Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Allison P. Rzepczynski

dblp:94/11051 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-robot interaction · 77% Learning and educational technologies · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-robot interaction › healthcare robotics
patient robot
0.112012
Ask, inform, or act: communication with a robotic patient before haptic action · HRI 2012
Learning and educational technologies
medical education
0.012012
Ask, inform, or act: communication with a robotic patient before haptic action · HRI 2012

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

observational study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Ask, inform, or act: communication with a robotic patient before haptic action
abstract
Currently in medical education, clinical students learn how to interact with real patients via simulated patients, which are inexpressive, teleoperated robot mannequins. We obtained five simulations that used such a robot to explore verbal communication between clinical students and the robot patient, specifically if the students sought approval before performing haptic-actions. We found that in our sample, student clinicians frequently acted without seeking approval or providing information to the robot patient. We hope to further our studies in order to identify if either current training of clinical students in communication is ineffective, or if the robot patients are too nonhuman-like and inexpressive to engender appropriate communication.
Timothy J. Martin, Allison P. Rzepczynski, Laurel D. Riek
HRI2