Theory of Mind Assessment with Human-Human and Human-Robot Interactions

1. Tironi, A., Mainetti, R., Pezzera, M., Borghese, N.A.: An empathic virtual caregiver for assistance in exer-game-based rehabilitation therapies. In: 2019 IEEE 7th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2019)

   Google Scholar 

2. Ko, S., et al.: The effects of robot appearances, voice types, and emotions on emotion perception accuracy and subjective perception on robots. In: Stephanidis, C., Kurosu, M., Degen, H., Reinerman-Jones, L. (eds.) HCII 2020. LNCS, vol. 12424, pp. 174–193. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60117-1_13

3. Premack, D., Woodruff, G.: Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 1(4), 515–526 (1978)

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Thellman, S., Silvervarg, A., Ziemke, T.: Some adults fail the false-belief task when the believer is a robot. In: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 479–481 (2020)

   Google Scholar 

5. Dissing, L., Bolander, T.: Implementing theory of mind on a robot using dynamic epistemic logic. IJCA I, 1615–1621 (2020)

   Google Scholar 

6. Cadinu, M.R., Kiesner, J.: Children’s development of a theory of mind. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 15(2), 93–111 (2000)

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. Wellman, H.M., Cross, D., Watson, J.: Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Dev. 72(3), 655–684 (2001)

   Article  Google Scholar 

8. Bernstein, D.M., Thornton, W.L., Sommerville, J.A.: Theory of mind through the ages: older and middle-aged adults exhibit more errors than do younger adults on a continuous false belief task. Exp. Aging Res. 37(5), 481–502 (2011)

   Article  Google Scholar 

9. Pardini, M., Nichelli, P.: Age-related decline in mentalizing skills across adult life span. Exp. Aging Res. 35, pp. 98–106 (2009)

   Google Scholar 

10. Sullivan, S., Ruffman, T.: Social understanding: how does it fare with advancing years? Br. J. Psychol. 95(1), 1–18 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Wimmer, H., Perner, J.: Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13(1), 103–128 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

12. Ward, T., et al.: False-belief task. In: Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders, pp. 1249–1249 . Springer, New York (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_91

13. Gopnik, A., Astington, J.W.: Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Development, pp. 26–37 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

14. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A.M., Frith, U.: Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind’’? Cognition 21(1), 37–46 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. Hutchins, T.L., Prelock, P.A., Lewis, L.: Technical Manual of the Theory of Mind Inventory: Self Report-Adult (ToMI:SR-A). Unpublished Manuscript. Available at theoryofmindinventory.com (2019)

    Google Scholar 

16. Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S.: Toward formalizing common-sense psychology: an analysis of the false-belief task. In: Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2008) 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89197-0_6

17. Breazeal, C., Gray, J., Berlin, M.: An embodied cognition approach to mindreading skills for socially intelligent robots. Int. J. Robot. Res. 28(5), 656–680 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

18. Sindlar, M.P., Dastani, M.M., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Mental state abduction of BDI-based agents. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5397, pp. 161–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-93920-7_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

19. Baratgin, J., Dubois-Sage, M., Jacquet, B., Stilgenbauer, J.L., Jamet, F.: Pragmatics in the false-belief task: let the robot ask the question! Front. Psychol. 11, 3234 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

20. Haring, K.S., Matsumoto, Y., Watanabe, K.: How do people perceive and trust a lifelike robot. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 1, Citeseer (2013)

    Google Scholar 

21. Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 71–81 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

22. Campbell, D. et al.: Theory of mind. In: Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders, pp. 3111–3115. Springer, New York (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3

23. Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19(2), 98–100 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

24. Ho, C.C., MacDorman, K.F.: Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(6), 1508–1518 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

25. Lehmann, H., Rojik, A., Hoffmann, M.: Should a small robot have a small personal space? Investigating personal spatial zones and proxemic behavior in human-robot interaction (2020)

    Google Scholar 

26. Thunberg, S.: Investigating the social influence of different humanoid robots. Undergraduate thesis, Linköping University (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references