[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3610978.3640667acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open access

Is there Really an Effect of Time Delays on Perceived Fluency and Social attributes between Humans and Social Robots? A Pilot Study

Published: 11 March 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Humans are expert percievers of behavioural properties, including the timing of movements. Even short hesitancies and delays can be salient depending on the context. This article presents results from a pilot study on time delays in a human-robot interaction setting using the Wizard of Oz paradigm. Participants (n=17) played Tic-Tac-Toe with the humanoid robot Epi. They were randomized into one of three groups, where Epi either executed its movements with no delay, a short delay (4s) or a long delay (10s). Results from questionnaires measuring fluency, trust, anthropomorphism, animacy and likability were compared before and after the interaction and between the different groups. Although there was evidence of decreased perceived fluency after delays, the difference between the groups did not meet the threshold for statistical significance. The latter is true for our other measures used. We conclude that better statistical power is needed to be sure whether there is indeed an effect of time delays on robot-related attribution of social features. Suggestions are made in regards to how the study design could become more robust for a future, more large-scale study. In addition, we propose using measures that better account for the participants' embodied experiences by taking emotional and bodily states into consideration for future studies.

References

[1]
1] Anca D Dragan, Kenton CT Lee, and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2013. Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 301--308.
[2]
Stephen M Fiore, Travis J Wiltshire, Emilio JC Lobato, Florian G Jentsch, Wesley H Huang, and Benjamin Axelrod. 2013. Toward understanding social cues and signals in human-robot interaction: effects of robot gaze and proxemic behavior. Frontiers in psychology 4 (2013), 859.
[3]
Peter A Hancock, Deborah R Billings, Kristin E Schaefer, Jessie YC Chen, Ewart J De Visser, and Raja Parasuraman. 2011. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human factors 53, 5 (2011), 517--527.
[4]
Nicholas Hertz and Eva Wiese. 2019. Good advice is beyond all price, but what if it comes from a machine? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 25, 3 (2019), 386.
[5]
Guy Hoffman. 2019. Evaluating fluency in human-robot collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 49, 3 (2019), 209--218.
[6]
Guy Hoffman and Cynthia Breazeal. 2007. Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. 1--8.
[7]
Tariq Iqbal, Michael J Gonzales, and Laurel D Riek. 2014. A model for time- synchronized sensing and motion to support human-robot fluency. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Workshop on Timing in HRI. 1--6.
[8]
Markus Koppenborg, Peter Nickel, Birgit Naber, Andy Lungfiel, and Michael Huelke. 2017. Effects of movement speed and predictability in human--robot collaboration. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 27, 4 (2017), 197--209.
[9]
Hatice Kose-Bagci, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Dag S Syrdal, and Chrystopher L Nehaniv. 2010. Drum-mate: interaction dynamics and gestures in human--humanoid drumming experiments. Connection Science 22, 2 (2010), 103--134.
[10]
Joseph B Lyons, Izzaldin Hamdan, and Thy Q Vo. 2023. Explanations and trust: What happens to trust when a robot partner does something unexpected? Computers in Human Behavior 138 (2023), 107473.
[11]
Yusuke Okuno, Takayuki Kanda, Michita Imai, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2009. Providing route directions: design of robot's utterance, gesture, and timing. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. 53--60.
[12]
Hannah Pelikan and Emily Hofstetter. 2023. Managing delays in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 4 (2023), 1--42.
[13]
Julia Rosén. 2021. Expectations in human-robot interaction. In Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering: Proceedings of the AHFE 2021 Virtual Conferences on Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, Industrial Cognitive Ergonomics and Engineering Psychology, and Cognitive Computing and Internet of Things, July 25--29, 2021, USA. Springer, 98--105.
[14]
Virpi Roto and Antti Oulasvirta. 2005. Need for non-visual feedback with long response times in mobile HCI. In Special interest tracks and posters of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. 775--781.
[15]
Toshiyuki Shiwa, Takayuki Kanda, Michita Imai, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2008. How quickly should communication robots respond?. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. 153--160.
[16]
Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, and Michael L Walters. 2009. The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Adaptive and emergent behaviour and complex systems (2009).
[17]
Leimin Tian and Sharon Oviatt. 2021. A taxonomy of social errors in human- robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10, 2 (2021), 1--32.
[18]
Laura Voss. 2021. More than machines?: The attribution of (in) animacy to robot technology. transcript Verlag.
[19]
Katie Winkle, Donald McMillan, Maria Arnelid, Katherine Harrison, Madeline Balaam, Ericka Johnson, and Iolanda Leite. 2023. Feminist human-robot interaction: Disentangling power, principles and practice for better, more ethical HRI. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 72--82.
[20]
Allan Zhou, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Anusha Nagabandi, and Anca D Dragan. 2017. Expressive robot motion timing. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 22--31.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HRI '24: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 2024
1408 pages
ISBN:9798400703232
DOI:10.1145/3610978
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 March 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. animacy
  2. fluency
  3. robotic movements
  4. social robots
  5. time delays
  6. turn-taking

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Funding Sources

  • WASP-HS

Conference

HRI '24
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 232
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)232
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)34
Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media