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

research-article

Embodiment Effects in Interactions with Failing Robots

Authors:

Dimosthenis Kontogiorgos,

Sanne van Waveren,

Joakim GustafsonAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Pages 1 - 14

https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376372

Published: 23 April 2020 Publication History

Abstract

The increasing use of robots in real-world applications will inevitably cause users to encounter more failures in interactions. While there is a longstanding effort in bringing human-likeness to robots, how robot embodiment affects users' perception of failures remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we extend prior work on robot failures by assessing the impact that embodiment and failure severity have on people's behaviours and their perception of robots. Our findings show that when using a smart-speaker embodiment, failures negatively affect users' intention to frequently interact with the device, however not when using a human-like robot embodiment. Additionally, users significantly rate the human-like robot higher in terms of perceived intelligence and social presence. Our results further suggest that in higher severity situations, human-likeness is distracting and detrimental to the interaction. Drawing on quantitative findings, we discuss benefits and drawbacks of embodiment in robot failures that occur in guided tasks.

Supplementary Material

SRT File (paper245pvc.srt)

Preview video captions

Download
.83 KB

MP4 File (paper245pv.mp4)

Preview video

Download
8.71 MB

MP4 File (a245-kontogiorgos-presentation.mp4)

Download
37.55 MB

References

[1]

Samer Al Moubayed, Jonas Beskow, Gabriel Skantze, and Björn Granström. 2012. Furhat: a back-projected human-like robot head for multiparty human-machine interaction. In Cognitive behavioural systems. Springer, 114--130.

[2]

Muhammad Raisul Alam, Mamun Bin Ibne Reaz, and Mohd Alauddin Mohd Ali. 2012. A review of smart homes - Past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (2012).

[3]

Elliot Aronson, Ben Willerman, and Joanne Floyd. 1966. The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science 4, 6 (1966), 227--228.

[4]

Wilma A Bainbridge, Justin Hart, Elizabeth S Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2008. The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 701--706.

[5]

Wilma A Bainbridge, Justin W Hart, Elizabeth S Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 1 (2011), 41--52.

[6]

Markus Bajones, Astrid Weiss, and Markus Vincze. 2016. Help, anyone? a user study for modeling robotic behavior to mitigate malfunctions with the help of the user. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.02547 (2016).

[7]

Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kuli´ c, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71--81.

[8]

Tony Belpaeme, James Kennedy, Aditi Ramachandran, Brian Scassellati, and Fumihide Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics 3, 21 (2018), eaat5954.

[9]

Timothy Bickmore and Justine Cassell. 2001. Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 396--403.

Digital Library

[10]

Frank Biocca, Judee Burgoon, Chad Harms, and Matt Stoner. 2001. Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments (2001).

[11]

Frank Biocca and Chad Harms. 2003. Guide to the Networked Minds Social Presence Inventory v. 1.2: Measures of co-presence, social presence, subjective symmetry, and intersubjective symmetry. Michigan State University, East Lansing (2003).

[12]

Cynthia Breazeal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Takayuki Kanda. 2016. Social robotics. In Springer handbook of robotics.

[13]

Daniel J Brooks, Momotaz Begum, and Holly A Yanco. 2016. Analysis of reactions towards failures and recovery strategies for autonomous robots. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 487--492.

Digital Library

[14]

Dito Eka Cahya, Rahul Ramakrishnan, and Manuel Giuliani. 2019. Static and Temporal Differences in Social Signals Between Error-Free and Erroneous Situations in Human-Robot Collaboration. In International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 189--199.

[15]

Justine Cassell, Timothy Bickmore, Mark Billinghurst, Lee Campbell, Kenny Chang, Hannes Vilhjálmsson, and Hao Yan. 1999. Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 520--527.

Digital Library

[16]

Justine Cassell, Joseph Sullivan, Elizabeth Churchill, and Scott Prevost. 2000. Embodied conversational agents. MIT press.

Digital Library

[17]

Filipa Correia, Carla Guerra, Samuel Mascarenhas, Francisco S Melo, and Ana Paiva. 2018. Exploring the impact of fault justification in human-robot trust. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 507--513.

[18]

Peter de Vries, Cees Midden, and Don Bouwhuis. 2003. The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 6 (2003), 719--735.

Digital Library

[19]

Eric Deng, Bilge Mutlu, Maja J Mataric, and others. 2019. Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 7, 4 (2019), 251--356.

[20]

Munjal Desai, Poornima Kaniarasu, Mikhail Medvedev, Aaron Steinfeld, and Holly Yanco. 2013. Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. IEEE Press, 251--258.

Digital Library

[21]

Paul Dourish. 2004. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.

[22]

Sara Engelhardt, Emmeli Hansson, and Iolanda Leite. 2017. Better Faulty than Sorry: Investigating Social Recovery Strategies to Minimize the Impact of Failure in Human-Robot Interaction. In 1st Workshop on Conversational Interruptions in Human-Agent Interactions, WCIHAI 2017, Stockholm, Sweden, 27 August 2017, Vol. 1943. CEUR-WS, 19--27.

[23]

Elliot E Entin and Daniel Serfaty. 1999. Adaptive team coordination. Human factors 41, 2 (1999), 312--325.

[24]

Rebecca Flook, Anas Shrinah, Luc Wijnen, Kerstin Eder, Chris Melhuish, and Séverin Lemaignan. 2019. On the impact of different types of errors on trust in human-robot interaction: Are laboratory-based HRI experiments trustworthy? Interaction Studies 20, 3 (2019), 455--486.

[25]

Mary Ellen Foster, Andre Gaschler, Manuel Giuliani, Amy Isard, Maria Pateraki, and Ronald Petrick. 2012. Two people walk into a bar: Dynamic multi-party social interaction with a robot agent. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimodal interaction. ACM, 3--10.

Digital Library

[26]

Eleanor J Gibson. 1982. The concept of affordances in development: The renascence of functionalism. In The concept of development: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Vol. 15. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ, 55--81.

[27]

Manuel Giuliani, Nicole Mirnig, Gerald Stollnberger, Susanne Stadler, Roland Buchner, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2015. Systematic analysis of video data from different human--robot interaction studies: a categorization of social signals during error situations. Frontiers in psychology 6 (2015), 931.

[28]

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.

[29]

Chad Harms and Frank Biocca. 2004. Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds measure of social presence. (2004).

[30]

Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Vanessa Evers, and Bob Wielinga. 2008. The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. (2008).

[31]

Shanee Honig and Tal Oron-Gilad. 2018. Understanding and resolving failures in human-robot interaction: Literature review and model development. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 861.

[32]

Jason D Johnson, Julian Sanchez, Arthur D Fisk, and Wendy A Rogers. 2004. Type of automation failure: The effects on trust and reliance in automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 48. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2163--2167.

[33]

Younbo Jung and Kwan Min Lee. 2004. Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. Proceedings of PRESENCE (2004), 80--87.

[34]

Adam Kendon. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta psychologica 26 (1967), 22--63.

[35]

James Kennedy, Paul Baxter, and Tony Belpaeme. 2015a. Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. International Journal of Social Robotics 7, 2 (2015), 293--308.

[36]

James Kennedy, Paul Baxter, and Tony Belpaeme. 2015b. The robot who tried too hard: Social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 67--74.

Digital Library

[37]

Cory D Kidd and Cynthia Breazeal. 2004. Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), Vol. 4. IEEE, 3559--3564.

[38]

Sara Kiesler. 2005. Fostering common ground in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. IEEE, 729--734.

[39]

Dimosthenis Kontogiorgos, Andre Pereira, Olle Andersson, Marco Koivisto, Elena Gonzalez Rabal, Ville Vartiainen, and Joakim Gustafson. 2019a. The effects of anthropomorphism and non-verbal social behaviour in virtual assistants. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. ACM, 133--140.

Digital Library

[40]

Dimosthenis Kontogiorgos, Gabriel Skantze, André Tiago Abelho Pereira, and Joakim Gustafson. 2019b. The Effects of Embodiment and Social Eye-Gaze in Conversational Agents. In 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science (CogSci), Montreal July 24th--Saturday July 27th, 2019.

[41]

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.

Digital Library

[42]

Min Kyung Lee, Sara Kielser, Jodi Forlizzi, Siddhartha Srinivasa, and Paul Rybski. 2010. Gracefully mitigating breakdowns in robotic services. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. IEEE Press, 203--210.

Digital Library

[43]

Gale M Lucas, Jill Boberg, David Traum, Ron Artstein, Jonathan Gratch, Alesia Gainer, Emmanuel Johnson, Anton Leuski, and Mikio Nakano. 2018. Getting to know each other: The role of social dialogue in recovery from errors in social robots. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 344--351.

Digital Library

[44]

Michal Luria, Guy Hoffman, and Oren Zuckerman. 2017. Comparing social robot, screen and voice interfaces for smart-home control. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 580--628.

Digital Library

[45]

George M Marakas, Richard D Johnson, and Jonathan W Palmer. 2000. A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: when the metaphor becomes the model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52, 4 (2000), 719--750.

Digital Library

[46]

Nicole Mirnig, Manuel Giuliani, Gerald Stollnberger, Susanne Stadler, Roland Buchner, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2015. Impact of robot actions on social signals and reaction times in HRI error situations. In International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 461--471.

Digital Library

[47]

Nicole Mirnig, Gerald Stollnberger, Markus Miksch, Susanne Stadler, Manuel Giuliani, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2017. To err is robot: How humans assess and act toward an erroneous social robot. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4 (2017), 21.

[48]

Youngme Moon and Clifford Nass. 1996. How "real" are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication research 23, 6 (1996), 651--674.

[49]

Cecilia G Morales, Elizabeth J Carter, Xiang Zhi Tan, and Aaron Steinfeld. 2019. Interaction Needs and Opportunities for Failing Robots. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, 659--670.

Digital Library

[50]

B. M. Muir. 1989. Operators' trust in and percentage of time spent using the automatic controllers in a supervisory process control task. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto.

[51]

Anastasia Ostrowski, Daniella DiPaola, Erin Partridge, Hae Won Park, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2019. Older Adults Living With Social Robots: Promoting Social Connectedness in Long-Term Communities. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine (2019).

[52]

André Pereira, Carlos Martinho, Iolanda Leite, and Ana Paiva. 2008. iCat, the chess player: the influence of embodiment in the enjoyment of a game. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 3. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1253--1256.

Digital Library

[53]

Andre Pereira, Catharine Oertel, Leonor Fermoselle, Joe Mendelson, and Joakim Gustafson. 2019. Responsive joint attention in human-robot interaction. In 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE.

Digital Library

[54]

Aaron Powers, Sara Kiesler, Susan Fussell, 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. ACM, 145--152.

Digital Library

[55]

Marco Ragni, Andrey Rudenko, Barbara Kuhnert, and Kai O Arras. 2016. Errare humanum est: Erroneous robots in human-robot interaction. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 501--506.

Digital Library

[56]

Laurel D Riek. 2012. Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 1, 1 (2012), 119--136.

Digital Library

[57]

Paul Robinette, Wenchen Li, Robert Allen, Ayanna M Howard, and Alan R Wagner. 2016. Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 101--108.

Digital Library

[58]

Alessandra Rossi, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, and Michael L Walters. 2017. How the timing and magnitude of robot errors influence peoples' trust of robots in an emergency scenario. In International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 42--52.

[59]

Maha Salem, Friederike Eyssel, Katharina Rohlfing, Stefan Kopp, and Frank Joublin. 2013. To err is human (-like): Effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. International Journal of Social Robotics 5, 3 (2013), 313--323.

[60]

Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 141--148.

Digital Library

[61]

Juergen Sauer, Alain Chavaillaz, and David Wastell. 2016. Experience of automation failures in training: effects on trust, automation bias, complacency and performance. Ergonomics 59, 6 (2016), 767--780.

[62]

Allison Sauppé and Bilge Mutlu. 2015. The social impact of a robot co-worker in industrial settings. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 3613--3622.

Digital Library

[63]

Ameneh Shamekhi, Q Vera Liao, Dakuo Wang, Rachel KE Bellamy, and Thomas Erickson. 2018. Face Value? Exploring the effects of embodiment for a group facilitation agent. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 391.

Digital Library

[64]

Elaine Short, Justin Hart, Michelle Vu, and Brian Scassellati. 2010. No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 219--226.

Digital Library

[65]

Rainer Stiefelhagen, C Fugen, R Gieselmann, Hartwig Holzapfel, Kai Nickel, and Alex Waibel. 2004. Natural human-robot interaction using speech, head pose and gestures. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), Vol. 3. IEEE, 2422--2427.

[66]

Sam Thellman, Annika Silvervarg, Agneta Gulz, and Tom Ziemke. 2016. Physical vs. virtual agent embodiment and effects on social interaction. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 412--415.

[67]

Sanne van Waveren, Elizabeth J Carter, and Iolanda Leite. 2019. Take One For the Team: The Effects of Error Severity in Collaborative Tasks with Social Robots. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. ACM, 151--158.

Digital Library

[68]

Alessandro Vinciarelli, Maja Pantic, and Hervé Bourlard. 2009. Social signal processing: Survey of an emerging domain. Image and vision computing 27, 12 (2009), 1743--1759.

[69]

Alexandra Vtyurina and Adam Fourney. 2018. Exploring the role of conversational cues in guided task support with virtual assistants. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 208.

Digital Library

[70]

Joshua Wainer, David J Feil-Seifer, Dylan A Shell, and Maja J Mataric. 2006. The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 117--122.

[71]

Peter Wittenburg, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, and Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. In 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). 1556--1559.

[72]

Kun Yu, Shlomo Berkovsky, Ronnie Taib, Dan Conway, Jianlong Zhou, and Fang Chen. 2017. User trust dynamics: An investigation driven by differences in system performance. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 307--317.

Digital Library

Cited By

Nesset BRajendran GRomeo M(2024)Broken Trust: Does the Agent Matter?Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction10.1145/3687272.3688307(34-43)Online publication date: 24-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687272.3688307
Dennler N(2024)Physical and Social Adaptation for Assistive Robot InteractionsAdjunct Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3672539.3686713(1-6)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3672539.3686713
Liu ZLi HChen AZhang RLee Y(2024)Understanding Public Perceptions of AI Conversational Agents: A Cross-Cultural AnalysisProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642840(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642840
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Embodiment Effects in Interactions with Failing Robots
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Natural language processing
      1. Discourse, dialogue and pragmatics
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

Behavioural Responses to Robot Conversational Failures
HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Humans and robots will increasingly collaborate in domestic environments which will cause users to encounter more failures in interactions. Robots should be able to infer conversational failures by detecting human users' behavioural and social signals. ...
Autonomy, Embodiment, and Obedience to Robots
HRI'15 Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts

We conducted an HRI obedience experiment comparing an autonomous robotic authority to: (i) a remote-controlled robot, and (ii) robots of variant embodiments during a deterrent task. The results suggest that half of people will continue to perform a ...
Effects of adaptive robot dialogue on information exchange and social relations
HRI '06: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction

Human-robot interaction could be improved by designing robots that engage in adaptive dialogue with users. An adaptive robot could estimate the information needs of individuals and change its dialogue to suit these needs. We test the value of adaptive ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2020

10688 pages

ISBN:9781450367080

DOI:10.1145/3313831

General Chairs:
Regina Bernhaupt
Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
,
Florian 'Floyd' Mueller
Monash University, Australia
,
David Verweij
Newcastle University, UK
,
Josh Andres
RMIT, Australia
,
Program Chairs:
Joanna McGrenere
University of British Columbia, Canada
,
Andy Cockburn
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
,
Ignacio Avellino
University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA
,
Alix Goguey
Grenoble Alpes University, France
,
Pernille Bjørn
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
,
Shengdong (Shen) Zhao
National University of Singapore, Singapore
,
Briane Paul Samson
Future University Hakodate, Japan & De La Salle University, Philippines
,
Rafal Kocielnik
University of Washington, USA

Copyright © 2020 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 ACM 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]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 April 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

SSF-FACT

Conference

CHI '20

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 25 - 30, 2020

HI, Honolulu, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025

Sponsor:
sigchi

ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

39
Total Citations
View Citations
1,133
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)209
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28

Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Nesset BRajendran GRomeo M(2024)Broken Trust: Does the Agent Matter?Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction10.1145/3687272.3688307(34-43)Online publication date: 24-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687272.3688307
Dennler N(2024)Physical and Social Adaptation for Assistive Robot InteractionsAdjunct Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3672539.3686713(1-6)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3672539.3686713
Liu ZLi HChen AZhang RLee Y(2024)Understanding Public Perceptions of AI Conversational Agents: A Cross-Cultural AnalysisProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642840(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642840
Jaber RZhong SKuoppamäki SHosseini AGessinger IBrumby DCowan BMcmillan D(2024)Cooking With Agents: Designing Context-aware Voice InteractionProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642183(1-13)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642183
Stiber MGao YTaylor RHuang C(2024)Forging Productive Human-Robot Partnerships Through Task TrainingACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/361165713:1(1-21)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3611657
Mellmann HArbuzova PKontogiorgos DYordanova MHaensel JHafner VBryson JGrollman DBroadbent EJu WSoh HWilliams T(2024)Effects of Transparency in Humanoid Robots - A Pilot StudyCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610978.3640613(750-754)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610978.3640613
Stiber MGrollman DBroadbent EJu WSoh HWilliams T(2024)Flexible Robot Error Detection Using Natural Human Responses for Effective HRICompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610978.3638365(148-150)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610978.3638365
Wachowiak LFenn AKamran HColes ACeliktutan OCanal GGrollman DBroadbent EJu WSoh HWilliams T(2024)When Do People Want an Explanation from a Robot?Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610977.3634990(752-761)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610977.3634990
Axelsson MSpitale MGunes HGrollman DBroadbent EJu WSoh HWilliams T(2024)"Oh, Sorry, I Think I Interrupted You": Designing Repair Strategies for Robotic Longitudinal Well-being CoachingProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610977.3634948(13-22)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610977.3634948
Neupane SMitra SFernandez ISaha SMittal SChen JPillai NRahimi S(2024)Security Considerations in AI-Robotics: A Survey of Current Methods, Challenges, and OpportunitiesIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.336365712(22072-22097)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3363657
Show More Cited By

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