CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesSocial Robot Interaction and HRIEmotion and Mood Recognition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Feasibility Study for Validating Robot Actions Using EEG-Based Error-Related Potentials

Open access
Ehrlich, Stefan K., Cheng, Gordon·2019·International Journal of Social Robotics
DOI 10.1007/s12369-018-0501-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12369-018-0501-8

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • HRI is an EEG dataset recorded with 32 active electrodes (27 scalp EEG, all analyzed here, plus 3 electrooculography and 2 mastoid reference) designed to elicit ErrP during a choice-reaction-time task with cursor-movement feedback.

    “HRI 2 is an EEG dataset recorded with 32 active electrodes (27 scalp EEG, all analyzed here, plus 3 electrooculography and 2 mastoid reference) designed to elicit ErrP during a choice-reaction-time task with cursor-movement feedback [32].”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [32]

  • Ethical approval for the original data collection was obtained by the original investigators: the ERP CORE dataset was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of California, Davis, and the HRI ErrP dataset was approved by the ethics commission of the Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität München (reference number 236/15s).

    “Ethical approval for the original data collection was obtained by the original investigators: the ERP CORE dataset was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of California, Davis [33]; the HRI ErrP dataset was approved by the ethics commission of the Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (reference number 236/15s) [32].”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [32]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Alexander WH, Brown JW (2011) Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor. Nat Neurosci 14(10):1338 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Alves-Pinto A, Ehrlich S, Cheng G, Turova V, Blumenstein T, Lampe R (2017) Effects of short-term piano training on measures of finger tapping, somatosensory perception and motor-related brain activity in patients with cerebral palsy. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 13:2705 · DOI
  3. Bartneck C, Croft E, Kulic D (2008) Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. In: Metrics for HRI workshop, technical report, Citeseer, vol 471, pp 37–44
  4. Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Blankertz B, Lemm S, Treder M, Haufe S, Müller KR (2011) Single-trial analysis and classification of ERP components—a tutorial. NeuroImage 56(2):814–825 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, Carter CS, Cohen JD (2001) Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev 108(3):624 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chavarriaga R, Millán JR (2010) Learning from eeg error-related potentials in noninvasive brain–computer interfaces. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 18(4):381–388 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chavarriaga R, Sobolewski A, Millán JR (2014) Errare machinale est: the use of error-related potentials in brain–machine interfaces. Front Neurosci 8:208 · DOI
  9. Combrisson E, Jerbi K (2015) Exceeding chance level by chance: the caveat of theoretical chance levels in brain signal classification and statistical assessment of decoding accuracy. J Neurosci Methods 250:126–136 · DOI
  10. Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C, Walters ML, Koay KL, Werry I (2005) What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler? In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2005 (IROS 2005). IEEE, pp 1192–1197
  11. Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial eeg dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134(1):9–21 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Ehrlich S, Cheng G (2016) A neuro-based method for detecting context-dependent erroneous robot action. In: 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids). IEEE, pp 477–482 · DOI
  13. Ehrlich S, Cheng G (2018) Human-agent co-adaptation using error-related potentials. J Neural Eng 15:066014 · DOI
  14. Ehrlich S, Alves-Pinto A, Lampe R, Cheng G (2017) A simple and practical sensorimotor EEG device for recording in patients with special needs. In: Neurotechnix2017, CogNeuroEng 2017 · DOI
  15. Ferrez PW, Millán JdR (2005) You are wrong!—automatic detection of interaction errors from brain waves. In: Proceedings of the 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, EPFL-CONF-83269
  16. Ferrez PW, Millán JR (2008) Error-related eeg potentials generated during simulated brain–computer interaction. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(3):923–929 · DOI
  17. Friedman JH (1989) Regularized discriminant analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 84(405):165–175 · DOI
  18. Frischen A, Bayliss AP, Tipper SP (2007) Gaze cueing of attention: visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychol Bull 133(4):694 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Gombolay MC, Gutierrez RA, Clarke SG, Sturla GF, Shah JA (2015) Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams. Auton Robots 39(3):293–312 · DOI
  20. Goodrich MA, Schultz AC (2007) Human–robot interaction: a survey. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 1(3):203–275 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Gouaillier D, Hugel V, Blazevic P, Kilner C, Monceaux J, Lafourcade P, Marnier B, Serre J, Maisonnier B (2008) The nao humanoid: a combination of performance and affordability. CoRR arXiv:abs/08073223
  22. Hairston WD, Whitaker KW, Ries AJ, Vettel JM, Bradford JC, Kerick SE, McDowell K (2014) Usability of four commercially-oriented EEG systems. J Neural Eng 11(4):046,018 · DOI
  23. Holroyd CB, Coles MG (2002) The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychol Rev 109(4):679 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Holroyd CB, Dien J, Coles MG (1998) Error-related scalp potentials elicited by hand and foot movements: evidence for an output-independent error-processing system in humans. Neurosci Lett 242(2):65–68 · DOI
  25. Homan RW, Herman J, Purdy P (1987) Cerebral location of international 10–20 system electrode placement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 66(4):376–382 · DOI
  26. Huang CM, Mutlu B (2012) Robot behavior toolkit: generating effective social behaviors for robots. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 25–32
  27. Huang CM, Cakmak M, Mutlu B (2015) Adaptive coordination strategies for human–robot handovers. In: Robotics: science and systems · DOI
  28. Iturrate I, Montesano L, Minguez J (2010) Single trial recognition of error-related potentials during observation of robot operation. In: 2010 annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). IEEE, pp 4181–4184 · DOI
  29. Iturrate I, Montesano L, Minguez J (2013) Task-dependent signal variations in eeg error-related potentials for brain–computer interfaces. J Neural Eng 10(2):026,024 · DOI
  30. Iturrate I, Chavarriaga R, Montesano L, Minguez J, Millán JR (2015a) Teaching brain–machine interfaces as an alternative paradigm to neuroprosthetics control. Sci Rep 5(13):893
  31. Iturrate I, Grizou J, Omedes J, Oudeyer PY, Lopes M, Montesano L (2015b) Exploiting task constraints for self-calibrated brain–machine interface control using error-related potentials. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0131,491 · DOI
  32. Joosse M, Sardar A, Lohse M, Evers V (2013) Behave-II: the revised set of measures to assess users? attitudinal and behavioral responses to a social robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(3):379–388 · DOI
  33. Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E, Holcomb P (2000) The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Lang Cogn Process 15(2):159–201 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Kim SK, Kirchner EA, Stefes A, Kirchner F (2017) Intrinsic interactive reinforcement learning-using error-related potentials for real world human–robot interaction. Sci Rep 7(1):17,562 · DOI
  35. Kreilinger A, Neuper C, Müller-Putz GR (2012) Error potential detection during continuous movement of an artificial arm controlled by brain–computer interface. Med Biol Eng Comput 50(3):223–230 · DOI
  36. Llera A, van Gerven MA, Gómez V, Jensen O, Kappen HJ (2011) On the use of interaction error potentials for adaptive brain computer interfaces. Neural Netw 24(10):1120–1127 · DOI
  37. Lotte F, Guan C (2010) Learning from other subjects helps reducing brain–computer interface calibration time. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on acoustics speech and signal processing (ICASSP). IEEE, pp 614–617 · DOI
  38. Miltner WH, Braun CH, Coles MG (1997) Event-related brain potentials following incorrect feedback in a time-estimation task: evidence for a generic neural system for error detection. J Cogn Neurosci 9(6):788–798 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 287–294 · DOI
  40. Mutlu B, Shiwa T, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Footing in human–robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 61–68 · DOI
  41. Parra LC, Spence CD, Gerson AD, Sajda P (2003) Response error correction—a demonstration of improved human–machine performance using real-time EEG monitoring. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 11(2):173–177 · DOI
  42. Peirce JW (2007) Psychopy—psychophysics software in python. J Neurosci Methods 162(1–2):8–13 · DOI
  43. Ridderinkhof KR, Ullsperger M, Crone EA, Nieuwenhuis S (2004) The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control. Science 306(5695):443–447 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Salazar-Gomez AF, DelPreto J, Gil S, Guenther FH, Rus D (2017) Correcting robot mistakes in real time using EEG signals. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 6570–6577 · DOI
  45. Schäfer J, Strimmer K (2005) A shrinkage approach to large-scale covariance matrix estimation and implications for functional genomics. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 4(1):1175–1189 · DOI
  46. van Schie HT, Mars RB, Coles MG, Bekkering H (2004) Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nat Neurosci 7(5):549 · DOI
  47. Schlögl A, Keinrath C, Zimmermann D, Scherer R, Leeb R, Pfurtscheller G (2007) A fully automated correction method of EOG artifacts in EEG recordings. Clin Neurophysiol 118(1):98–104 · DOI
  48. Schmidt NM, Blankertz B, Treder MS (2012) Online detection of error-related potentials boosts the performance of mental typewriters. BMC Neurosci 13(1):19 · DOI
  49. Spüler M, Niethammer C (2015) Error-related potentials during continuous feedback: using EEG to detect errors of different type and severity. Front Hum Neurosci 9:155
  50. Spüler M, Rosenstiel W, Bogdan M (2012) Online adaptation of a c-VEP brain–computer interface (BCI) based on error-related potentials and unsupervised learning. PLoS ONE 7(12):e51,077 · DOI
  51. Szafir D, Mutlu B (2012) Pay attention!: designing adaptive agents that monitor and improve user engagement. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 11–20 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Van Herten M, Kolk HH, Chwilla DJ (2005) An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cogn Brain Res 22(2):241–255 · DOI
  53. Welke D, Behncke J, Hader M, Schirrmeister RT, Schönau A, Eßmann B, Müller O, Burgard W, Ball T (2017) Brain responses during robot-error observation. ArXiv preprint arXiv:170801465
  54. Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, McFarland DJ, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan TM (2002) Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol 113(6):767–791 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ehrlich, S. K., & Cheng, G.
Affiliations
Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Ehrlich, Stefan K.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Social Robotics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-11-02
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
271-283
ISSN
  • 1875-4791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-4805
DOI
10.1007/s12369-018-0501-8
OpenAlex
W2898324619
Cited by
58
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Robotics (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • International Graduate School of Science and Engineering
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
error-related potentials, EEG decoding, human-robot interaction, humanoid robots, real-time assessment, cross-task generalization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review