CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI

Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Astrid M., Schulte, Frank P., Eimler, Sabrina C., Sobieraj, Sabrina, Hoffmann, Laura, Maderwald, Stefan, Brand, Matthias, Krämer, Nicole C.·2014·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.004

Cites

11 of 11 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Akitsuki, 2009, Social context and perceived agency affects empathy for pain: An event-related fMRI investigation, NeuroImage, 47, 722, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.091 · DOI
  2. Althaus, P., Ishiguro, H., Kanda, T., Miyashita, T., & Christensen, H. I. (2004). Navigation for human–robot interaction tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2004) (pp. 1894–1900). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2004.1308100. · DOI
  3. Aziz-Zadeh, 2012, Understanding otherness: The neural bases of action comprehension and pain empathy in a congenital amputee, Cerebral Cortex, 22, 811, 10.1093/cercor/bhr139 · DOI
  4. Bartneck, C. (2002). eMuu – An embodied emotional character for the ambient intelligent home. (unpublished PhD thesis). Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven. <http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2002/eMuu/bartneckPHDThesis2002.pdf>.
  5. Bartneck, C., Rosalia, C., Menges, R., & Deckers, I. (2006). Robot abuse – A limitation of the Media Equation. In CHI ‘06. Proceedings of the conference on computer–human interaction. Montréal, Québec, Canada.
  6. Bartneck, 2008, Exploring the abuse of robots, Interaction Studies, 9, 415, 10.1075/is.9.3.04bar · DOI
  7. Becker-Asano, C., & Ishiguro, H. (2009). Laughter in social robotics – No laughing matter. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Social Intelligence Design (SID2009) (pp. 287–300).
  8. Becker-Asano, 2008, Affect simulation with primary and secondary emotions: Intelligent virtual agents, Vol. 5208, 15
  9. Bethel, C. L., & Murphy, R. R. (2006). Affective expression in appearance-constrained robots. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEE conference on human–robot interaction (pp. 327–328). · DOI
  10. Blow, M. P., Dautenhahn, K., Appleby, A., Nehaniv, C. L., & Lee, D. (2006a). Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human–robot interaction design. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2006) (pp. 469–474). · DOI
  11. Blow, M. P., Dautenhahn, K., Appleby, A., Nehaniv, C. L., & Lee, D. (2006b). The art of designing robot faces – Dimensions for human–robot Interaction. In M. A. Goodrich, A. C. Schultz, & D. J. Bruemmer (Eds.), HRI’06. Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 321–332). NY, USA: ACM New York. · DOI
  12. Breazeal, C. L. (2002). Designing sociable robots: Issues and lessons. In K. Dautenhahn, A. H. Bond, L. Cañamero, & B. Edmonds (Eds.), Socially intelligent agents. Creating relationships with computers and robots. Creating relationships with computers and robots (pp. 149–156). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Breazeal, 2003, Emotion and sociable humanoid robots: Applications of affective computing in human–computer interaction, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 119, 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00018-1 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cañamero, 2002, Playing the emotion game with feelix: Socially intelligent agents, 69, 10.1007/0-306-47373-9_8 · DOI
  15. Chaminade, 2010, Brain response to a humanoid robot in areas implicated in the perception of human emotional gestures, PLoS One, 5, e11577 EP, 10.1371/journal.pone.0011577 · DOI
  16. Cox, 2012, The balance between feeling and knowing: Affective and cognitive empathy are reflected in the brain’s intrinsic functional dynamics, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 727, 10.1093/scan/nsr051 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Cramer, H., Goddijn, J., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2010). Effects of (in) accurate empathy and situational valence on attitudes towards robots. In P. Hinds (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot Interaction (HRI’10) (pp. 141–142). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press. · DOI
  18. Davis, 1980, A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy, JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 1
  19. Deutsch, 1975, Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations, measurement, and a cognitive theoretical perspective, Human Development, 267, 10.1159/000271488 · DOI
  20. Fossati, 2003, In search of the emotional self: An fMRI study using positive and negative emotional words, American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1938, 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1938 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Frith, 2003, Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358, 459, 10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Gadanho, 2001, Robot learning driven by emotions, Adaptive Behavior, 9, 42, 10.1177/105971230200900102 · DOI
  23. Gazzola, 2007, The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions, NeuroImage, 35, 1674, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.003 · DOI
  24. Gockley, R., Bruce, A., Forlizzi, J., Michalowski, M. P., & Mundell, A. (2005). Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2005) (pp. 2199–2204). · DOI
  25. Gratch, J., & Marsella, S. (2001). Tears and fears: Modeling emotions and emotional behaviors in synthetic agents. In International conference on autonomous agents. · DOI
  26. Gusnard, 2001, Medial prefrontal cortex and self-referential mental activity: Relation to a default mode of brain function, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 4259, 10.1073/pnas.071043098 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hein, 2008, I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain and its modulation: Cognitive neuroscience, Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18, 153, 10.1016/j.conb.2008.07.012 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hoffman, 1977, Empathy, its development and prosocial implications, vol. 25
  29. Hoffmann, L., Krämer, N. C., Lam-Chi, A., & Kopp, S. (2009). Media Equation revisited: Do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent? In Z. Ruttkay, M. Kipp, A. Nijholt, & H. Vilhjálmsson (Eds.). Vol. 5773. Lecture notes in computer science, intelligent virtual agents 2009 (pp. 159–165). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag. · DOI
  30. Hüttenrauch, H., & Severinson-Eklundh, K. (2002). Fetch and carry with CERO: Observations from a long term user study with a service robot. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2002) (pp. 158–164). · DOI
  31. Jabbi, 2007, Empathy for positive and negative emotions in the gustatory cortex, NeuroImage, 34, 1744, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.10.032 · DOI
  32. Kahn P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B. T., Jolina H. Ruckert, Shen, S., et al. (2012a). Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In Holly A. Yanco, A. Steinfeld, V. Evers, & Odest Chadwicke Jenkins (Eds.), International conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’12, Boston, MA, USA – March 05–08, 2012 (pp. 33–40). ACM. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Kahn, 2012, “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot, Developmental Psychology, 48, 303, 10.1037/a0027033 · DOI
  34. Kanda, 2004, Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial, Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 61, 10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4 · DOI
  35. Kanda, 2008, Analysis of humanoid appearances in human–robot interaction, IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24, 725, 10.1109/TRO.2008.921566 · DOI
  36. Koay, K. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Living with robots: Investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human–robot interaction study. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2007) (pp. 564–569). · DOI
  37. Krach, 2008, Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI, PLoS One, 3, e2597, 10.1371/journal.pone.0002597 · DOI
  38. Krämer, 2011, Theory of companions: what can theoretical models contribute to applications and understanding of human–robot interaction?, Applied Artificial Intelligence, 25, 474, 10.1080/08839514.2011.587153 · DOI
  39. Krauss, 1991, Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference, Social Cognition, 9, 2, 10.1521/soco.1991.9.1.2 · DOI
  40. Lancaster, 1997, The Talairach daemon, a database server for Talairach atlas labels, NeuroImage, 5, S633
  41. Lancaster, 2000, Automated Talairach Atlas labels for functional brain mapping, Human Brain Mapping, 10, 120, 10.1002/1097-0193(200007)10:3<120::AID-HBM30>3.0.CO;2-8 · DOI
  42. Larsen, R. J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Measurement issues in emotion research. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.). Well-being. The foundations of hedonic psychology (1st ed., pp. 40–60). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  43. Leite, I., Martinho, C., Paiva, A., & Pereira, A. (2008). Social presence in long-term human–computer relationships. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on human–computer interaction.
  44. Leite, I., Martinho, C., Pereira, A., & Paiva, A. (2008). iCat: An affective game buddy based on anticipatory mechanisms. In L. Padgham, D. Parkes, & J. P. Müller (Eds.), AAMAS’2008. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 1229–1232). Estoril, Portugal.
  45. Lotze, 2006, Differential cerebral activation during observation of expressive gestures and motor acts, Neuropsychologia, 44, 1787, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.03.016 · DOI
  46. Maldjian, 2004, Precentral gyrus discrepancy in electronic versions of the Talairach atlas, NeuroImage, 21, 450, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.032 · DOI
  47. Maldjian, 2003, An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets, NeuroImage, 19, 1233, 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00169-1 · DOI
  48. Nass, 1996, Can computers be teammates?, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669, 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Nass, 1999, Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1093, 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00142.x · DOI · Paper page
  50. Orzada, S., Quick, H. H., Ladd, M. E., Bahr, A., Bolz, T., Yazdanbakhsh, P., et al. (2009). A flexible 8-channel transmit/receive body coil for 7 T human imaging. In Proceedings of the 17th annual meeting of ISMRM (p. 2999).
  51. Perry, 2012, Can we share the joy of others? Empathic neural responses to distress vs joy, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 909, 10.1093/scan/nsr073 · DOI
  52. Poser, 2009, 3D single-shot VASO using a Maxwell gradient compensated GRASE sequence, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 62, 255, 10.1002/mrm.22000 · DOI
  53. Poser, 2009, Investigating the benefits of multi-echo EPI for fMRI at 7T, NeuroImage, 45, 1162, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.007 · DOI
  54. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
  55. Renteria, A., Pastor, C., & Gaminde, G. (2010). Intelligent homes to assist elderly people. In Proceedings of international workshop on ambient assisted living.
  56. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, 2013, An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot, International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 17, 10.1007/s12369-012-0173-8 · DOI
  57. Saxe, 2006, Uniquely human social cognition, Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 235, 10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.001 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Sinha, 2004, Neural circuits underlying emotional distress in humans, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1032, 254, 10.1196/annals.1314.032 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Tai, 2004, The human premotor cortex is ‘mirror’ only for biological actions, Current Biology, 14, 117, 10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.005 · DOI
  60. von der Pütten, A. M., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). A survey on robot appearances. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI’12) (pp. 267–268). · DOI
  61. Watson, 1988, Development and validation of brief measure of positive ans negative affect: The PANAS scales, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063, 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., Schulte, F. P., Eimler, S. C., Sobieraj, S., Hoffmann, L., Maderwald, S., Brand, M., & Krämer, N. C.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-04
Volume
33
Pages
201-212
ISSN
0747-5632
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.004
Cited by
148
References
11
Language
en
Licence

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