Research ArticleHUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTION

The human brain reveals resting state activity patterns that are predictive of biases in attitudes toward robots

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Robotics  30 Sep 2020:
Vol. 5, Issue 46, eabb6652
DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.abb6652
  • Fig. 1 Example scenario from the InStance Test with response options.

    One of the scenarios used [from (13)] with the two description options and a slider to make the decision (“mechanistic”/“design stance” explanation on the right versus “intentional” explanation on the left). Note that we refer to mechanistic descriptions as design stance, although they could also be referred to as descriptions relating to physical stance. However, given that the design stance is related more to man-made artifacts rather than natural phenomena and offers descriptions at a higher level of abstraction than the physical stance, we categorize these descriptions as stemming from a design stance rather than a physical stance [Credit: figure 3A of (13)].

  • Fig. 2 An example experimental trial.

    A trial started upon spacebar press, which the participants were asked to keep pressed until they were ready to give a response. They heard both response options during the presentation of the sequence; the order of the response options was counterbalanced between participants. This was followed by a sliding scale, on which participants rated how well they found the sentences described the visually presented scenarios. The epoch of interest for EEG analysis is marked as the red rectangle on the timeline, immediately preceding spacebar release.

  • Fig. 3 Differences in beta activity during resting state.

    Plot showing the differences between participants in the intentional-stance group and the design-stance group (on the x axis) in their resting state beta activity (13 to 27 Hz). For the y axis, the resting state beta activity with eyes open was computed for each participant, averaged across the C5 and C6 electrodes placed centrally on the scalp, and standardized in z scores. Z scores were obtained by subtracting the overall mean value from the raw values and dividing by the SD. The dots represent the average value for each group. Error bars represent the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval.

  • Fig. 4 Summary of results related to the resting state beta activity.

    All topographies were obtained by calculating the average beta band power (13 to 27 Hz) by applying an FFT to the whole resting state recording (eyes open). Topographies show the activity displayed by participants in the design-stance group and the intentional-stance group, grand-averaged. The third topography shows a t values map of clusters where statistically significant differences (channels marked as “x”) between design-stance and intentional-stance participants were found by means of nonparametric cluster-based permutation tests. Z values indicate standardized beta activity, obtained by subtracting the overall mean value from the raw values and dividing by the SD. t values are defined as the ratio of the difference between the estimated mean values of two groups to its SE.

  • Fig. 5 Summary of task-related gamma band activity (28 to 45 Hz) during the 250 ms before response.

    The topographies were obtained by calculating the average power spectrum values obtained by means of Morlet wavelet transform on the selected time window and show the activity displayed by the design-stance group and intentional-stance group, grand-averaged. The third topography shows a t values map of clusters where statistically significant differences (channels marked as asterisks) between the groups were found by means of nonparametric cluster-based permutation tests. Z values indicate standardized gamma activity, obtained by subtracting trial-based mean value from raw values and dividing by the trial-based SD. t values are defined as the ratio of the difference between the estimated mean values of two groups to its SE.

Supplementary Materials

  • robotics.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/5/46/eabb6652/DC1

    Text

    Fig. S1. Plot showing the differences between participants in the intentional-stance group, undecided group, and design-stance group (on the x axis) in their resting state beta activity (13 to 27 Hz).

    Table S1. Group demographic difference statistics.

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Text
    • Fig. S1. Plot showing the differences between participants in the intentional-stance group, undecided group, and design-stance group (on the x axis) in their resting state beta activity (13 to 27 Hz).
    • Table S1. Group demographic difference statistics.

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Stay Connected to Science Robotics

Navigate This Article