當前,像是企業、醫院、學校內部的伺服器,個人電腦,甚至手機等裝置,都可以成為「邊緣節點」。當數據在這些邊緣節點進行運算,稱為邊緣運算;而在邊緣節點上運行 AI ,就被稱為邊緣 AI。簡單來說,就是將原本集中在遠端資料中心的運算能力,「搬家」到更靠近數據源頭的地方。
-----廣告,請繼續往下閱讀-----
那麼,為什麼需要這樣做?資料放在雲端,集中管理不是更方便嗎?對,就是不好。
當數據在這些邊緣節點進行運算,稱為邊緣運算;而在邊緣節點上運行 AI ,就被稱為邊緣 AI。/ 圖片來源:MotionArray
第一個不好是物理限制:「延遲」。 即使光速已經非常快,數據從你家旁邊的路口傳到幾千公里外的雲端機房,再把分析結果傳回來,中間還要經過各種網路節點轉來轉去…這樣一來一回,就算只是幾十毫秒的延遲,對於需要「即刻反應」的 AI 應用,比如說工廠裡要精密控制的機械手臂、或者自駕車要判斷路況時,每一毫秒都攸關安全與精度,這點延遲都是無法接受的!這是物理距離與網路架構先天上的限制,無法繞過去。
第三個挑戰:系統「可靠性」與「韌性」。 如果所有運算都仰賴遠端的雲端時,一旦網路不穩、甚至斷線,那怎麼辦?很多關鍵應用,像是公共安全監控或是重要設備的預警系統,可不能這樣「看天吃飯」啊!邊緣處理讓系統更獨立,就算暫時斷線,本地的 AI 還是能繼續運作與即時反應,這在工程上是非常重要的考量。 所以你看,邊緣運算不是科學家們沒事找事做,它是順應數據特性和實際應用需求,一個非常合理的科學與工程上的最佳化選擇,是我們想要抓住即時數據價值,非走不可的一條路!
邊緣 AI 的實戰魅力:從工廠到倉儲,再到你的工作桌
知道要把 AI 算力搬到邊緣了,接下來的問題就是─邊緣 AI 究竟強在哪裡呢?它強就強在能夠做到「深度感知(Deep Perception)」!
-----廣告,請繼續往下閱讀-----
所謂深度感知,並非僅僅是對數據進行簡單的加加減減,而是透過如深度神經網路這類複雜的 AI 模型,從原始數據裡面,去「理解」出更高層次、更具意義的資訊。
以研華科技為例,旗下已有多項邊緣 AI 的實戰應用。以工業瑕疵檢測為例,利用物件偵測模型,快速將工業產品中的瑕疵挑出來,而且由於 AI 模型可以使用同一套參數去檢測,因此品管上能達到一致性,減少人為疏漏。尤其在高產能工廠中,檢測速度必須快、狠、準。研華這套 AI 系統每分鐘最高可處理 8,000 件產品,替工廠節省大量人力,同時確保品質穩定。這樣的效能來自於一台僅有膠囊咖啡機大小的邊緣設備—IPC-240。
這樣的效能來自於一台僅有膠囊咖啡機大小的邊緣設備—IPC-240。/ 圖片提供:研華科技
此外,在智慧倉儲場域,研華與威剛合作,研華與威剛聯手合作,在 MIC-732AO 伺服器上搭載輝達的 Nova Orin 開發平台,打造倉儲系統的 AMR(Autonomous Mobile Robot) 自走車。這跟過去在倉儲系統中使用的自動導引車 AGV 技術不一樣,AMR 不需要事先規劃好路線,靠著感測器偵測,就能輕鬆避開障礙物,識別路線,並且將貨物載到指定地點存放。
當硬體資源有限,大模型卻越來越龐大,「幫模型減肥」就成了邊緣 AI 的重要課題。/ 圖片來源:MotionArray
模型剪枝(Model Pruning)—基於重要性的結構精簡
建立一個 AI 模型,其實就是在搭建一整套類神經網路系統,並訓練類神經元中彼此關聯的參數。然而,在這麼多參數中,總會有一些參數明明佔了一個位置,卻對整體模型沒有貢獻。既然如此,不如果斷將這些「冗餘」移除。
這就像種植作物的時候,總會雜草叢生,但這些雜草並不是我們想要的作物,這時候我們就會動手清理雜草。在語言模型中也會有這樣的雜草存在,而動手去清理這些不需要的連結參數或神經元的技術,就稱為 AI 模型的模型剪枝(Model Pruning)。
-----廣告,請繼續往下閱讀-----
模型剪枝的效果,大概能把100變成70這樣的程度,說多也不是太多。雖然這樣的縮減對於提升效率已具幫助,但若我們要的是一個更小幾個數量級的模型,僅靠剪枝仍不足以應對。最後還是需要從源頭著手,採取更治本的方法:一開始就打造一個很小的模型,並讓它去學習大模型的知識。這項技術被稱為「知識蒸餾」,是目前 AI 模型壓縮領域中最具潛力的方法之一。
知識蒸餾(Knowledge Distillation)—讓小模型學習大師的「精髓」
想像一下,一位經驗豐富、見多識廣的老師傅,就是那個龐大而強悍的 AI 模型。現在,他要培養一位年輕學徒—小型 AI 模型。與其只是告訴小型模型正確答案,老師傅 (大模型) 會更直接傳授他做判斷時的「思考過程」跟「眉角」,例如「為什麼我會這樣想?」、「其他選項的可能性有多少?」。這樣一來,小小的學徒模型,用它有限的「腦容量」,也能學到老師傅的「智慧精髓」,表現就能大幅提升!這是一種很高級的訓練技巧,跟遷移學習有關。
但是!即使模型經過了這些科學方法的優化,變得比較「苗條」了,要真正在邊緣環境中處理如潮水般湧現的資料,並且高速、即時、穩定地運作,仍然需要一個夠強的「引擎」來驅動它們。也就是說,要把這些經過科學千錘百鍊、但依然需要大量計算的 AI 模型,真正放到邊緣的現場去發揮作用,就需要一個強大的「硬體平台」來承載。
-----廣告,請繼續往下閱讀-----
邊緣 AI 的強心臟:SKY-602E3 的三大關鍵
像研華的 SKY-602E3 塔式 GPU 伺服器,就是扮演「邊緣 AI 引擎」的關鍵角色!那麼,它到底厲害在哪?
三、可靠性 SKY-602E3 用的是伺服器等級的主機板、ECC 糾錯記憶體、還有備援電源供應器等等。這些聽起來很硬的規格,背後代表的是嚴謹的工程可靠性設計。畢竟在邊緣現場,系統穩定壓倒一切!你總不希望 AI 分析跑到一半就掛掉吧?這些設計確保了部署在現場的 AI 系統,能夠長時間、穩定地運作,把實驗室裡的科學成果,可靠地轉化成實際的應用價值。
-----廣告,請繼續往下閱讀-----
研華的 SKY-602E3 塔式 GPU 伺服器,體積僅如後背包大小,卻能輕鬆支援語言模型的運作,實現高效又安全的 AI 解決方案。/ 圖片提供:研華科技
根據 Roberts 等人的研究[61],在獸圈這個社群裡,成員與動物的連結也存在多樣的面向,他們認為有三大因素:(1)對一個物種的欣賞或好感(2)與此物種有精神或神秘聯系的感覺,以及(3)與這物種的認同感。事實上人類對動物態度的研究的確是一個極其複雜的問題,它涉及到演化、心理和文化等方面[65]。但是即使不考慮這些,人們對動物的物種傾向也很大程度上取決於動物本身固有的某些屬性,如各種物種的身體和行為特徵很大程度上地影響著人類對動物的感知,並可以解釋道為什麼人們喜歡某些動物或討厭某些動物[65]。
1. Alley, T. (1983). Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 411-427.
2. Anand, S., Binoy, V. V., & Radhakrishna, S. (2018). The monkey is not always a god: Attitudinal differences toward crop-raiding Pet Face: Mechanisms Underlying Human-Animal Relationships. macaques and why it matters for conflict mitigation. Ambio, 47(6), 711-720. doi: 10.1007/s13280-017-1008-5
3. Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(4), 237-259, doi: 10.1016/S0162-3095(99)80001-4
4. Archer, J., & Monton, S. (2011). Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology, 117(3), 217-226. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01863.x
-----廣告,請繼續往下閱讀-----
5. Bailey, N. W., & Zuk, M. (2009). Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(8), 439-446. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.014
6. Barrett, D. (2010). Supernormal stimuli: How primal urges overran their evolutionary purpose. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
7. Barrett, D. (2020). Supernormal Stimuli in the Media. In L. Workman, W. Reader & J. Barkow (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. (pp. 527-537). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach. Bioscience Horizons, 2(2), 180-190. doi: 10.1093/BIOHORIZONS/HZP021
-----廣告,請繼續往下閱讀-----
9. Beatson, R. M., & Halloran, M. J. (2007). Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness reminders, mortality salience and self-esteem on attitudes towards animals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 619-632. doi: 10.1348/014466606X147753
10. Belyaev, D. K. (1979). Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. Journal of Heredity, 70(5), 301-308. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a109263
11. Bjerke, T., Odegardstuen, T., & Kaltenborn, B. (1998). Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian children and adolescents: species preferences. Anthrozoös 11(4), 227-235. doi: 10.2752/089279398787000544
12. Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: species preferences. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 45-59. doi: 10.2752/089279315X14129350721939
13. Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2016). Pet Face: Mechanisms Underlying Human-Animal Relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 298. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00298
14. Borgi, M., Cogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V., Meints K, & Cirulli F. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 411. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411
15. Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). That baby caught my eye…attention capture by infant faces. Emotion 7(3), 685-689. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.685
16. Brown, C. M., & McLean, J. L. (2015). Anthropomorphizing Dogs: Projecting One’s Own Personality and Consequences for Supporting Animal Rights. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 73-86. doi: 10.2752/089279315×14129350721975
17. Bruni, D., Perconti, P., & Plebe, A. (2018). Anti-anthropomorphism and Its Limits. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2205. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02205
18. Butterfield, M. E., Hill, S. E., & Lord, C. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 957-960. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010
19. DeLoache, J. S., Pickard, M. B., & LoBue, V. (2011). How very young children think about animals. In P. McCardle, S. McCune, J. A. Griffin, & V. Maholmes (Eds.), How animals affect us: Examining the influences of human–animal interaction on child development and human health. (pp. 85-99). American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/12301-004
21. Frank, H., & Frank, M.G. (1982). On the effects of domestication on canine social development and behavior. Applied Animal Ethology, 8(6), 507-525. doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(82)90215-2
22. Ganea, P. A., Canfield, C. F., Simons-Ghafari, K., & Chou, T. (2014). Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children’s knowledge about animals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00283
23. Gerbasi, K. C., Paolone, N., Higner, J., Scaletta, L. L., Bernstein, P. L., Conway, S., & Privitera, A. (2008). Furries from A to Z (anthropomorphism to zoomorphism). Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 16(3), 197-222. doi: 10.1163/156853008X323376
24. Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., and Sachser, N. (2009a). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115(3), 257-263. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x
25. Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Valdez, J. N., Griffin, M. D., … Gur, R. C. (2009b). Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(22), 9115-9119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811620106
26. Gould, S. J. (1979). Mickey mouse meets Konrad Lorenz. Natural History Magazine, 88(5), 30-36.
27. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189-212). New York, NY, USA.
28. Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204-215. doi: 10.2752/089279301786999355
29. Hsu, K. J., Bailey, J. M. (2019). The “Furry” Phenomenon: Characterizing Sexual Orientation, Sexual Motivation, and Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(5), 1349-1369. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7
30. Jenkins, L. (2015). The Touch of Nature Has Made the Whole World Kin: Interspecies Kin Selection in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. doi: 10.1016/s0378-777x(78)80028-6
32. Kellert, S. R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845-855. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.740845.x
33. Kellert, S. R. (1997). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington: Island Press.
34. Knight, A. (2008). “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 94-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001
35. Knight, J. (1999). Monkeys of the move: the natural symbolism of people-macaque conflict in Japan. The Journal of Asian Studies, 58(3), 622-647. doi: 10.2307/2659114
36. Lehmann, V., Huis in‘t Veld, E. M. J., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2013). The human and animal baby schema effect: Correlates of individual differences. Behavioural Processes, 94, 99-108. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.01.001
37. Little, A. C. (2012). Manipulation of infant-like traits affects perceived cuteness of infant, adult and cat faces. Ethology 118(8), 775-782. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02068.x
38. Lobue, V., Bloom Pickard, M., Sherman, K., Axford, C., and DeLoache, J. S. (2013). Young children’s interest in live animals. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 57-69. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02078.x
39. Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 5(2), 233-519. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1943.tb00655.x
40. MacDorman, K. F. (2005). Mortality salience and the uncanny valley. 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2005., 399-405. doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573600
41. MacDorman, K., Green, R., Ho, C., Koch, C. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny
responses to computer-generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3),
42. Mann, J. (2006). Establishing trust: socio-sexual behaviour and the development of male-male bonds among Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. In V. Sommer & P. L. Vasey (Eds.), Homosexual Behaviour in Animals (pp. 107-130). Cambridge University Press.
43. Margulies, J. D., & Karanth, K. K. (2018). The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter. Geoforum, 95, 153-164. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011
44. Martín-López, B., Montes, C., and Benayes, J. (2007). The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 139(1-2), 67-82. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005
45. Mock, S.E., Plante, C., Reysen, S., & Gerbasi, K. (2013). Deeper leisure involvement as a coping resource in a stigmatized leisure context. Leisure/Loisir 37(2), 111-126. doi: 10.1080/14927713.2013.801152
46. Moosa, M. M., & Ud-Dean, S. M. M. (2010). Danger Avoidance: An Evolutionary Explanation of Uncanny Valley. Biological Theory, 5(1), 12-14. doi: 10.1162/biot_a_00016
47. Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.
48. Mormann, F., Dubois, J., Kornblith, S., Milosavljevic, M., Cerf, M., Ison, M., et al. (2011). A category-specific response to animals in the right human amygdala. Nature neuroscience, 14(10), 1247-1249. doi: 10.1038/nn.2899
49. Muszkat, M., de Mello, C. B., Muñoz, P., Lucci, T. K., David, V. F., Siqueira, J., & Otta, E. (2015). Face scanning in autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: human versus dog face scanning. Frontiers in psychiatry, 6, 150. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00150
50. New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(42), 16598-16603. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703913104
51. Nittono, H., Fukushima, M., Yano, A., & Moriya, H. (2012). The Power of Kawaii: Viewing Cute Images Promotes a Careful Behavior and Narrows Attentional Focus. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e46362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046362
55. Plante, C. N., Reysen, S., Roberts, S. E., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2018). “Animals Like Us”: Identifying with Nonhuman Animals and Support for Nonhuman Animal Rights. Anthrozoös, 31(2), 165-177. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1434045
56. Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 11-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00907.x
57. Prokop, P., Tolarovićová, A., Camerik, A., & Peterková, V. (2010). High school students’ attitudes towards spiders: a cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1665-1688. doi: 10.1080/09500690903253908
58. Půtová, B. (2013). Prehistoric sorcerers and postmodern furries: Anthropological point of view. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 5(7), 243-248. doi: 10.5897/IJSA12.052
59. Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(4), 461-467. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-4345-6
60. Reysen, S., Plante, C. N., Roberts, S. E., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2015). Ingroup bias and ingroup projection in the furry fandom. International Journal of Psychological Studies 7(4): 49-58. doi: 10.5539/ijps.v7n4p49
61. Roberts, S. E., Plante, C. N., Gerbasi, K. C., & Reysen, S. (2015a). The Anthropomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals. Anthrozoos A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 28(4), 533-548. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1069993
62. Roberts, S. E., Plante, C. N., Gerbasi, K. C., & Reysen, S. (2015b). Clinical interaction with anthropomorphic phenomenon: Notes for health professionals about interacting with clients who possess this unusual identity. Health and Social Work, 40(2), e42-e50. doi: 10.1093/hsw/hlv020
63. Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23-41.
64. Schwind, V., Leicht, K., Jäger, S., Wolf, K., & Henze, N. (2018). Is there an uncanny valley of virtual animals? A quantitative and qualitative investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 111, 49-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.11.003
65. Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 145-151.
66. Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioral carefulness. Emotion, 9(2), 282-286. doi: 10.1037/a0014904
67. Sprengelmeyer, R., Perrett, D. I., Fagan, E. C., Cornwell, R. E., Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer, A., … Young, A. W. (2009). The Cutest Little Baby Face. Psychological Science, 20(2), 149-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02272.x.
68. Tinbergen, N. (1953). The Herring Gull’s World. London: Collins.
69. Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., & Swarna Nantha, H. (2006). Public choice of species for the ‘Ark’: phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14(3-4), 266-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.07.001
70. Wenzel, J. W. (1992). Behavioral Homology and Phylogeny. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23(1), 361-381. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.002045
71. Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
72. Woods, B. (2000). Beauty and the beast: preferences for animals in Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies, 11(2), 25-35. doi: 10.3316/ielapa.200110918
1Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F. & Kageki, N. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. (2012) doi:10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811.
Piwek, L., McKay, L. S. & Pollick, F. E. Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion. Cognition 130, 271–277 (2014).
Bartneck, C., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H. & Hagita, N. Is The Uncanny Valley An Uncanny Cliff? in RO-MAN 2007 – The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication 368–373 (2007). doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415111.
Saygin, A. P., Chaminade, T., Ishiguro, H., Driver, J. & Frith, C. The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 413–422 (2012).
Moore, R. K. A Bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny Valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena. Sci. Rep. 2, 864 (2012).
Cheetham, M. Perceptual discrimination difficulty and familiarity in the Uncanny Valley: more like a “Happy Valley”. Front. Psychol. 15.
Dautenhahn, K. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 362, 679–704 (2007).
Hortensius, R. & Cross, E. S. From automata to animate beings: the scope and limits of attributing socialness to artificial agents: Socialness attribution and artificial agents. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1426, 93–110 (2018).
Hortensius, R., Hekele, F. & Cross, E. S. The Perception of Emotion in Artificial Agents. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 10, 852–864 (2018).
Zsiga, K. et al. Home care robot for socially supporting the elderly: Focus group studies in three European countries to screen user attitudes and requirements. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. (2013) doi:10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283643d26.
Feil-Seifer, D. & Matarić, M. J. Socially assistive robotics. Robot. Autom. Mag. IEEE 18, 24–31 (2011).
Hortensius, R. & Cross, E. S. From automata to animate beings: The scope and limits of attributing socialness to artificial agents. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. (2018) doi:10.1111/nyas.13727.
Henschel, A., Hortensius, R. & Cross, E. S. Social Cognition in the Age of Human–Robot Interaction. Trends Neurosci. S0166223620300734 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.tins.2020.03.013.
作者資訊
Te-Yi Hsieh|現為英國University of Glasgow 博士生,主修 Neuroscience and Psychology。研究領域介於心理學、機器人學、神經科學的交界處。