Meta analysis of robots for learning literature (Science Robotics)
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAPAQ
1
IDPaperCountryComparison
Robot vs human/screen/alternative
Robot/s used (?)DesignCognitive/Affective
Reported effect size
n1M1SD1n2M2SD2n3M3SD3n4M4SD4n5M5SD5n6M6SD6Ft1t2p value
Effect size (d)
CI LowCI HighTaxonomy DimensionsCoded by
2
Ch/Ad
M age (months)
SD age (months)
R->H
Role (Pr = presenter, TA = teaching assistant, Te = teacher, Pe = peer, Tu = tutor)
Topic (Em = embodiment, So = social, Ro = role, Ot = other)
Paper claim (+1 for robot better, social better, -1 for non-robot better, non-social better, 0 for equivalent)
3
1Abildgaard JR, Scharfe H (2012)Denmarkmale vs female perceptionGeminoid-DK
1 condition, 2 groups, between subjects
affective (robot perception)not reportedNEDAd1R,H+PrOtJK
4
2
Alemi M, Meghdari A, Ghazisaedy M (2014)
Iranrobot + human vs just humanrobot vs humanNaobetween subjectscognitive (learning)0.3 (eta squared)30N/AN/A16N/AN/A0.001.31Ch1441R,H+TAOtJK
5
3
Alemi M, Meghdari A, Basiri NM, Taheri A (2015)
Iranpre vs mid vs post vs delayed post test of learningNaono condition comparisoncognitive (learning)not reportedNEDCh931R,H+TAOtJK
6
4
Alemi M, Meghdari A, Ghazisaedy M (2015)
Iranrobot + human vs just humanrobot vs humanNao2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (anxiety)not reported303.480.521630.77-2.50.010.780.151.41Ch144-1561R,H+TAOt
(lower anxiety reported for RALL students vs non-RALL students)
JK
7
5
Alves-Oliveira P, Ribeiro T, Petisca S, di Tullio E, Melo FS, Paiva A (2015)
Portugalexpectation vs satisfaction of robot interactionNaoaffective (satisfaction)not reportedNEDCh1R,2HTuOtJK
8
6
Blancas M, Vouloutsi V, Grechuta K, Verschure PF (2015)
Spainteacher robot vs peer robot vs no robot (human)robot vs humanNao3 conditions, between subjectscognitive (recall)not reported10108
not sig. (0.629)
NEDNEDNEDAd324.4872.481R,1HTe/PeRo
(no sig. difference in knowledge gain between teacher-robot and peer-robot).
JK
9
teacher robot vs peer robotNao
2 (3) conditions, between subjects
affective (Tripod survey/ subjective experience)
not reported103.330.75103.240.4982.60.340.3177
not sig. (0.7544)
0.14-0.741.02AdNEDNED1R,1HTe/PeRo
(no sig. difference in Tripod subjective experience between teacher-robot and peer-robot).
JK
10
7Brown L, Howard AM (2013)USAno robot vs verbal robot vs nonv robot vs non+ver robotrobot vs alternativeDARwIn-OP4 conditions, between subjects
cognitive (test completion time)
not reported5570.2230.035505.472.455583240.285645.2290.310.3280.03Ch156-2161R,1HTuSoJK
11
8
Brown L, Kerwin R, Howard AM (2013)
USAno robot vs verbal robot vs nonv robot vs non+ver robotrobot vs alternativeDARwIn-OP4 conditions between subjects
cognitive (test completion time)
not reported62026.83673.961424.5405.761461.83533.3361618.33673.841.3450.90Ad216-3961R,1HTuSoJK
12
no robot vs verbal robot vs nonv robot vs non+ver robotrobot vs alternativeDARwIn-OP4 conditions between subjectsaffective (survey)not reportedNEDAd216-3961R,1HTuSoJK
13
9Brown LN, Howard AM (2014)USArobot vs no robotrobot vs nothingDARwIn-OP2 conditions between subjects
cognitive (test completion time)
not reported120.490.14120.70.231.100.241.96Ad1R,1HTuJK
14
robot vs no robotrobot vs nothingDARwIn-OP2 conditions between subjects
cognitive (test completion time)
not reported100.550.08100.620.250.38-0.511.26Ch1R,1HTuJK
15
robot vs no robotrobot vs nothingDARwIn-OP2 conditions between subjectsaffective (survey)not reportedNEDBoth1R,1HTuJK
16
10
Clabaugh C, Ragusa G, Sha F, Mataric M (2015)
USAno robot manipulationsNaono condition comparisoncognitive31Ch36-481R,1HTuSo?JK
17
11Draper TW, Clayton WW (1992)USAteacher vs tape vs static robot vs moving robot vs noneHeathkit/Zenith Hero I 5 conditions, between subjectscognitive (recall)not reported1515.37158.66.41512.46.11511.97.91562.85.150.001belowCh36-601R,H+PrEm
(robots better than control for post-test knowledge)
JK
18
tape vs static robotrobot vs alternativeHeathkit/Zenith Hero I
2 (5) conditions, between subjects
cognitive (recall)not reported158.66.41512.46.10.62-0.111.35Ch1R,H+PrEmJK
19
static robot vs moving robotHeathkit/Zenith Hero I
2 (5) conditions, between subjects
cognitive (recall)not reported1512.46.11511.97.9-0.08-0.800.64Ch1R,H+PrSoJK
20
static robot vs moving robotHeathkit/Zenith Hero I
2 (5) conditions, between subjects
affective (attention time)not reported1578%1588%NEDNEDNEDCh1R,H+PrSoJK
21
12Fasola J, Mataric M (2013)USArobot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBandit
affective (interaction perception)
not reported1617NEDNEDNEDAd91275.841R,1HTuEmJK
22
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBanditaffective (robot perception)not reported1617NEDNEDNEDAd91275.841R,1HTuEmJK
23
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBanditcognitive (performance)not reported1617NEDNEDNEDAd91275.841R,1HTuEmJK
24
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBanditaffective (enjoyment)not reported16172.29<0.030.80.091.5Ad91275.841R,1HTuEmTB
25
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBanditaffective (value/useful)not reported16172.720.010.940.221.66Ad91275.841R,1HTuEmTB
26
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBanditaffective (robot helpfulness)not reported16172.660.010.930.221.65Ad91275.841R,1HTuEmTB
27
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBandit
affective (robot social attractiveness)
not reported16172.09<0.050.740.031.45Ad91275.841R,1HTuEmTB
28
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBandit
affective (robot social presence)
not reported16172.59<0.020.890.171.61Ad91275.841R,1HTuEmTB
29
robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenBanditcognitive (completion time)not reported1617not sig0.390.31.08Ad91275.841R,1HTuEmTB
30
14Fridin M (2014)Israelno robot manipulationsNaono condition comparisoncognitive & affectivenot reported10Ch36-43.21R,H+TASo?JK
31
15
Fujimoto I, Matsumoto T, De Silva PRS, Kobayashi M, Higashi M (2010)
Japanno robot manipulationsHOAP-3no condition comparisoncognitive (task performance)not reported4Ch1R,1HTu?TB
32
16Ghosh M, Tanaka F (2011)Japanfully competent vs incompetent robotNao2 conditions, between subjectscognitive & affectivenot reported99NEDNEDCh36-601R,H+PeSoTB
33
17Gordon G, Breazeal C (2015)USApre vs post interaction word learning (no robot manipulation)DragonBot1 condition, within subjectscognitive (word learning)not reported3434Ch48-961R, 1HPeSoEA
34
18
Gordon G, Breazeal C, Engel S (2015)
USAcurious robot vs curious tablet vs non-curious robotrobot vs alternativeDragonBot3 conditions, between subjectscognitive & affective (curiosity)not reported161319NEDCh7214.761R,1HTuSo/Em?TB
35
19
Gordon G, Spaulding S, Westlund JK, Lee JJ, Plummer L, Martinez M, Das M, Breazeal C (2016)
USAaffectively personalised vs non-personalised robotTega2 conditions, between subjectscognitive (word learning)not reported99NEDCh40.71R,1HTuSoTB
36
affectively personalised vs non-personalised robotTega2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (engagement)not reported99NEDCh40.71R,1HTuSoTB
37
affectively personalised vs non-personalised robotTega2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (change in valence)not reported97189-18180.031.390.362.42Ch40.71R,1HTuSoTB
38
20
Han JH, Jo MH, Jones V, Jo JH (2008)
South Koreabooks/audio vs computer vs robotrobot vs alternativeIROBI3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (concentration)not reported302.230.56302.520.76303.660.3319.5.00001.370.891.85Ch1R,1HTuEm
(robot better than book+audio and computer)
JK
39
books/audio vs computer vs robotrobot vs alternativeIROBI3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (interest)not reported303.40.72303.570.82304.470.6817.89.00001.320.841.80Ch1R,1HTuEm
(robot better than book+audio and computer)
JK
40
books/audio vs computer vs robotrobot vs alternativeIROBI3 conditions, between subjectscognitive (performance)not reported304.611.37304.81.09305.51.134.51.01370.660.211.11Ch1R,1HTuEm
(robot better than book+audio and computer)
JK
41
21
Hashimoto T, Kato N, Kobayashi H (2011)
Japanpre vs post exposure to robotSAYA1 condition, within subjects
affective (subjective impressions of robot)
not reported220.41-0.191.01Ch120-1321R,H+TeJK
42
22
Hastie H, Yii M, Lim SJ, Deshmukh A, Aylett R, Foster ME, Hall L (2016)
UKrobot refers to previous interaction vs notEMYS2 conditions, between subjectscognitive (performance)not reported
n per condition not stated (total 36)
0.900.201.61Ch132-1441R,2HTuSoJK
43
robot refers to previous interaction vs notEMYS 2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (likeability)not reported
n per condition not stated (total 36)
3.834.33<0.05NEDCh132-1441R,2HTuSoJK
44
robot refers to previous interaction vs notEMYS 2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (perceived empathy)not reported
n per condition not stated (total 36)
not sig.NEDCh132-1441R,2HTuSo
(with-memory less likable than without)
JK
45
24
Herberg J, Feller S, Yengin I, Saerbeck M (2015)
Singaporerobot watching vs robot not watchingNao2 conditions, within subjectscognitive (performance)not reported238.79<.01-1.24-0.34-2.13Ch131.732.991R,1HTuSo
-1 (more watchful robot condition found decreased overall learning compared with non-watchful robot condition)
JK
46
25
Hood D, Lemaignan S, Dillenbourg P (2015)
Switzerlandno robot manipulationsNaono condition comparisonCh72-961R,1H/1R,2HPeJK
47
26
Howley I, Kanda T, Hayashi K, Rose C (2014)
Japan
tutor robot vs tutor human vs teacher robot vs teacher human
robot vs alternativeATR Robovie R22x2 between subjectscognitive (learning)0.17 (r squared)2192096.740.0007NEDNEDNEDAd26425.81R,1HTu/TeEm/So1JK
48
tutor robot vs tutor human vs teacher robot vs teacher human
robot vs alternativeATR Robovie R22x2 between subjectsaffective (help seeking)0.30 (r squared)219209not sig. (.07)NEDAd26425.81R,1HTu/TeEm/So0JK
49
27
Huang CM, Mutlu B (2013) Repertoire
USA
socially congruent vs incongruent vs no behaviors (study 1; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjectscognitive (recall)
0.356 (eta squared)
n per condition not stated (total 32)
7.382.674.381.964.751.397.190.0031.49NEDNEDAd298.818-61yrs1R,1HPrSo1JK
50
socially congruent vs incongruent vs no behaviors (study 1; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjects
cognitive (coordination performance)
0.684 (partial eta squared)
n per condition not stated (total 32)
-975.26405.43582.14612.86457.05292.5128.11<.001Ad298.818-61yrs1R,1HPrSo
(congruent condition located object quicker than both incongruent and no behaviour condition).
EA
51
socially congruent vs incongruent vs no behaviors (study 1; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (naturalness)0.25 (eta squared)
n per condition not stated (total 32)
4.330.0241.16NEDNEDAd298.818-61yrs1R,1HPrSo1JK
52
socially congruent vs incongruent vs no behaviors (study 1; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (competence)
0.493 (eta squared)
n per condition not stated (total 32)
12.66<.0011.97NEDNEDAd298.818-61yrs1R,1HPrSo1JK
53
socially congruent vs incongruent vs no behaviors (study 1; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (likability)
0.111 (eta squared)
n per condition not stated (total 32)
2.25not sig. (.125)0.71NEDNEDAd298.818-61yrs1R,1HPrSo0JK
54
task behavior vs social behavior vs no behavior (study 2; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjectscognitive (recall)0.38 (eta squared)
n per condition not stated (total 24; assumed 8 per condition)
5.410.0151.57NEDNEDAd285.96110.761R,1HPrSo1JK
55
task behavior vs social behavior vs no behavior (study 2; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (engagement)not reported
n per condition not stated (total 24; assumed 8 per condition)
NEDNEDNEDAd285.96110.761R,1HPrSo0JK
56
task behavior vs social behavior vs no behavior (study 2; gaze)
Wakamaru3 conditions, between subjects
cognitive (participant response time to robot questions)
.30 (partial eta squared)
n per condition not stated (total 24; assumed 8 per condition)
3.890.039Ad285.96110.761R,1HPrSo0?EA
57
28
Huang CM, Mutlu B (2013) Learning
USAfixed vs random vs no behavior vs learned modelWakamaru4 conditions, between subjectsaffective (immediacy)not reported87866.910.002NEDNEDNEDAd271.4452.21R,1HPrSo1JK
58
fixed vs random vs no behavior vs learned modelWakamaru4 conditions, between subjectsaffective (naturalness)not reported87865.770.004NEDNEDNEDAd271.4452.21R,1HPrSo1JK
59
fixed vs random vs no behavior vs learned modelWakamaru4 conditions, between subjectsaffective (effectiveness)not reported87864.590.011NEDNEDNEDAd271.4452.21R,1HPrSo1JK
60
fixed vs random vs no behavior vs learned modelWakamaru4 conditions, between subjectsaffective (likability)not reported87866.440.002NEDNEDNEDAd271.4452.21R,1HPrSo1JK
61
fixed vs random vs no behavior vs learned modelWakamaru4 conditions, between subjectsaffective (credibility)not reported87862.07not sig. (.130)NEDNEDNEDAd271.4452.21R,1HPrSo0JK
62
fixed vs random vs no behavior vs learned modelWakamaru4 conditions, between subjectscognitive (recall)not reported87860.98not sig. (.418)NEDNEDNEDAd271.4452.21R,1HPrSo0JK
63
29
Hyun E, Kim S, Jang S, Park S (2008)
South Korearobot vs screenrobot vs screenIRobiQ2 conditions, between subjectscognitive (story making)not reported1700.99171.080.540.780.8604.551.34NaNNaNCh49.794.141R,1HTuEm1JK
64
robot vs screenrobot vs screenIRobiQ2 conditions, between subjects
cognitive (story understanding)
not reported170.030.96171.281.280.91.050.93.051.180.681.69Ch49.794.141R,1HTuEm1JK
65
robot vs screenrobot vs screenIRobiQ2 conditions, between subjectscognitive (vocabulary)not reported170.620.38170.760.640.610.834.2436.0320.22-0.390.83Ch49.794.141R,1HTuEm0JK
66
robot vs screenrobot vs screenIRobiQ2 conditions, between subjectscognitive (recognition)not reported171.292.72175.294.543.545.921.676.030.920.421.42Ch49.794.141R,1HTuEm1JK
67
30
Jacq A, Garcia F, Dillenbourg P, Paiva A, et al (2016)
Switzerlandno robot manipulationsNaono condition comparisonCh60-961R,1HTuJK
68
31
Janssen J, van der Wal C, Neerincx M, Looije R (2011)
Netherlandspersonalized vs non-personalized learning behaviorNao2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (relatedness)not reported10100.16not sig. (0.85)0.180.71.06Ch108-1201R,1HTuSo0JK
69
personalized vs non-personalized learning behaviorNao2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (interest)not reported10100.01not sig. (0.99)0.05-0.830.92Ch108-1201R,1HTuSo0JK
70
personalized vs non-personalized learning behaviorNao2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (free play)not reported91301541060126<0.050.50-0.411.42Ch108-1201R,1HTuSo1JK
71
32
Jones A, Castellano G, Bull S (2014)
UKrobot vs robot + screen vs screen onlyrobot vs alternativeNao torso3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (enjoyment)not reported174.460.44174.520.33174.050.66
not sig. (0.057)
0.730.041.43Ch132-1441R,1HTuEm0JK
72
robot vs robot + screen vs screen onlyrobot vs alternativeNao torso3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (understanding)not reported174.410.47174.650.28174.130.63
not sig. (0.205)
0.50-0.181.19Ch132-1441R,1HTuEm0JK
73
robot vs robot + screen vs screen onlyrobot vs alternativeNao torso3 conditions, between subjectsaffective (trust)not reported174.220.51174.430.42174.180.67
not sig. (0.973)
0.07-0.610.74Ch132-1441R,1HTuEm0JK
74
34
Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004)
Japanno robot manipulationsRobotivewithin subjects interaction
affective (time spent with robot)/ cognitive (English learning)
0.33 (d)2285.60.02NEDNEDNEDCh
72-84/132-144
1R, H+Pe/TuSo/Em
More time spent with robot in 2nd week of interaction (i.e. relationship formed) = more learning post-test.
EA
75
35
Kanda T, Shimada M, Koizumi S (2012)
Japansocial robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjects
cognitive (learning achievement)
15161.97
not sig. (0.174)
NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo0 (Non-So > So but not sig.)EA
76
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (likability of robot)not reported15169.970.004NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo1 (So > Non-So)EA
77
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjects
affective (perceived familiarisation to robot)
not reported151620.98<.001NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo1 (So > Non-So)EA
78
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjects
affective (desire to be liked by robot)
not reported15166.030.022NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo1 (So > Non-So)EA
79
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjects
affective (robot perceived as 'friend-like')
not reported151627.35<.001NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo1 (So > Non-So)EA
80
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjects
affective (robot perceived as 'teacher-like')
15161.16
not sig. (0.292)
NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo
0 (So > Non-So, But not sig.)
EA
81
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (enjoyment)Not reported15167.990.01NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo1 (So > Non-So)EA
82
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjects
affective (social acceptance a. intention to use robot in another class)
Not reported15166.80.016NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo1 (So > Non-So)EA
83
social robot vs non-social robot
Robovie-R3/ Lego Mindstorm
2 conditions, between subjects
affective (social acceptance a. intention to use robot in another class)
15161.03
not sig. (0.321)
NEDNEDNEDCh132-1441R, H+TASo
0 (So > Non-So, But not sig.)
EA
84
36
Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) Comparing
UKreal robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenNao2 conditions between subjectscognitive (learning gain)141.714.01122.422.780.51
not sig. (0.614)
-0.20-0.980.57Ch94.83.961R, 1HTeEm
0 (no sig diff in learning gain between real and virtual robot conditions)
EA
85
real robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenNao2 conditions between subjects
affective (compliance with robot suggestion)
14
89.5 (%)
21.312
77.7 (%)
17.91.568
not sig. (0.129)
0.60-0.191.38Ch94.83.961R, 1HTeEm
0 (no sig diff between real and virtual robot on compliance with robot suggestion)
EA
86
real robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenNao2 conditions between subjects
affective (gaze towards real/virtual robot: freq per min)
not reported145.191.29124.131.122.2960.030.870.071.68Ch94.83.961R, 1HTeEm
1 (children in the real robot condition gazed towards the robot more frequently per minute than the virtual robot condition)
EA
87
real robot vs virtual robotrobot vs screenNao2 conditions between subjects
affective (gaze towards real/virtual robot: sec per min)
not reported149.41.88127.531.932.5860.0160.980.171.80Ch94.83.961R, 1HTeEm
1 (children in the real robot condition gazed towards the robot for longer (seconds per minute) than the virtual robot condition)
EA
88
37
Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) Robot
UKrobot (asocial) (no robot manipulation)Nao
within subjects (pre-post robot)
cognitive (learning gains)not reported116.27118.452.5970.027NEDNEDNEDCh84-961R, 1HTeEm
1 (The presence of a robot (where presence is the only difference between conditions), results in greater learning improvements, compared with no robot).
EA
89
no robot (screen) (no robot manipulation)Nao
within subjects (pre-post no robot)
cognitive (learning gains)115.91117.36
not sig. (0.329)
NEDNEDNEDCh84-961R, 1HTeEm1 (As above).EA
90
robot (asocial) vs no robot (screen) robot vs screenNao2 conditions, between subjects
cognitive (learning improvement)
112.18111.46
not sig. (0.664)
NEDNEDNEDCh84-961R, 1HTeEm
0 (Robot vs no robot found no sig diff between learning improvement).
EA
91
social robot vs asocial robotNao
2 conditions, within subjects (pre-post social robot)
cognitive (learning gains)125.83127.17
not sig. (0.132)
NEDNEDNEDCh84-961R, 1HTeEm
0 (More social does not result in greater learning gains)
EA
92
social vs asocial robotNao2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (gaze towards robot)not reported
see notes
12.9
see notes
8.92.4250.026NEDNEDNEDCh84-961R, 1HTeSo
1 (More gaze towards robot in social condition vs asocial condition)
EA
93
social vs asocial robot Nao2 conditions, between subjects
affective (perceived role of robot)
not reported
as above
17 (%)
as above
64.0 (%)
0.036NEDNEDNEDCh84-961R, 1HTeSo
Asocial robot was perceived as a teacher more than the social robot
EA
94
girls vs boys (no robot manipulation)Nao2 conditions between subjectscognitive (learning gains)not reported232.77220.42.1920.04NEDNEDNEDCh84-961R, 1HTeSo
Within robot conditions (social and asocial), girls improved more than boys
EA
95
38
Kennedy J, Baxter P, Senft E, Belpaeme T (2015)
UKhigh non-verbal immediacy robot (no robot manipulation)Nao
within subjects (pre-post High NVI)
cognitive (learning gains)not reported115.091173.0570.012NEDNEDNEDCh104.881R, 1HTeSo
1 (High non-verbal immediacy robot resulted in learning improvements, compared with low non-verbal immediacy robot, which did not).
EA
96
Low non-verbal immediacy robot (no robot manipulation)Nao
within subjects (pre-post Low NVI)
cognitive (learning gains)127.08128
not sig. (>0.05)
NEDNEDNEDCh104.881R, 1HTeSo1 (As above)EA
97
high vs low non-verbal immediacy robotNao2 conditions, between subjects
cognitive (learning improvement)
1112not sig.NEDNEDNEDCh104.881R, 1HTeSo
0 (Direct comparison of learning improvement between high NVI and low NVI was not significantly different).
EA
98
high vs low non-verbal immediacy robotNao2 conditions between subjects
affective (perceived immediacy)
not reported1155.112512.031
almost sig. (0.055)
NEDNEDNEDCh104.881R, 1HTeSo
0? (Reasonable support/ trend towards sig. that perceived immediacy was higher in the high NVI robot group than the low NVI group).
EA
99
high vs low non-verbal immediacy robotNao2 conditions, between subjects
affective (robot perceived as 'friend')
not reported1155%128%0.027NEDNEDNEDCh104.881R, 1HTeSo
1 (High NVI group were sig. more likely to report robot as a friend than low NVI group)
EA
100
high vs low non-verbal immediacy robotNao2 conditions, between subjectsaffective (gaze at robot: time)915.91115.4
not sig. (p>0.05)
NEDNEDNEDCh104.881R, 1HTeSo
0 (No sig difference between high NVI robot and low NVI robot on length of time children spent looking at robot).
EA
Loading...
Main menu