Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Katharina Brockmann
dblp:195/6876
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—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 |
Usability and user experience research · 77% Human-robot interaction · 23% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Usability and user experience research
user experience research |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Not Your Cup of Tea?: How Interacting With a Robot Can Increase Perceived Self-efficacy in HRI and Evaluation · HRI 2017 |
Human-robot interaction › adaptive robot behavior
robot personalization |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Not Your Cup of Tea?: How Interacting With a Robot Can Increase Perceived Self-efficacy in HRI and Evaluation · HRI 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
experimental study · 0.3Self-Efficacy in HRI Scale · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Not Your Cup of Tea?: How Interacting With a Robot Can Increase Perceived Self-efficacy in HRI and EvaluationabstractThe goal of this work is to explore the influence of do-it-yourself customization of a robot on technologically experienced students and unexperienced elderly users' perceived self-efficacy in HRI, uncertainty, and evaluation of the robot and interaction. We introduce the Self-Efficacy in HRI Scale and present two experimental studies. In study 1 (students, n=60) we found that any interaction with the robot increased self-efficacy, regardless of whether this interaction involves customization or not. Moreover, individual increases in self-efficacy predict more positive evaluations. In a second study with elderly users (n=60) we could not replicate the general positive effect of the interaction on self-efficacy. Again, we did not find the hypothesized stronger effect of customization on self-efficacy, nor did we find that relationship between self-efficacy increase and evaluation. We discuss limitations of the setting and for questionnaire design for elderly participants. Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Nikolai Bock, Katharina Brockmann |
HRI | 3 |