@article{KuehneFischerZhou2020, author = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Fischer, Martin H. and Zhou, Yuefang}, title = {The Human Takes It All}, series = {Frontiers in Neurorobotics}, volume = {14}, journal = {Frontiers in Neurorobotics}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1662-5218}, doi = {10.3389/fnbot.2020.593732}, pages = {15}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Background: The increasing involvement of social robots in human lives raises the question as to how humans perceive social robots. Little is known about human perception of synthesized voices. Aim: To investigate which synthesized voice parameters predict the speaker's eeriness and voice likability; to determine if individual listener characteristics (e.g., personality, attitude toward robots, age) influence synthesized voice evaluations; and to explore which paralinguistic features subjectively distinguish humans from robots/artificial agents. Methods: 95 adults (62 females) listened to randomly presented audio-clips of three categories: synthesized (Watson, IBM), humanoid (robot Sophia, Hanson Robotics), and human voices (five clips/category). Voices were rated on intelligibility, prosody, trustworthiness, confidence, enthusiasm, pleasantness, human-likeness, likability, and naturalness. Speakers were rated on appeal, credibility, human-likeness, and eeriness. Participants' personality traits, attitudes to robots, and demographics were obtained. Results: The human voice and human speaker characteristics received reliably higher scores on all dimensions except for eeriness. Synthesized voice ratings were positively related to participants' agreeableness and neuroticism. Females rated synthesized voices more positively on most dimensions. Surprisingly, interest in social robots and attitudes toward robots played almost no role in voice evaluation. Contrary to the expectations of an uncanny valley, when the ratings of human-likeness for both the voice and the speaker characteristics were higher, they seemed less eerie to the participants. Moreover, when the speaker's voice was more humanlike, it was more liked by the participants. This latter point was only applicable to one of the synthesized voices. Finally, pleasantness and trustworthiness of the synthesized voice predicted the likability of the speaker's voice. Qualitative content analysis identified intonation, sound, emotion, and imageability/embodiment as diagnostic features. Discussion: Humans clearly prefer human voices, but manipulating diagnostic speech features might increase acceptance of synthesized voices and thereby support human-robot interaction. There is limited evidence that human-likeness of a voice is negatively linked to the perceived eeriness of the speaker.}, language = {en} } @article{ManningGossnerBossdorfetal.2015, author = {Manning, Pete and Gossner, Martin M. and Bossdorf, Oliver and Allan, Eric and Zhang, Yuan-Ye and Prati, Daniel and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and Boch, Steffen and B{\"o}hm, Stefan and B{\"o}rschig, Carmen and H{\"o}lzel, Norbert and Jung, Kirsten and Klaus, Valentin H. and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kleinebecker, Till and Krauss, Jochen and Lange, Markus and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Pasalic, Esther and Socher, Stephanie A. and Tschapka, Marco and T{\"u}rke, Manfred and Weiner, Christiane and Werner, Michael and Gockel, Sonja and Hemp, Andreas and Renner, Swen C. and Wells, Konstans and Buscot, Francois and Kalko, Elisabeth K. V. and Linsenmair, Karl Eduard and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Fischer, Markus}, title = {Grassland management intensification weakens the associations among the diversities of multiple plant and animal taxa}, series = {Ecology : a publication of the Ecological Society of America}, volume = {96}, journal = {Ecology : a publication of the Ecological Society of America}, number = {6}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0012-9658}, doi = {10.1890/14-1307.1}, pages = {1492 -- 1501}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Land-use intensification is a key driver of biodiversity change. However, little is known about how it alters relationships between the diversities of different taxonomic groups, which are often correlated due to shared environmental drivers and trophic interactions. Using data from 150 grassland sites, we examined how land-use intensification (increased fertilization, higher livestock densities, and increased mowing frequency) altered correlations between the species richness of 15 plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate taxa. We found that 54\% of pairwise correlations between taxonomic groups were significant and positive among all grasslands, while only one was negative. Higher land-use intensity substantially weakened these correlations(35\% decrease in rand 43\% fewer significant pairwise correlations at high intensity), a pattern which may emerge as a result of biodiversity declines and the breakdown of specialized relationships in these conditions. Nevertheless, some groups (Coleoptera, Heteroptera, Hymenoptera and Orthoptera) were consistently correlated with multidiversity, an aggregate measure of total biodiversity comprised of the standardized diversities of multiple taxa, at both high and lowland-use intensity. The form of intensification was also important; increased fertilization and mowing frequency typically weakened plant-plant and plant-primary consumer correlations, whereas grazing intensification did not. This may reflect decreased habitat heterogeneity under mowing and fertilization and increased habitat heterogeneity under grazing. While these results urge caution in using certain taxonomic groups to monitor impacts of agricultural management on biodiversity, they also suggest that the diversities of some groups are reasonably robust indicators of total biodiversity across a range of conditions.}, language = {en} } @article{KuehneFischerJeglinskiMende2022, author = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Fischer, Martin H. and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A.}, title = {During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance}, series = {Scientific Reports}, volume = {12}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2045-2322}, doi = {10.1038/s41598-022-16730-1}, pages = {1 -- 12}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Peripersonal space is the space surrounding our body, where multisensory integration of stimuli and action execution take place. The size of peripersonal space is flexible and subject to change by various personal and situational factors. The dynamic representation of our peripersonal space modulates our spatial behaviors towards other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this spatial behavior was modified by two further factors: social distancing and wearing a face mask. Evidence from offline and online studies on the impact of a face mask on pro-social behavior is mixed. In an attempt to clarify the role of face masks as pro-social or anti-social signals, 235 observers participated in the present online study. They watched pictures of two models standing at three different distances from each other (50, 90 and 150 cm), who were either wearing a face mask or not and were either interacting by initiating a hand shake or just standing still. The observers' task was to classify the model by gender. Our results show that observers react fastest, and therefore show least avoidance, for the shortest distances (50 and 90 cm) but only when models wear a face mask and do not interact. Thus, our results document both pro- and anti-social consequences of face masks as a result of the complex interplay between social distancing and interactive behavior. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{MichirevKuehneLindemannetal.2023, author = {Michirev, Alexej and K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Lindemann, Oliver and Fischer, Martin H. and Raab, Markus}, title = {How to not induce SNAs}, series = {PLoS one}, volume = {18}, journal = {PLoS one}, number = {6}, publisher = {PLoS}, address = {San Fransisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0288038}, pages = {23}, year = {2023}, abstract = {People respond faster to smaller numbers in their left space and to larger numbers in their right space. Here we argue that movements in space contribute to the formation of spatial-numerical associations (SNAs). We studied the impact of continuous isometric forces along the horizontal or vertical cardinal axes on SNAs while participants performed random number production and arithmetic verification tasks. Our results suggest that such isometric directional force do not suffice to induce SNAs.}, language = {en} } @misc{FischerWinterFelisattietal.2021, author = {Fischer, Martin H. and Winter, Bodo and Felisatti, Arianna and Myachykov, Andriy and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, volume = {12}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-55008}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-550086}, pages = {1 -- 3}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; {\"O}llinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that "participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load" (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and N{\´u}{\~n}ez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of "addition bias" or "subtraction neglect" to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.}, language = {en} } @article{FischerWinterFelisattietal.2021, author = {Fischer, Martin H. and Winter, Bodo and Felisatti, Arianna and Myachykov, Andriy and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {More instructions make fewer subtractions}, series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation}, volume = {12}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne, Schweiz}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720616}, pages = {1 -- 3}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; {\"O}llinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that "participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load" (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and N{\´u}{\~n}ez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of "addition bias" or "subtraction neglect" to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.}, language = {en} } @article{BelliFelisattiFischer2021, author = {Belli, Francesco and Felisatti, Arianna and Fischer, Martin H.}, title = {"BreaThink"}, series = {Experimental brain research}, volume = {239}, journal = {Experimental brain research}, number = {8}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0014-4819}, doi = {10.1007/s00221-021-06147-z}, pages = {2489 -- 2499}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Cognition is shaped by signals from outside and within the body. Following recent evidence of interoceptive signals modulating higher-level cognition, we examined whether breathing changes the production and perception of quantities. In Experiment 1, 22 adults verbally produced on average larger random numbers after inhaling than after exhaling. In Experiment 2, 24 further adults estimated the numerosity of dot patterns that were briefly shown after either inhaling or exhaling. Again, we obtained on average larger responses following inhalation than exhalation. These converging results extend models of situated cognition according to which higher-level cognition is sensitive to transient interoceptive states.}, language = {en} } @article{SixtusFischerLindemann2017, author = {Sixtus, Elena and Fischer, Martin H. and Lindemann, Oliver}, title = {Finger posing primes number comprehension}, series = {Cognitive processing : international quarterly of cognitive science}, volume = {18}, journal = {Cognitive processing : international quarterly of cognitive science}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {1612-4782}, doi = {10.1007/s10339-017-0804-y}, pages = {237 -- 248}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Canonical finger postures, as used in counting, activate number knowledge, but the exact mechanism for this priming effect is unclear. Here we dissociated effects of visual versus motor priming of number concepts. In Experiment 1, participants were exposed either to pictures of canonical finger postures (visual priming) or actively produced the same finger postures (motor priming) and then used foot responses to rapidly classify auditory numbers (targets) as smaller or larger than 5. Classification times revealed that manually adopted but not visually perceived postures primed magnitude classifications. Experiment 2 obtained motor priming of number processing through finger postures also with vocal responses. Priming only occurred through canonical and not through non-canonical finger postures. Together, these results provide clear evidence for motor priming of number knowledge. Relative contributions of vision and action for embodied numerical cognition and the importance of canonicity of postures are discussed.}, language = {en} } @misc{FischerSixtusGoebel2015, author = {Fischer, Martin H. and Sixtus, Elena and G{\"o}bel, Silke M.}, title = {Commentary}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {420}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-406260}, pages = {3}, year = {2015}, abstract = {kein Abstract vorhanden}, language = {en} } @article{KuehneHerboldBendeletal.2024, author = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Herbold, Erika and Bendel, Oliver and Zhou, Yuefang and Fischer, Martin H.}, title = {"Ick bin een Berlina"}, series = {Frontiers in robotics and AI}, volume = {10}, journal = {Frontiers in robotics and AI}, publisher = {Frontiers Media S.A.}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {2296-9144}, doi = {10.3389/frobt.2023.1241519}, pages = {15}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Background: Robots are increasingly used as interaction partners with humans. Social robots are designed to follow expected behavioral norms when engaging with humans and are available with different voices and even accents. Some studies suggest that people prefer robots to speak in the user's dialect, while others indicate a preference for different dialects. Methods: Our study examined the impact of the Berlin dialect on perceived trustworthiness and competence of a robot. One hundred and twenty German native speakers (Mage = 32 years, SD = 12 years) watched an online video featuring a NAO robot speaking either in the Berlin dialect or standard German and assessed its trustworthiness and competence. Results: We found a positive relationship between participants' self-reported Berlin dialect proficiency and trustworthiness in the dialect-speaking robot. Only when controlled for demographic factors, there was a positive association between participants' dialect proficiency, dialect performance and their assessment of robot's competence for the standard German-speaking robot. Participants' age, gender, length of residency in Berlin, and device used to respond also influenced assessments. Finally, the robot's competence positively predicted its trustworthiness. Discussion: Our results inform the design of social robots and emphasize the importance of device control in online experiments.}, language = {en} }