More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

short-paper

A Study on Human Interactions With Robots Based on Their Appearance and Behaviour

Authors:

Zuzanna Janeczko,

Mary Ellen FosterAuthors Info & Claims

CUI '22: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

Article No.: 33, Pages 1 - 6

https://doi.org/10.1145/3543829.3544523

Published: 15 September 2022 Publication History

Abstract

When designing a natural-language interaction for a social robot, it is not enough to design the conversation itself: the success of a human-robot interaction can also be significantly affected by seemingly small factors such as a robot’s physical appearance and non-verbal behaviour. In this paper, we deploy an identical chatbot system onto two different robots, Furhat and Pepper, and compare users’ subjective responses to conversations with both robots to get a clear measure of the impact of robot appearance on a social robot when the interaction context is held constant. The results of the study were varied: Furhat was considered to display emotions better and to be more intelligent and trustworthy than Pepper, while both robots were seen as equally friendly. No significant differences were found in the likeability and comfort categories.

References

[1]

K. Baraka, P. Alves-Oliveira, and T. Ribeiro. 2020. An Extended Framework for Characterizing Social Robots. In Human-Robot Interaction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_2

[2]

F. Basoeki, F. DallaLibera, and H. Ishiguro. 2015. How do People Expect Humanoids to Respond to Touch?International Journal of Social Robotics 7 (2015), 743–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0318-7

[3]

T. Belpaeme. 2020. Advice to New Human-Robot Interaction Researchers. In Human-Robot Interaction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_14

[4]

T. Belpaeme, J. Kennedy, A. Ramachandran, B. Scassellati, and F. Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics 3, 21 (2018), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954

[5]

Maartje M.A. de Graaf and Somaya Ben Allouch. 2013. Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61, 12 (2013), 1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007

Digital Library

[6]

Chris Woodand Susanna Dillenbeck. 2022. What Are Social Robots? An Introduction to the Furhat Robot. https://furhatrobotics.com/blog/what-are-social-robots/

[7]

Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 3–4 (2003), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X

[8]

J. Goetz, S. Kiesler, and A. Powers. 2003. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003.55–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2003.1251796

[9]

Damith C. Herath, Nicole Binks, and Janie Busby Grant. 2020. To Embody or Not: A Cross Human-Robot and Human-Computer Interaction (HRI/HCI) Study on the Efficacy of Physical Embodiment. In 2020 16th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV). 848–853. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARCV50220.2020.9305520

[10]

T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, M. Imai, and T. Ono. 2004. Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. Proc. IEEE 92, 11 (2004), 1839–1850. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.835359

[11]

Takayuki Kanda, Takahiro Miyashita, Taku Osada, Yuji Haikawa, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2008. Analysis of Humanoid Appearances in Human–Robot Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24, 3 (2008), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2008.921566

Digital Library

[12]

James Kennedy, Paul Baxter, and Tony Belpaeme. 2014. Comparing Robot Embodiments in a Guided Discovery Learning Interaction with Children. International Journal of Social Robotics 7 (2014), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0277-4

[13]

C.D. Kidd and C. Breazeal. 2004. Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vol. 4. 3559–3564 vol.4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389967

[14]

T. Komatsu, R. Kurosawa, and S. Yamada. 2012. How Does the Difference Between Users’ Expectations and Perceptions About a Robotic Agent Affect Their Behavior?International Journal of Social Robotics 4 (2012), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0122-y

[15]

Kwan Min Lee, Younbo Jung, Jaywoo Kim, and Sang Ryong Kim. 2006. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 10 (2006), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002

Digital Library

[16]

Youdi Li, Eri Sato-Shimokawara, and Toru Yamaguchi. 2021. The Influence of Robot’s Unexpected Behavior on Individual Cognitive Performance. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 1103–1109. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN50785.2021.9515317

Digital Library

[17]

Masahiro Mori, Karl F. MacDorman, and Norri Kageki. 2012. The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine 19, 2 (2012), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

[18]

Clifford Naas, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703

Digital Library

[19]

T. Nomura, T. Kanda, and T. Suzuki. 2006. Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Society 20(2006), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7

Digital Library

[20]

Joelle Pineau, Michael Montemerlo, Martha Pollack, Nicholas Roy, and Sebastian Thrun. 2003. Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: Challenges and results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 3 (2003), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00381-0

[21]

Aaron Powers, Sara Kiesler, Susan Fussell, and Cristen Torrey. 2007. Comparing a Computer Agent with a Humanoid Robot. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1145/1228716.1228736

Digital Library

[22]

Rasa Technologies Inc. 2022. Rasa. https://rasa.com/

[23]

J. Saldien, K. Goris, B. Vanderborght, J. Vanderfaeillie, and D. Lefeber. 2010. Expressing Emotions with the Social Robot Probo. International Journal of Social Robotics 2 (2010), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0067-6

[24]

S. Schneider and F. Kummert. 2018. Comparing the Effects of Social Robots and Virtual Agents on Exercising Motivation. In Social Robotics. ICSR 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1_44

[25]

J. von Zitzewitz, P.M. Boesch, P. Wolf, and R. Riener. 2013. Quantifying the Human Likeness of a Humanoid Robot. International Journal of Social Robotics 5 (2013), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0177-4

Cited By

De Cet MCvajner MTorre IObaid M(2024)Do Your Expectations Match? A Mixed-Methods Study on the Association Between a Robot's Voice and AppearanceProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665551(1-11)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665551
Garg MGarg M(2024)The Synergy Between Spirituality and AI: A SurveySpiritual Artificial Intelligence (SAI)10.1007/978-3-031-73719-0_9(113-124)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73719-0_9
Blair AFoster MCastellano GRiek LCakmak MLeite I(2023)Development of a University Guidance and Information RobotCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3580138(516-520)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568294.3580138

Index Terms

A Study on Human Interactions With Robots Based on Their Appearance and Behaviour
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. User studies
    2. Interaction paradigms
      1. Natural language interfaces

Recommendations

Applying politeness maxims in social robotics polite dialogue
HRI '12: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction

An important element of human-robot interaction, as with inter-human interaction, is conversation. Having previously suggested the Gricean maxims as suitable guidelines for social robotics dialogue, we discovered that a preferable alternative set of ...
The Impact of Personalisation on Human-Robot Interaction in Learning Scenarios
HAI '17: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction

Advancements in Human-Robot Interaction involve robots being more responsive and adaptive to the human user they are interacting with. For example, robots model a personalised dialogue with humans, adapting the conversation to accommodate the user's ...
Cooperative Interactions Generated by Incompleteness in Robots' Utterance
HAI '18: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

The general principle about human-robot conversation is that the conversation of a robot should emphasize on providing complete information in a single utterance, without the necessity of a human asking further questions. On the other hand, information ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

CUI '22: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

July 2022

289 pages

ISBN:9781450397391

DOI:10.1145/3543829

Copyright © 2022 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 15 September 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

CUI 2022

CUI 2022: 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

July 26 - 28, 2022

Glasgow, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

CUI '22 Paper Acceptance Rate 12 of 33 submissions, 36%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 34 of 100 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
183
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)62
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 07 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

De Cet MCvajner MTorre IObaid M(2024)Do Your Expectations Match? A Mixed-Methods Study on the Association Between a Robot's Voice and AppearanceProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665551(1-11)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665551
Garg MGarg M(2024)The Synergy Between Spirituality and AI: A SurveySpiritual Artificial Intelligence (SAI)10.1007/978-3-031-73719-0_9(113-124)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73719-0_9
Blair AFoster MCastellano GRiek LCakmak MLeite I(2023)Development of a University Guidance and Information RobotCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3580138(516-520)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568294.3580138

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents