, from simple vibrating bristle bots to a robot arm augmented with a large language model and spoken dialogue. The paper's goal is to identify what supports older adults' creative experience in human-robot co-creativity, an area the authors say has been little studied. The central finding is that participants preferred to keep creative control as human curators: they wanted to evaluate and select from the robot's suggestions while the robot played a coach or teacher. They favored request-based interactions, asking the robot for input rather than taking turns or operating it, and welcomed spoken dialogue, but they reported that the robot's feedback often lacked awareness of their personal artistic goals and the context of their work. The authors conclude that LLM-enhanced robots have potential for creativity support with older adults, provided the design preserves user control and improves personalization.

What carries the argument

The analytic machinery is the Interaction Framework for Human-Computer Co-Creativity, which separates interaction strategies (the goals and roles, such as robot as coach or peer), interaction styles (turn-taking, request-based, or operation-based), and interaction modalities (visual, spoken, textual). The paper uses this framework to compare weeks of the course and to locate why one configuration worked. The technical enabler is an LLM-enhanced robot arm: a webcam captures the drawing, GPT-4o provides image understanding and response generation, Whisper-1 adds speech-to-text and voice output, and DALL-E 3 can propose images; this is what makes the coach-like, request-based dialogue possible. A second, less technical ingredient is the participatory course design itself, eight weekly sessions co-planned with professional art educators, which gives participants enough exposure to form comparative preferences.

What would settle it

A longitudinal study with a larger, gender-balanced sample that repeats robot drawing sessions over many weeks would settle whether the curator preference holds; if participants increasingly chose turn-taking or mixed-initiative collaboration as familiarity grew, and began treating the robot as a peer, the paper's central claims would not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that when older adults are given sustained, real-world experience with a range of drawing robots, the collaborative configuration that fits their creative needs is not the robot as a peer or autonomous artist but the robot as a coach whose suggestions the human curates. The study claims that request-based interaction, where the participant asks for feedback or instruction and keeps the initiative, was preferred over turn-taking and shared-canvas modes, and that the multimodality added by LLM-driven spoken dialogue was valued as an extra channel beyond the drawing itself. At the same time, the paper reports a boundary on this promise: the LLM robot described and commented on drawings literally, and participants felt this missed the symbolism, intentions, and individual preferences embedded in their art. These findings are offered as hypotheses-generating, situated insights grounded in the lived experience of the target group rather than as generalizable proof.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stated preferences of 18 self-selected, mostly female, art-experienced older adults, collected after first encounters with unfamiliar robots, reflect stable attitudes of older adults in general rather than reactions to novelty and a particular social setting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robot creativity support for older adults should default to a coach-or-teacher role with the human as curator, rather than a peer collaborator or independent artist.
  • Interaction designs should offer request-based styles as a primary mode, because they let older adults maintain a sense of control and autonomy.
  • Spoken dialogue is a valued additional communication channel and should be incorporated alongside the shared drawing product.
  • LLM-based feedback needs context awareness and personalization; literal descriptions of the artwork are not enough to support individual creative goals.
  • Flexible interaction modes are needed, since preferences may shift as older adults become more familiar with the technology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the preference for curator-plus-coach may be driven by perceived control rather than age, and could generalize to novice or expert users in other creative domains who have clear personal taste but no technical skill.
  • An untested design implication: having the robot ask a short perspective-getting question about the participant's intent before giving feedback could directly address the reported lack of sensitivity, and could be compared experimentally with the current literal-description approach.
  • The paper's novelty-effect caveat suggests a testable extension: repeated exposure over several months might reveal growing interest in mixed-initiative or turn-taking modes, which would shift the design recommendation from request-based-only to adaptive modes based on familiarity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports an exploratory participatory case study on human-robot co-creativity with older adults, conducted as an eight-week "Drawing with Robots" course for 18 adults aged 65+. The course progressed from human-human drawing through several robot types (bristle bots, mobile drawbots, a robot arm, and finally an LLM-enhanced robot arm with spoken dialogue and image generation). Data included video/audio recordings, observations, retrospective discussions from sessions 7 and 8, and member checking with 7 participants and 1 volunteer. The main claims are that participants preferred acting as curators evaluating the robot as a coach/teacher, favored request-based interactions, appreciated spoken dialogue, and found the robot's feedback lacking sensitivity to personal artistic goals. The paper proposes future directions in dynamic interaction modes, perspective-taking, and multimodal communication. The authors explicitly acknowledge limitations of sample size, gender bias, and novelty, but the central preference claims are nonetheless underdetermined by the study design.

Significance. If treated as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory, this is a valuable and rare empirical contribution to an understudied area: robot-supported creativity for older adults in a realistic, ecologically valid setting. The strengths are notable: an actual eight-week deployment, collaboration with professional art educators, multiple robot configurations, and member checking to validate the qualitative interpretation. The negative finding that LLM-generated feedback lacked contextual sensitivity is robust and directly informative for designing LLM-enhanced robots. The positive preference claims, however, need to be reframed because they rest on a confounded comparison, and the paper's contribution would be stronger if its conclusions were explicitly marketed as emerging hypotheses rather than settled preferences. The proposed future directions are concrete, falsifiable, and well tied to the target group's need for autonomy and control.

major comments (2)
  1. [IV-C, Table I, V-C, VI] The central finding that participants preferred the curator role and request-based interactions is confounded: the LLM condition in weeks 7-8 simultaneously changed the interaction strategy (from turn-taking peer in weeks 4-5 to coach), the interaction style (request-based rather than turn-taking), the modality (added spoken dialogue and image generation), and the session order (always last). Participants could only evaluate the one LLM configuration they were given; they could not choose among roles offered by an equally capable robot. Section V-D acknowledges a novelty effect and sample limitations but does not flag this order/capability confound, and Section VI states the preference claims (a) and (b) as findings. I recommend reframing these claims as "participants readily adopted and positively evaluated the curator/coach and request-based modes in the LLM condition" and explicitly discussing the confound as a limitation.
  2. [III-E, IV] The thematic coding procedure is not reported with enough detail to assess the reliability of the counts used in Section IV (e.g., n=5, n=7). The authors describe initial inspection, systematic coding in ATLAS.ti, and iterative refinement, but they do not state how many researchers coded the transcripts, whether coding was independent or collaborative, whether inter-coder agreement was calculated, or how the member-checking step (7 of 18 participants) changed the themes. For an exploratory qualitative study this is not disqualifying, but the manuscript should either provide these details or explicitly list single-coder analysis and potential analyst bias as a limitation alongside the other limitations in Section V-D.
minor comments (7)
  1. [III-E, IV-A2] There are minor typos: "with with photos and quotes" in Section III-E should read "with photos and quotes," and "occured" in Section IV-A2 should be "occurred."
  2. [I, III] The surname Wooldridge is misspelled as "Woolridge" in Sections I and III; the reference list [20] uses the correct spelling.
  3. [III-D] The LLM integration description would benefit from the exact model version(s), prompt templates, and any content filtering or safety configuration used, since the claim about feedback lacking sensitivity depends on what the system actually generated.
  4. [IV-A2, Figure 5] Figure 5 is described as a "typical session," but the number of sessions analyzed and the criteria for typicality are not given; please clarify whether the timeline comes from one pair or is aggregated across pairs.
  5. [IV-C] The counts such as n=4, n=5, n=7 are counts of participants who explicitly raised a theme in discussion; consider presenting them as such rather than as quantitative evidence, since they are based on a small self-selected sample.
  6. [V-D] The limitation paragraph says the course involved "first encounters with the technology," but the robot types were introduced at different weeks, with the LLM-enhanced robot only appearing in weeks 6-8; specify which technology was novel at which point and how that affects the comparison.
  7. [V-C] The mapping to task-divided co-creativity (Kantosalo and Toivonen) should be presented as an interpretive link rather than an empirically measured outcome, since the study did not explicitly test alternating versus task-divided modes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; exploratory qualitative findings rest on participant reports, not on the framework that structured the analysis.

full rationale

This paper performs no formal derivation, fitting, or equation-based prediction; it is an exploratory participatory case study. The headline preferences (curator role, coach/teacher robot, request-based interaction, spoken dialogue) are supported by transcribed retrospective discussions and participant quotes, and by member checking, not by the Kantosalo et al. Interaction Framework. The framework supplies descriptive vocabulary (modalities, styles, strategies), but the empirical categories were not defined so as to guarantee the conclusions: participants' statements such as "That robot gave me good examples and I could learn from that" and "the robot gives a suggestion that fits your drawing" carry the content. The sole self-citation, ref. [12] (the authors' own scoping review), is used only to assert that the area is underexplored; it is background motivation and is not load-bearing for any finding, so it does not constitute circularity. The acknowledged order/capability confound in weeks 4-5 vs 7-8 is a validity threat to the preference claim, but that is an empirical-interpretation limitation, not a circular reduction. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

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

This qualitative study has no numeric free parameters; the 'parameters' are the design and analytical choices. The central claims rest on the validity of the co-creativity framework, the trustworthiness of participant self-reports, and the representativeness of the small sample and robot configurations. No new conceptual entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Kantosalo et al.'s Interaction Framework is a valid, complete description of human-computer co-creative interaction.
    The framework structures both the course design and the data analysis (Sections II-A, III), so findings are expressed in its categories.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reports and observed behaviors reflect their authentic creative experiences and preferences.
    Conclusions such as 'preferred curator role' are inferred from retrospective discussions and observations without triangulation with other measures (Sections IV, V-B).
  • ad hoc to paper The specific robot designs and LLM configuration used are representative of the broader classes of 'robots for creativity support' and 'LLM-enhanced robots'.
    The paper generalizes to human-robot co-creativity and LLM-enhanced robots from one GPT-4o-based robot arm and a few reactive/mobile robots (Section VI), without evidence that other LLM-robot integrations would behave similarly.
  • domain assumption The recruited sample (independently living, art-course-experienced, mostly female) represents older adults generally.
    The authors acknowledge the gender bias and specific recruiting channels (Section III-A, V-D), yet the conclusions are framed broadly for older adults.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-enhanced Interactions in Human-Robot Collaborative Drawing with Older Adults." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7RIOKVD5

@misc{pith2026250618711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-enhanced Interactions in Human-Robot Collaborative Drawing with Older Adults},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7RIOKVD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18711}
}
read the original abstract

The goal of this study is to identify factors that support and enhance older adults' creative experiences in human-robot co-creativity. Because the research into the use of robots for creativity support with older adults remains underexplored, we carried out an exploratory case study. We took a participatory approach and collaborated with professional art educators to design a course Drawing with Robots for adults aged 65 and over. The course featured human-human and human-robot drawing activities with various types of robots. We observed collaborative drawing interactions, interviewed participants on their experiences, and analyzed collected data. Findings show that participants preferred acting as curators, evaluating creative suggestions from the robot in a teacher or coach role. When we enhanced a robot with a multimodal Large Language Model (LLM), participants appreciated its spoken dialogue capabilities. They reported however, that the robot's feedback sometimes lacked an understanding of the context, and sensitivity to their artistic goals and preferences. Our findings highlight the potential of LLM-enhanced robots to support creativity and offer future directions for advancing human-robot co-creativity with older adults.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Impression of an interaction during a course ‘Drawing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Human-human drawing and group discussions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Robots used in the course. B. Collaborations Two experienced art educators, familiar with working with older adults, each teamed up with a trusted volunteer to lead the groups throughout the course. Preparations began with a brainstorming session with all collaborators in January 2024, followed by an April 2024 pilot test. After that we refined the robot prototypes developed by the first author, with help from compu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Weekly human-robot drawing activities. SVG files of human-made sketches [43]. GPT-4o selected a previously unused word, and the corresponding SVG file was converted into points for the robot to draw. Location and scale were determined by identifying the largest open sp…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Timeline of drawing and talking actions during a typical session of dyadic human-human collaborative drawing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pluri-perspectivism in Human-robot Co-creativity with Older Adults

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A five-dimensional pluri-perspectivist model is introduced to guide context-sensitive, co-creative human-robot interaction, grounded in theory and interviews with artists and art teachers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fancourt and S

    D. Fancourt and S. Finn, What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review . World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Creative art: connection to health and well-being,

    E. Gorny-Wegrzyn and B. Perry, “Creative art: connection to health and well-being,” Open journal of social sciences , vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 290–303, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Being creative makes you happier: The positive effect of creativity on subjective well- being,

    C.-Y . Tan, C.-Q. Chuah, S.-T. Lee, and C.-S. Tan, “Being creative makes you happier: The positive effect of creativity on subjective well- being,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 14, p. 7244, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    The role of arts engagement in reducing cognitive decline and improving quality of life in healthy older people: a systematic review,

    M. Fioranelli, M. G. Roccia, and M. L. Garo, “The role of arts engagement in reducing cognitive decline and improving quality of life in healthy older people: a systematic review,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, p. 1232357, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    The value of active arts engagement on health and well-being of older adults: A nation-wide participatory study,

    B. Groot, L. de Kock, Y . Liu, C. Dedding, J. Schrijver, T. Teunissen, M. van Hartingsveldt, J. Menderink, Y . Lengams, J. Lindenberg,et al., “The value of active arts engagement on health and well-being of older adults: A nation-wide participatory study,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 15, p. 8222, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    The use of technology for arts-based activities in older adults living with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A scoping review,

    J. MacRitchie, G. A. Floridou, J. Christensen, R. Timmers, and L. de Witte, “The use of technology for arts-based activities in older adults living with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A scoping review,” Dementia, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 252–280, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Older adults’ engagement and mood during robot-assisted group activities in nursing homes: Development and observational pilot study,

    A. Tanner, A. Urech, H. Schulze, and T. Manser, “Older adults’ engagement and mood during robot-assisted group activities in nursing homes: Development and observational pilot study,” JMIR Rehabilita- tion and Assistive Technologies , vol. 10, p. e48031, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Designing social robots for older adults,

    C. L. Breazeal, A. K. Ostrowski, N. Singh, and H. W. Park, “Designing social robots for older adults,”Natl. Acad. Eng. Bridge, vol. 49, pp. 22– 31, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Computational and collective creativity: Who’s being creative?,

    M. L. Maher, “Computational and collective creativity: Who’s being creative?,” in ICCC, pp. 67–71, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Social robots as creativity eliciting agents,

    S. Ali, N. Devasia, H. W. Park, and C. Breazeal, “Social robots as creativity eliciting agents,” Front. Robot. AI, vol. 8, p. 673730, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Designing creative ai partners with COFI: A framework for modeling interaction in human-AI co-creative systems,

    J. Rezwana and M. L. Maher, “Designing creative ai partners with COFI: A framework for modeling interaction in human-AI co-creative systems,” ACM Trans. Comput.-Human Interact., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1– 28, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Human- robot co-creativity: A scoping review: Informing a research agenda for human-robot co-creativity with older adults,

    M. Bossema, S. B. Allouch, A. Plaat, and R. Saunders, “Human- robot co-creativity: A scoping review: Informing a research agenda for human-robot co-creativity with older adults,” in 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communi- cation (RO-MAN)...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Large language models for human-robot interaction: A review,

    C. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Li, Y . Peng, and Z. Mao, “Large language models for human-robot interaction: A review,” Biomim. Intell. Robot., p. 100131, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Modalities, styles and strategies: An interaction framework for human-computer co-creativity.,

    A. Kantosalo, P. T. Ravikumar, K. Grace, and T. Takala, “Modalities, styles and strategies: An interaction framework for human-computer co-creativity.,” in ICCC, pp. 57–64, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human–robot interaction research with older adults,

    W. A. Rogers, T. Kadylak, and M. A. Bayles, “Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human–robot interaction research with older adults,” Human Factors, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 441–450, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Promising directions for human-robot interactions defined by older adults,

    A. K. Ostrowski, J. Zhang, C. Breazeal, and H. W. Park, “Promising directions for human-robot interactions defined by older adults,” Front. Robot. AI, vol. 11, p. 1289414, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Designing robots for aging: Wisdom as a critical lens,

    H. R. Lee and L. Riek, “Designing robots for aging: Wisdom as a critical lens,” ACM Trans. Human-Robot Interact. , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Participatory and receptive arts engagement in older adults: associations with cognition over a seven-year period,

    J. K. Bone, D. Fancourt, J. K. Sonke, and F. Bu, “Participatory and receptive arts engagement in older adults: associations with cognition over a seven-year period,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 436–450, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Effects of creative expressive arts-based storytelling (creas) programme on older adults with mild cognitive impairment: protocol for a randomised, controlled three-arm trial,

    R. Lin, Y .-J. Yan, Y . Zhou, Y .-T. Luo, Z.-Z. Cai, K.-Y . Zhu, and H. Li, “Effects of creative expressive arts-based storytelling (creas) programme on older adults with mild cognitive impairment: protocol for a randomised, controlled three-arm trial,” BMJ open , vol. 10, no....

    2020

  12. [20]

    Intelligent agents: Theory and practice,

    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, “Intelligent agents: Theory and practice,” The knowledge engineering review , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115– 152, 1995

    1995

  13. [21]

    How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the special issue,

    T. Lubart, “How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the special issue,” Int. J. Human- Comput. Stud., vol. 63, no. 4-5, pp. 365–369, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    Modes for creative human-computer collaboration: Alternating and task-divided co-creativity,

    A. Kantosalo and H. Toivonen, “Modes for creative human-computer collaboration: Alternating and task-divided co-creativity,” in Pro- ceedings of the seventh international conference on computational creativity, pp. 77–84, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Mixed-Initiative Creative Interfaces,

    S. Deterding, J. Hook, R. Fiebrink, M. Gillies, J. Gow, M. Akten, G. Smith, A. Liapis, and K. Compton, “Mixed-Initiative Creative Interfaces,” in 2017 CHI Conf. Ext. Abstr. Human Factors Comput. Syst., pp. 628–635, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Perspective-taking feedback: A new feedback affecting creativity,

    J. Han, H. Long, M. Ge, and W. Pang, “Perspective-taking feedback: A new feedback affecting creativity,” Creativity Research Journal , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 228–243, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective.,

    T. Eyal, M. Steffel, and N. Epley, “Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective.,” Journal of personality and social psychology , vol. 114, no. 4, p. 547, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Creativebot: a creative storyteller robot to stimulate creativity in children,

    M. Elgarf, S. Zojaji, G. Skantze, and C. Peters, “Creativebot: a creative storyteller robot to stimulate creativity in children,” in Proceedings of the 2022 international conference on multimodal interaction, pp. 540– 548, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psycho- logical Processes, vol. 86. Harvard University Press, 1978

    1978

  20. [28]

    R. K. Sawyer and D. Henriksen, Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation . Oxford University Press, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Creativity in collaborative learning across the life span,

    M. Romero, P. Hyvonen, and E. Barber `a, “Creativity in collaborative learning across the life span,” Creative Education , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 422–429, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Curiosity in old age: A pos- sible key to achieving adaptive aging,

    M. Sakaki, A. Yagi, and K. Murayama, “Curiosity in old age: A pos- sible key to achieving adaptive aging,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 88, pp. 106–116, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Intrinsic motivation, curios- ity, and learning: Theory and applications in educational technologies,

    P.-Y . Oudeyer, J. Gottlieb, and M. Lopes, “Intrinsic motivation, curios- ity, and learning: Theory and applications in educational technologies,” Progress in brain research, vol. 229, pp. 257–284, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Aging and the intersection of cognition, motivation, and emotion,

    L. L. Carstensen, J. A. Mikels, and M. Mather, “Aging and the intersection of cognition, motivation, and emotion,” in Handbook of the psychology of aging , pp. 343–362, Elsevier, 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    A motivational theory of life-span development.,

    J. Heckhausen, C. Wrosch, and R. Schulz, “A motivational theory of life-span development.,” Psychological review, vol. 117, no. 1, p. 32, 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    When robots get chatty: Grounding multimodal human-robot conversation and collaboration,

    P. Allgeuer, H. Ali, and S. Wermter, “When robots get chatty: Grounding multimodal human-robot conversation and collaboration,” Preprint arXiv:2407.00518, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Grace: Generating socially appropriate robot actions leveraging llms and human expla- nations,

    F. I. Dogan, U. Ozyurt, G. Cinar, and H. Gunes, “Grace: Generating socially appropriate robot actions leveraging llms and human expla- nations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16879 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Appropriateness of llm- equipped robotic well-being coach language in the workplace: A qualitative evaluation,

    M. Spitale, M. Axelsson, and H. Gunes, “Appropriateness of llm- equipped robotic well-being coach language in the workplace: A qualitative evaluation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14935 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    L. D. Hinz, Expressive Therapies Continuum: A Framework for using Art in Therapy . Routledge, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    iRobot Root Pro

    iRobot Corp., “iRobot Root Pro.” https://edu.irobot.com/ shop/coding-robots/root?variant=269695, 2023. Ac- cessed: September 10, 2024

    2023

  31. [39]

    iRobot Education Python SDK

    iRobot Corp., “iRobot Education Python SDK.” https://github. com/iRobotEducation/irobot-edu-python-sdk , 2024. Accessed: September 10, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    uFactory Lite 6 Developer Manual

    uFactory Ltd., “uFactory Lite 6 Developer Manual.” https: //www.ufactory.cc/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ Lite-6-Developer-Manual-V1.11.0.pdf , n.d. Accessed: September 11, 2024

    2023

  33. [41]

    xArm Python SDK

    uFactory Ltd., “xArm Python SDK.” https://github.com/ xArm-Developer/xArm-Python-SDK , 2024. Accessed: September 11, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    https://platform

    OpenAI, OpenAI Developer API , 2024. https://platform. openai.com/docs

    2024

  35. [43]

    How do humans sketch objects?,

    M. Eitz, J. Hays, and M. Alexa, “How do humans sketch objects?,” ACM Trans. Graph. (Proc. SIGGRAPH) , vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 44:1– 44:10, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    OpenCV, 2024

    OpenCV Development Team, OpenCV: Open Source Computer Vision Library. OpenCV, 2024. Distance Transform Algorithm

    2024

  37. [45]

    ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, ATLAS.ti: Quali- tative Data Analysis Software , 2024. v23.0

    2024

  38. [46]

    Reframing the role of novelty within social HRI: From noise to information,

    C. V . Smedegaard, “Reframing the role of novelty within social HRI: From noise to information,” in Proc. 14th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interact., pp. 411–420, IEEE, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.