The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A robot's slip of the tongue: Effect of speech error on the familiarity of a humanoid robot
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the effect of speech errors made by a robot on people's perception of the familiarity of the robot. Four types of speech errors were implemented for a communicating robot. Subjects' perception of the familiarity of the robot, along with other subjective evaluations of impressions of the robot, were measured in an experiment and compared between conditions with and without speech error. Results showed that speech error improved the familiarity score when the robot did not make any speech errors in the first contact with subjects and then made speech errors in the second contact on a separate day. On the other hand, speech errors lowered people's perception of the sincerity of the robot. These results imply that the robot should not make speech errors in the early stage of engagement with human users, while some speech errors after the users become accustomed with the robot might be effective in improving users' perception of the familiarity of the robot. Results also showed that speech error improved familiarity for people having low-scoring attitudes about the diversity and operation of robots.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Various studies seem to suggest that failures can be a source of pleasurable interaction with robots (Bainbridge et al., 2008; Yasuda and Matsumoto, 2013; Gompei and Umemuro, 2015; Ragni et al., 2016; Mirnig et al., 2017).”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Gompei and Umemuro, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Failures reduce robots' perceived sincerity (Gompei and Umemuro, 2015), competence (Cha et al., 2015; Salem et al., 2015; Ragni et al., 2016), reliability (Salem et al., 2015; Ragni et al., 2016), understandability (Salem et al., 2015), trustworthiness (De Visser and Parasuraman, 2011; Desai et al., 2013; Salem et al., 2015; Law et al., 2017), intelligence (Takayama et al., 2011; Bajones et al., 2”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Gompei and Umemuro, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“when the robot made speech errors on the first day of contact, the robot's familiarity score did not change; when the robot made its first speech error on the second day of contact, the robots' familiarity score moderately improved as a result of the error.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Gompei and Umemuro (2015)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Failures reduce robots' perceived sincerity (Gompei and Umemuro, 2015), competence (Cha et al., 2015; Salem et al., 2015; Ragni et al., 2016), reliability (Salem et al., 2015; Ragni et al., 2016), understandability (Salem et al., 2015), trustworthiness (De Visser and Parasuraman, 2011; Desai et al., 2013; Salem et al., 2015; Law et al., 2017), intelligence (Takayama et al., 2011; Bajones et al., 2016; Ragni et al., 2016), and likeability (Bajones et al., 2016; Mirnig et al., 2017),”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Gompei and Umemuro, 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“NAO was by far the most commonly used robot (Gehle et al., 2015; Giuliani et al., 2015; Gompei and Umemuro, 2015; Mirnig et al., 2015, 2017; Engelhardt and Hansson, 2017; van der Woerdt and Haselager, 2017; Lucas et al., 2018),”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Gompei and Umemuro, 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Failures reduce robots' perceived sincerity (Gompei and Umemuro, 2015), competence (Cha et al., 2015; Salem et al., 2015; Ragni et al., 2016), reliability (Salem et al., 2015; Ragni et al., 2016), understandability (Salem et al., 2015), trustworthiness (De Visser and Parasuraman, 2011; Desai et al., 2013; Salem et al., 2015; Law et al., 2017), intelligence (Takayama et al., 2011; Bajones et al., 2”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Gompei and Umemuro, 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- sakamoto, 2011, Expression of human-likeness with communication robot PaPeRo, Proc Human-Agent Interaction Symposium 2011
- 10.7210/jrsj.19.362 · DOI
- saito, 2009, Kikimachigai no kigeki (Comedy of hearing wrong), Lzumia Liberalia Annals of Graduate School of Humanities Meiji University, 1, 92
- kidd, 2003, Sociable Robots The Role of Presence and Task in Human-robot Interaction
- 10.1109/ROMAN.2013.6628481 · DOI
- 0, NAO robot intelligent and friendly companion - Aldebaran
- nomura, 2006, Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction, AI & Society, 20, 138, 10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7 · DOI
- 10.7210/jrsj.17.782 · DOI
- 0, SDK, simple software for developing your NAO - Alde-baran
- 10.1109/HRI.2013.6483550 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Honig, S., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00861 · Cited by 338
To err is robot: how humans assess and act toward an erroneous social robot
Mirnig, N., Stollnberger, G., Miksch, M., Stadler, S., Giuliani, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2017) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2017.00021 · Cited by 244
Metadata
- Authors
- Gompei, T., & Umemuro, H.
- Affiliations
- Tokyo Institute of Technology (JP)
- Venue
- 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-08
- Pages
- 331-336
- ISSN
- 1944-9437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2136729004
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- IEEE RO-MAN (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
- Tokyo Tech Research Repository (Tokyo Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- humanoid robots, speech errors, human-robot interaction, robot communication
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
