Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Pluri-perspectivism in Human-robot Co-creativity with Older Adults

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A five-dimensional map tells co-creative robots what to notice

desk verdict A useful conceptual framework for co-creative HRI, but the empirical validation is circular and the VLM benefit is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07550 v1 pith:XNXFBQUP submitted 2025-07-10 cs.HC cs.RO

Marianne Bossema , Rob Saunders , Aske Plaat , Somaya Ben Allouch This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.RO
keywords human-robotco-creativitypluri-perspectivismfive-dimensionalcontextualmodelcreativeagingvision-languagemodelsschema-guidedpromptingco-creativeinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This position paper argues that pluri-perspectivism, the active exploration and integration of multiple viewpoints, is central to creative experience and should organize how robots collaborate with humans in creative tasks. It proposes a layered model with five dimensions (social, material, temporal, semiotic, and spatial) split into a collaboration layer and a creative-task layer, grounded in creativity theory and interview data from older visual artists and art educators. If the model holds, it gives robot designers and researchers a common map for designing co-creative behaviors and for prompting vision-language-model-enhanced robots to be sensitive to the creative context. The paper positions this model as a foundation for future empirical testing with older adults.

What carries the argument

The central object is the layered five-dimensional pluri-perspectivist model, a contextual map that defines a multidimensional co-creative space. The model works by pairing Glăveanu and Gillespie's three creatogenetic differences (social, semiotic, temporal) with two added dimensions (material and spatial), and by splitting the space into collaboration-level and task-level layers derived from Clark's theory of joint action. This map carries the argument because it simultaneously serves as an analysis scheme for coding interaction dynamics and as a prompting schema for VLM-enhanced robots.

What would settle it

Run a co-creative drawing session in which a VLM-enhanced robot is prompted with the pluri-perspectivist schema and compare it with a no-schema baseline; if older adults do not rate the schema-condition robot as more context-sensitive and if coded interactions show no increase in perspective taking or offering across the five dimensions, the practical claim fails. Alternatively, a fresh interview study using open coding that yields a main category outside the five would refute the model's completeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the space of co-creative interaction can be described by five perspectival dimensions, social (self versus others), material (goals versus affordances), temporal (past versus future), semiotic (sign versus object), and spatial (here versus there), arranged in two layers: an outer collaboration layer that organizes, negotiates, and guides the process, and an inner creative-task layer that directly advances the artwork. The claim is that a VLM-enhanced robot can use this model as an internal schema for structured prompting and few-shot examples, so that it knows what contextual information to attend to, when to take a perspective, and when to offer one. Evidence comes from interviews with 10 visual artists aged 65 and older and 8 art educators, whose practices exhibited all five dimensions and no additional main categories, and from a review of robot behaviors that map onto the dimensions. The authors state the model is conceptual and has not yet been tested in human-robot interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The model's five dimensions and two-layer structure are assumed to be the correct and complete map of co-creative context, yet the interviews used a coding scheme built from those exact dimensions, and the participants were artists and art teachers rather than older adults actually collaborating with a robot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model can serve as a coding scheme for analyzing co-creative human-robot interactions, enabling researchers to track which perspectival dimensions are engaged and whether perspectives are taken or offered.
  • Schema-guided prompting using the five dimensions can improve a VLM-enhanced robot's context sensitivity in co-creative tasks.
  • Social and semiotic dimensions align well with text-and-image prompting, while temporal and spatial dimensions likely require additional sensor modules such as action recognition, drawing tracking, and pacing data.
  • The model can guide robot behavior choices, such as when to ask about preferences, reinterpret an artwork, suggest a material, or adjust turn-taking rhythm.
  • The speculative scenario suggests that collaboration-level perspectives often precede task-level perspectives, implying a staged or layered unfolding of co-creative interaction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: The model also offers a concrete way to operationalize 'context sensitivity' itself, turning a vague quality into measurable categories of perspective taking and offering across five dimensions.
  • Editorial: Because several artists preferred solitude in early creative stages, a fully context-sensitive robot might need to modulate social engagement by creative phase, a nuance the paper hints at but does not develop.
  • Editorial: The two-layer structure could generalize beyond drawing to other joint creative domains such as music, craft, or writing, where coordination actions likewise tend to precede task actions.
  • Editorial: A direct test would compare older adults' perceived co-creativity and willingness to continue sessions with a VLM-enhanced robot prompted with the model versus one prompted with generic creative instructions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This position paper introduces a layered five-dimensional model of 'pluri-perspectivism' for human-robot co-creativity with older adults. The five dimensions—social, material, temporal, semiotic, and spatial—extend Glăveanu and Gillespie's three creatogenetic differences, and the model separates a creative-task layer from a collaboration layer. The authors present a qualitative interview study with 10 older visual artists and 8 art teachers, report that the five dimensions could be used to code their practices and that no additional main categories emerged, and then propose using the model as a schema for prompting VLM-enhanced robots. A speculative human-robot drawing scenario illustrates the idea. The paper concludes that the model can guide future design and evaluation, while acknowledging that it has not yet been tested in human-robot interactions.

Significance. The paper's contribution is a conceptual framework that could give HRI designers a shared vocabulary for analyzing and prompting co-creative interactions. Its grounding in the creativity literature—Glăveanu and Gillespie's creatogenetic differences, Clark's joint action, and De Jaegher and Di Paolo's participatory sense-making—is independent and gives the proposal intellectual coherence. The interview material with older artists and art teachers is rich and lends plausibility to the claim that the five dimensions are present in artistic practice. The paper is also commendably explicit in Section 7 that the model has not yet been tested in HRI. However, the manuscript currently overstates the empirical support: the interview study cannot validate completeness because its coding frame is the model itself, and the VLM-prompting benefit is asserted rather than demonstrated. If the authors reframe the contribution as a design proposal with a validation agenda, the paper could be an acceptable conceptual contribution; as submitted, the abstract's claims exceed the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Table 1] The statement that 'no additional main categories were found' cannot serve as evidence for the completeness of the five-dimensional model, because the coding scheme used those five dimensions as primary categories (Section 5). The absence of new main categories is therefore built into the coding protocol, not an independent result. Moreover, the two-layer task-versus-collaboration structure is not evaluated by this coding at all, since the primary categories are the dimensions rather than the layers. To substantiate the model's sufficiency, the authors should report an open-coding pass or a separate elicitation task that would allow new dimensions and layers to emerge.
  2. [Abstract, Section 1, and Section 7] The paper claims the pluri-perspectivist model can be used as an internal schema to guide a VLM-enhanced robot, 'improving robot context sensitivity' (Section 1), but Section 7 states the model 'has not yet been tested in human-robot interactions' and Section 6 characterizes its application as exploratory. No VLM or robot experiment is reported; Figure 3 is an illustrative scenario. The causal benefit of the schema is therefore an untested hypothesis. The authors should either add empirical evidence (for example, a small technical probe comparing prompted versus unprompted VLM behavior) or explicitly reframe the abstract and discussion as a design proposal rather than a demonstrated improvement. The relevance to the target HRI population also remains an assumption, since none of the interview participants interacted with a robot.
  3. [Section 5, intercoder reliability] The reported Krippendorff's alpha of 0.549 is moderate, and the explanation that the model 'does not consist of discrete or exclusive categories' addresses segment granularity but not the confirmatory use of the coding: because the same predefined categories were used to code the data, the reliability estimate cannot speak to whether the model captures the full range of relevant contextual dimensions. The paper should report how the absence of new categories could have been detected in the analysis and should temper the validation language in Sections 5.1 and 6 accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5] The phrase 'Kippendorf's c-a-binary' appears to be a misspelling of 'Krippendorff's alpha with binary coding'; please use the standard name and cite the exact software or formula used.
  2. [Section 3] The first sentence of the Proposition section reads 'a VLM-enhanced robots'; this should be 'a VLM-enhanced robot'.
  3. [Figure 2 and Table 1] The model's two-layer structure is described in prose but is not included in Table 1 or made explicit in the figure's legend; adding the layer labels directly to the table would help readers connect the dimensions to the task-versus-collaboration distinction.
  4. [Section 4] The paper explains how the model could be used for schema-guided prompting but does not include a concrete example of a prompt built from the five dimensions; a short prompt template would make the implementation proposal easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The model's empirical validation is partially circular: the coding scheme's main categories are the model's own five dimensions, so the finding that 'no additional main categories were found' is built into the coding scheme, not an independent confirmation of completeness.

  1. self definitional [Section 5 (Thematic analysis paragraph) and Section 5.1]
    "Thematic analysis using ATLAS.ti [4] was guided by our five-dimensional model, as shown in Figure 2. A coding scheme was developed with the perspectival dimensions as primary categories, defined in Table 1. ... While no additional main categories were found, data revealed subcategories per dimension."

    The paper uses the interview study to 'assess the relevance and completeness of our five-dimensional model.' But the coding scheme's primary categories are exactly the model's five dimensions. Therefore the statement that 'no additional main categories were found' is a direct consequence of how the data were coded, not an independent empirical discovery. Any utterance had to be assigned to one of the pre-defined perspectival dimensions, so the finding that participants 'engaged with all five dimensions' is also an artifact of the coding scheme. The coding procedure cannot validate the sufficiency of the dimensional map; it re-describes the model's assumptions in the interview data.

full rationale

The model's content is not entirely derived from the interviews: the three creatogenetic dimensions come from Glaveanu and Gillespie, the two-layer structure from Clark's joint action theory and related literature, and the added material/spatial dimensions from participatory sense-making. Those are independent theoretical inputs. The main circularity is in the validation step: the coding scheme used the model's five dimensions as its primary categories, so the claim of completeness ('no additional main categories were found') is true by construction. This makes the empirical grounding of the central model partly circular. The speculative scenario in Section 3 is illustrative rather than evidence, so it is not scored separately. The claim that the model will improve VLM-enhanced robot context sensitivity is explicitly untested (Section 7), which is an evidence gap rather than a circularity. Overall, the central derivation has independent content, but one load-bearing validation claim reduces to the structure of the coding scheme, warranting a partial circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper's central contribution rests on a small number of hand-chosen theoretical assumptions: that the three creatogenetic differences are foundational, that material and spatial dimensions must be added, that a task/coordination layer split is correct, and that the model can be encoded into VLM prompts. The interview study does not independently establish these assumptions because the coding scheme uses the model's own dimensions as categories.

free parameters (1)
  • Five dimension set and two-layer split
    Hand-selected from selected theories; no data-driven procedure determines why these five dimensions, or why two layers, are correct or sufficient. This choice defines the whole analysis and the subsequent interview coding.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Glaveanu and Gillespie's three creatogenetic differences (social, semiotic, temporal) are foundational for creativity.
    Adopted as the starting point in Sections 1 and 3 without critical evaluation; the model inherits this theory's scope and assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper Material and spatial dimensions are needed additions for embodied co-creativity.
    Introduced in Section 3 based on participatory sense-making and embodiment literature; no systematic derivation or empirical demonstration shows these are the right additions.
  • domain assumption A two-layer distinction between task-level and coordination-level actions captures co-creative process structure.
    Inherited from Clark's joint action theory (Section 3) and presented as the organizing structure, with no empirical test of whether all co-creative interactions decompose this way.
  • domain assumption Expert interviews with artists and art teachers can validate model completeness and relevance for older-adult HRI.
    Section 5: the sample includes 10 artists (65+) and 8 teachers, but no older adults interacting with a robot; coding uses the model's own dimensions as categories, so it cannot independently validate completeness.
  • domain assumption Schema-guided prompting and few-shot learning can operationalize the model in a VLM-enhanced robot.
    Section 4 assumes the model can be encoded into prompts despite acknowledged VLM limitations in temporal and spatial reasoning; no implementation or evaluation is provided.
invented entities (3)
  • Material dimension (goal versus affordances)
    purpose: Extends Glaveanu and Gillespie's model to capture embodied interaction with tools and media; one of the five proposed dimensions.
    Introduced from participatory sense-making theory and embodiment literature; no independent empirical demonstration that it is a distinct creatogenetic dimension beyond the original three.
  • Spatial dimension (here versus there)
    purpose: Captures physical and visual position shifts and viewpoint changes in co-creativity; used in the model and proposed prompting.
    Literature-based addition motivated by embodiment studies; not empirically validated as a distinct and necessary dimension.
  • Pluri-perspectivist model as an internal schema for a VLM-enhanced robot
    purpose: Proposed as a schema-guided prompting structure to give the robot context sensitivity in co-creative interactions.
    No prototype or system evaluation is reported; the schema remains a conceptual proposal at this stage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pluri-perspectivism in Human-robot Co-creativity with Older Adults." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNXFBQUP

@misc{pith2026250707550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pluri-perspectivism in Human-robot Co-creativity with Older Adults},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNXFBQUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07550}
}
read the original abstract

This position paper explores pluriperspectivism as a core element of human creative experience and its relevance to humanrobot cocreativity We propose a layered fivedimensional model to guide the design of cocreative behaviors and the analysis of interaction dynamics This model is based on literature and results from an interview study we conducted with 10 visual artists and 8 arts educators examining how pluriperspectivism supports creative practice The findings of this study provide insight in how robots could enhance human creativity through adaptive contextsensitive behavior demonstrating the potential of pluriperspectivism This paper outlines future directions for integrating pluriperspectivism with visionlanguage models VLMs to support context sensitivity in cocreative robots

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07550 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The model of creatogenetic differences by Glaveanu & Gillespie [26], Cen￾ter: The HCI Interaction Cycle by Norman [38]; Right: Integration of model and inter￾action cycles in human-robot co-creativity 2 Background Creative Experiences and Pluri-perspectivism — The main question of our broader research project is how robots and AI can support and enhance creative experiences for older adults. We adopt Glăveanu … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The two-layered five-dimensional model of pluri-perspectivism (left) for inter￾action cycles in human-robot co-creativity (top-right). (HCI), Norman’s interaction cycle [38] reflects a similar close loop of perception, evaluation and execution. Users engage in perspective taking towards a system by evaluating system feedback based on their expectations and offer new per￾spectives by executing actions [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. pluri-perspectivism in a speculative scenario of human-robot drawing 4 Related Works To validate the model and inform future implementation with a VLM-enhanced robot, we investigate perspective sharing robot behaviors that support creativity, and possibilities for implemention in VLM-enhanced robots. Perspective Sharing Behaviors in Creative HRI —Research shows that robots can support creativity through a range of p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impression of art teacher approaches i.e., guided instructions; working with art in the environment; promoting bodily motion; working with restrictions and unpre￾dictable materials. Photos by the first author and by WG-Kunst, with permission. an ongoing interplay betwe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 673730 (2021)

    Ali, S., Devasia, N., Park, H.W., Breazeal, C.: Social robots as creativity eliciting agents. Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 673730 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Ali, S., Moroso, T., Breazeal, C.: Can children learn creativity from a social robot? In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition. pp. 359–368 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 acm/ieee international conference on human-robot interaction

    Almeida, J.T., Leite, I., Yadollahi, E.: Would you help me? linking robot’s perspective-taking to human prosocial behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2023 acm/ieee international conference on human-robot interaction. pp. 388–397 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH: ATLAS.ti: Qualitative Data Analysis Software (2024), https://atlasti.com/, v23.0

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts1(2), 73 (2007)

    Beghetto, R.A., Kaufman, J.C.: Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts1(2), 73 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Routledge (2004)

    Boden, M.A.: The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Routledge (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    In: 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)

    Bossema, M., Allouch, S.B., Plaat, A., Saunders, R.: Human-robot co-creativity: A scoping review: Informing a research agenda for human-robot co-creativity with older adults. In: 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). pp. 988–995. IEEE (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    LLM-enhanced Interactions in Human-Robot Collaborative Drawing with Older Adults

    Bossema, M., Allouch, S.B., Plaat, A., Saunders, R.: Llm-enhanced interac- tions in human-robot collaborative drawing with older adults. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18711 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Bradski, G.: The opencv library. Dr. Dobb’s Journal: Software Tools for the Pro- fessional Programmer 25(11), 120–123 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Breazeal, C.L., Ostrowski, A.K., Singh, N., Park, H.W.: Designing social robots for older adults. Natl. Acad. Eng. Bridge49, 22–31 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 1877–1901 (2020)

    Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J.D., Dhariwal, P., Nee- lakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 1877–1901 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    arXiv e-prints pp

    Bubeck,S.,Chandrasekaran,V.,Eldan,R.,Gehrke,J.,Horvitz,E.,Kamar,E.,Lee, P., Lee, Y.T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al.: Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv e-prints pp. arXiv–2303 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition

    Chen, B., Xu, Z., Kirmani, S., Ichter, B., Sadigh, D., Guibas, L., Xia, F.: Spa- tialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. pp. 14455–14465 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Cambridge university press (1996)

    Clark, H.H.: Using language. Cambridge university press (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences6, 485–507 (2007)

    De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E.: Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences6, 485–507 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234 (2022)

    Dong, Q., Li, L., Dai, D., Zheng, C., Ma, J., Li, R., Xia, H., Xu, J., Wu, Z., Liu, T., et al.: A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the 2022 international conference on multimodal interaction

    Elgarf, M., Zojaji, S., Skantze, G., Peters, C.: Creativebot: a creative storyteller robot to stimulate creativity in children. In: Proceedings of the 2022 international conference on multimodal interaction. pp. 540–548 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Snapshot-Based Human Action Recognition using OpenPose and Deep Learning48(4), 2–8 (2021)

    Emanuel, A.W., Mudjihartono, P., Nugraha, J.A.: Snapshot-based human action recognition using openpose and deep learning. Snapshot-Based Human Action Recognition using OpenPose and Deep Learning48(4), 2–8 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Cambridge University Press (2014) 14 M

    Engeström, Y.: Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to devel- opmental research. Cambridge University Press (2014) 14 M. Bossema et al

    2014

  12. [20]

    Oxford University Press (2017)

    Fancourt, D.: Arts in Health: Designing and Researching Interventions. Oxford University Press (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    World Health Organization

    Fancourt, D., Finn, S.: What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Frontiers in Communication8, 1115360 (2023)

    Fucinato, K., Niebuhr, O., Nørskov, S., Fischer, K.: Charismatic speech features in robot instructions enhance team creativity. Frontiers in Communication8, 1115360 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Group processes & in- tergroup relations 8(2), 109–124 (2005)

    Galinsky, A.D., Ku, G., Wang, C.S.: Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group processes & in- tergroup relations 8(2), 109–124 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Creativity Research Journal33(2), 75–80 (2021)

    Glăveanu, V.P., Beghetto, R.A.: Creative experience: A non-standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal33(2), 75–80 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    In: Creativity—A New Vocabulary, pp

    Glăveanu, V.P.: Difference. In: Creativity—A New Vocabulary, pp. 61–69. Springer (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    In: Rethinking creativity, pp

    GLăVEANU, V.P., Gillespie, A.: Creativity out of difference: Theorising the semi- otic, social and temporal origin of creative acts. In: Rethinking creativity, pp. 1–15. Routledge (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8, 662249 (2021)

    Gomez Cubero, C., Pekarik, M., Rizzo, V., Jochum, E.: The robot is present: Creative approaches for artistic expression with robots. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8, 662249 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Groot, B., de Kock, L., Liu, Y., Dedding, C., Schrijver, J., Teunissen, T., van Hartingsveldt, M., Menderink, J., Lengams, Y., Lindenberg, J., et al.: The value of active arts engagement on health and well-being of older adults: A nation-wide participatory study. Int. J. Envir...

    2021

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00949 (2021)

    Guckelsberger, C., Kantosalo, A., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., Takala, T.: Embodi- ment and computational creativity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00949 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference

    Hu, Y., Feng, L., Mutlu, B., Admoni, H.: Exploring the role of social robot behav- iors in a creative activity. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. pp. 1380–1389 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Imam, M.F., Lyu, C., Aji, A.F.: Can multimodal llms do visual temporal under- standing and reasoning? the answer is no! arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10674 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07506 (2021)

    Lee,C.H.,Cheng,H.,Ostendorf,M.:Dialoguestatetrackingwithalanguagemodel using schema-driven prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07506 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Lee, S., Ju, W.: Adversarial robots as creative collaborators. In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 655–658 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Lewis, F., Krans, K.: Arts in health in nederland: Een nationale agenda (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    In:Proceedingsof the 2020CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Lin, Y., Guo, J., Chen, Y., Yao, C., Ying, F.: It is your turn: Collaborative ideation with aco-creativerobotthrough sketch. In:Proceedingsof the 2020CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. pp. 1–14 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Dementia22(1), 252–280 (2023)

    MacRitchie, J., Floridou, G.A., Christensen, J., Timmers, R., de Witte, L.: The use of technology for arts-based activities in older adults living with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A scoping review. Dementia22(1), 252–280 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics20(12), 1633–1642 (2014)

    Mahyar,N.,Tory,M.:Supportingcommunicationandcoordinationincollaborative sensemaking. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics20(12), 1633–1642 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    User centered system design 31(61), 2 (1986) Pluri-perspectivism in Human-robot Co-creativity with Older Adults 15

    Norman, D.A.: Cognitive engineering. User centered system design 31(61), 2 (1986) Pluri-perspectivism in Human-robot Co-creativity with Older Adults 15

    1986

  31. [39]

    In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Nwankwo, L., Rueckert, E.: The conversation is the command: Interacting with real-world autonomous robots through natural language. In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 808– 812 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    In: International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence-Workshop on Agents Learning Interactively from Human Teachers (IJCAI-ALIHT 2011) (2011)

    Pandey, A.K., Alami, R.: Towards task understanding through multi-state visuo- spatial perspective taking for human-robot interaction. In: International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence-Workshop on Agents Learning Interactively from Human Teachers (IJCAI-ALIHT 201...

    2011

  33. [41]

    sage (2002)

    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative research & evaluation methods. sage (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Sage publications (2014)

    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23037 (2025)

    Plaat, A., van Duijn, M., van Stein, N., Preuss, M., van der Putten, P., Batenburg, K.J.: Agentic large language models, a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23037 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.04356, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04356

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Xu, T., Brockman, G., McLeavey, C., Sutskever, I.: Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.04356, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04356

    2022 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    In: 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)

    Rond, J., Sanchez, A., Berger, J., Knight, H.: Improv with robots: creativity, in- spiration, co-performance. In: 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). pp. 1–8. IEEE (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational creativity

    Saunders, R., Chee, E., Gemeinboeck, P.: Evaluating human-robot interaction with embodied creative systems. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational creativity. pp. 205–209 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies10, e48031 (2023)

    Tanner,A.,Urech,A.,Schulze,H.,Manser,T.:Olderadults’engagementandmood during robot-assisted group activities in nursing homes: Development and obser- vational pilot study. JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies10, e48031 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Artificial Intelligence 172(6-7), 716–737 (2008)

    Thomaz, A.L., Breazeal, C.: Teachable robots: Understanding human teaching behavior to build more effective robot learners. Artificial Intelligence 172(6-7), 716–737 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01171 (2024)

    Tseng, Y.M., Huang, Y.C., Hsiao, T.Y., Chen, W.L., Huang, C.W., Meng, Y., Chen, Y.N.: Two tales of persona in llms: A survey of role-playing and personal- ization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01171 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems34, 200–212 (2021)

    Tsimpoukelli, M., Menick, J.L., Cabi, S., Eslami, S., Vinyals, O., Hill, F.: Multi- modal few-shot learning with frozen language models. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems34, 200–212 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    In: Modeling and Using Context: 11th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2019, Trento, Italy, November 20–22, 2019, Proceedings 11

    Vossen, P., Bajčetić, L., Baez, S., Bašić, S., Kraaijeveld, B.: Modelling context awareness for a situated semantic agent. In: Modeling and Using Context: 11th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2019, Trento, Italy, November 20–22, 2019, Proceedings 11. pp...

    2019

  44. [52]

    be social

    Weinberg, G., Bretan, M., Hoffman, G., Driscoll, S., Weinberg, G., Bretan, M., Hoffman, G., Driscoll, S.: “be social”—embodied human-robot musical interactions. Robotic Musicianship: Embodied Artificial Creativity and Mechatronic Musical Expression pp. 143–187 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10(1), 1–25 (2021)

    Whittaker, S., Rogers, Y., Petrovskaya, E., Zhuang, H.: Designing personas for expressive robots: Personality in the new breed of moving, speaking, and color- ful social home robots. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10(1), 1–25 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    The knowledge engineering review10(2), 115–152 (1995) 16 M

    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The knowledge engineering review10(2), 115–152 (1995) 16 M. Bossema et al

    1995

  47. [55]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06853 (2024)

    Xiong, S., Payani, A., Kompella, R., Fekri, F.: Large language models can learn temporal reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06853 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19510 (2025)

    Yang, D., Kim, M., Kim, S., Kwak, B.w., Park, M., Hong, J., Woo, W., Yeo, J.: Llm meets scene graph: Can large language models understand and generate scene graphs? a benchmark and empirical study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19510 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics 3(4), 100131 (2023)

    Zhang, C., Chen, J., Li, J., Peng, Y., Mao, Z.: Large language models for human– robot interaction: A review. Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics 3(4), 100131 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09067 (2023)

    Zhang, X., Peng, B., Li, K., Zhou, J., Meng, H.: Sgp-tod: Building task bots effort- lessly via schema-guided llm prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09067 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Zhao, X., Cusimano, C., Malle, B.F.: Do people spontaneously take a robot’s vi- sual perspective? In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts. pp. 133–134 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.