Class 7 - Social robots

Question 1

Referential indeterminacy

Answer 1

situation in which different people vary in naming objects

Question 2

Cross-situational learning

Answer 2

Mechanism for learning the meaning of words across multiple exposures, despite exposure-by-exposure uncertainty as to the word’s true meaning.

Question 3

T/F: Cross-situational learning is considered a supervised learning model

Answer 3

False, it is considered unsupervised

Question 4

Does cross-situational learning cope well with synonyms?

Answer 4

No

Question 5

Does cross-situational learning cope well with inconsistent input?

Answer 5

No

Question 6

What methods can we use to solve the scaling problem with inconsistent input (in the context of cross-situational learning)?

Answer 6

Scaffold model
Mutual exclusivity
Principle of contrast
Social mechanisms

Question 7

Developmental robots

Answer 7

Robots used to test and validate theories about the role of interacting with the physical world on child language development.

Question 8

Developmental robots can…

Answer 8

1. be implemented with a theoretical model based on child behavior
2. implement on the robot an AI theory about learning and see if they perform the same way as children in a learning task

Question 9

N3C law

Answer 9

predicts learner will learn in all conditions

Question 10

Mutual Exclusivity

Answer 10

states that children learn better in 2-competitor conditions

Question 11

The 2 main conclusions of the paper by Twoney et al. are that…

Answer 11

1. mutual exclusivity can account for learning
2. explains how associative learning mechanism (matching a symbol / spelled word to its referent) can explain the “emergence” of mutual exclusivity

Question 12

Referent selection in children

Answer 12

choosing the referent of a new word in an ambiguous environment

Question 13

T/F: in robots, the learning effect can be inferred by looking at the robot’s activation function during a learning task

Answer 13

True

from lecture: “the decay in activation function reduces effect of learning when visual process takes longer.”

Question 14

T/F: Language is grounded in interactions with physical

world

Answer 14

True

Question 15

T/F: Embodied interactions may improve learning gain

Answer 15

True

Question 16

In the context of effective tutoring, what does it mean that “interactions should be pedagogically sound”? (pick one)

A. ensuring that interactions provide qualitative input to optimize learning gain
B. children need to want to interact with the tutor for a prolonged period of time
C. children need to remain motivated to learn new skills

Answer 16

A. ensuring that interactions provide qualitative input to optimize learning gain

Question 17

Multimodal interaction

Answer 17

using different modalities to communicate, i.e., gestures, pointing to objects, iconic gestures

Question 18

Gesture-enriched vocabulary learning can…

1. support vocabulary learning in adults & children (T/F)?
2. work for different languages (T/F)?
3. have a short-and long-term effect (T/F)?

Answer 18

True
True
True

Question 19

Two important reasons why the robot should be seen as “peer” from the child’s point of view rather than a “teacher” during children-robot tutoring…

Answer 19

1. the robot can make deliberate mistakes, allowing the children to correct it
2. allows the robot to provide constructive negative feedback

Question 20

What does “common ground” stand for in the context of child-robot interaction?

Answer 20

The robot and the child know things about each other and what to expect from each other

Question 21

T/F: a common ground is established during the first encounter between child and robot and does not get updated during future interactions

Answer 21

False, it gets updated

Question 22

Short-term common ground

Answer 22

During a child-robot interaction, going back to events that happened in the close past where both child and robot were present and refer to them.

Question 23

Long-term common ground

Answer 23

Knowing things about each other’s past (child and robot)

Question 24

T/F: Overall, personalization of a a child-robot interaction improves the learning experience

Answer 24

True

Question 25

T/F: a personalization technique such as the robot asking the child about their name, hobbies etc…(pick one):

A. makes the interaction more enjoyable

B. improves learning

Answer 25

A. makes the interaction more enjoyable

Question 26

T/F: a personalization technique such as adjusting instructions to the child’s attained skills (pick one):

A. makes the interaction more enjoyable

B. improves learning

Answer 26

B. improves learning

Question 27

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximity

Answer 27

the space between what a learner can do without assistance and what a learner can do with adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.

Question 28

A robot should keep the child in the Zone of Proximity by…

Answer 28

1. staying ahead of child to remain challenging & interesting…
2. …but not too far ahead to prevent frustrations
3. using scaffolding techniques to provide support and bring the child in the zone – hinting to the child how to perform an activity, but not giving the whole solution away

Question 29

T/F: Joint attention can only be established through gaze

Answer 29

False, it can also use gestures, language or salient events

Question 30

In their experiment, Vogt et al. (2019), used a tablet to make children interact with the robot: why?

Answer 30

1. the tablet allowed to solve disambiguation caused by different pronunciations of second languages (also, high pitch of children is more difficult to understand for computers)
2. it also helped by reducing reliance on vision for the robot

Question 31

T/F: The results form Vogt et al. (2019) showed that there was a significant difference in word learning between group of children using a tablet and groups interacting with the Nao robot

Answer 31

False, no word knowledge differences between tablet-only, robot with iconic gestures, robot without iconic gestures were found

Question 32

T/F: The results from Vogt et al. (2019) showed that there was a significant difference in engagement between groups of children where the robot used iconic gestures vs groups where the robot did not use iconic gestures

Answer 32

True