Difference In Looking Time Research Articles

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.

Approval and Disapproval: Infant Responsiveness to Vocal Affect in Familiar and Unfamiliar Languages

In a series of 5 auditory preference experiments, 120 5-month-old infants were presented with Approval and Prohibition vocalizations in infant-directed (ID) and adult-directed (AD) English, and in ID speech in nonsense English and 3 unfamiliar languages, German, Italian, and Japanese. Dependent measures were looking-time to the side of stimulus presentation, and positive and negative facial affect. No consistent differences in looking-time were found. However, infants showed small but significant differences in facial affect in response to ID vocalizations in every language except Japanese. Infants smiled more to Approvals, and when they showed negative affect, it was more likely to occur in response to Prohibitions. Infants did not show differential affect in response to Approvals and Prohibitions in AD speech. The results indicate that young infants can discriminate affective vocal expressions in ID speech in several languages and that ID speech is more effective than AD speech in eliciting infant affect.