From birth until puberty, children consistently improve in drawing ability, but they face a ‘period of oppression’ between ages 11 and 14, when their progression abruptly slows and stagnates. In contrast, drawing development has been viewed as the growth of an individualistic skill of which some are more or less proficient. Overall, this approach draws equivalence between drawing and the cognitive attributes of other domains of human expression. Such a drawing system is parallel to the resilient systems of language that appear when children are not exposed to a linguistic system within a critical developmental period. Without sufficient practice and exposure to an external system, a basic system persists despite arguably impoverished developmental conditions. Because drawings express concepts in the visual-graphic modality using patterned schemas stored in a graphic lexicon that combine using ‘syntactic’ rules, development thus requires acquiring a vocabulary of these schemas from the environment. Why do we consider drawing to be so different from language? This paper argues that the structure and development of drawing is indeed analogous to that of language. Yet, unlike language, we consider it normal for people not to learn to draw, and consider those who do to be exceptional. Just as language is a representational system that uses systematic sounds (or manual/bodily signs) to express concepts, drawing is a means of graphically expressing concepts. This article is part of the theme issue 'From social brains to social robots: applying neurocognitive insights to human-robot interaction'.Īnimal-assisted therapy attachment caring human–robot interaction methodology touch trans-disciplinary.Both drawing and language are fundamental and unique to humans as a species. In doing so, this opinion piece outlines how useful objective, psychological measures of social cognition can be for deepening our understanding of HRI, and developing richer HRI methodologies, which take us away from questions that simply ask 'Is this a good robot?', and closer towards questions that ask 'What mechanism of effect is occurring here, through which effective HRI is being performed?' This paper further proposes that in using trans-disciplinary methodologies, experimental HRI can also be used to study human social cognition in and of itself. The empirical work draws on known mechanisms of effect in animal-assisted therapy, and behavioural observations of touch patterns and their relation to individual differences in caring and attachment styles, and details how this trans-disciplinary approach to HRI methodology development was used to explore how an interaction with an animal-like robot was impacting a user. The paper then briefly presents some novel empirical work as proof of concept to exemplify how the framework can help researchers define the mechanism of effect taking place within specific HRIs. The paper presents a framework that draws parallels between HRIs, and human-human, human-animal and human-object interaction literature, by considering the morphology and use of a robot to aid the development of robust HRI methodologies. This opinion paper discusses how human-robot interaction (HRI) methodologies can be robustly developed by drawing on insights from fields outside of HRI that explore human-other interactions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |