poster

Evaluating Human Impressions of an Initiative-taking Robot

Authors:

Priscilla Kan John,

Wan ZhuAuthors Info & Claims

CHI EA '22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts

Article No.: 321, Pages 1 - 7

https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519633

Published: 28 April 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Social robots can be applied in different settings to enhance experiences for humans. Understanding physical and behavioural aspects of robot design is important to promote acceptance in human-robot interaction. In this study, we focus on robot initiative-taking as a behavioural aspect and investigate how it influences human perception and emotion during human-robot interaction. We built on previous work using questionnaires to evaluate user impressions in the presence or absence of robot activeness (initiative-taking). We also used Galvanic skin response (GSR) as a physiological measure to gauge participants’ emotion during interaction. Questionnaire analysis confirmed that generally active robot behaviour improved human impression. Moreover, the order of interaction seems to matter for participants to take more notice of robot initiative-taking. GSR analysis supported the questionnaire results, showing that on average participants were more emotionally aroused during an active interaction and that order of interaction somewhat mattered.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (3491101.3519633-video-preview.mp4)

Video Preview

Download
3.76 MB

References

[1]

Okada Akiho and Midori Sugaya. 2016. Impression evaluation for active behavior of robot in human robot interaction. In International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, 83–95.

[2]

Jimmy Baraglia, Maya Cakmak, Yukie Nagai, Rajesh Rao, and Minoru Asada. 2016. Initiative in robot assistance during collaborative task execution. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, 67–74.

[3]

Christoph Bartneck and Jodi Forlizzi. 2004. A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759). IEEE, 591–594.

[4]

Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, 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.

[5]

Marieke GN Bos, Pia Jentgens, Tom Beckers, and Merel Kindt. 2013. Psychophysiological response patterns to affective film stimuli. PloS one 8, 4 (2013), e62661.

[6]

Jason J Braithwaite, Derrick G Watson, Robert Jones, and Mickey Rowe. 2013. A guide for analysing electrodermal activity (EDA) & skin conductance responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Psychophysiology 49, 1 (2013), 1017–1034.

[7]

Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman. 2020. The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation. BMC genomics 21, 1 (2020), 1–13.

[8]

Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies—why and how. Knowledge-based systems 6, 4 (1993), 258–266.

[9]

Oxford dictionaries. [n.d.]. Robot noun. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/robot Last accessed 08 September 2021.

[10]

Empatica. [n.d.]. E4 wristband. https://www.empatica.com/en-gb/research/e4/

[11]

Bryn Farnsworth. 2018. What is GSR (galvanic skin response) and how does it work. Imotions. Recuperado de: https://imotions. com/blog/gsr (2018).

[12]

Hassan Ismail Fawaz, Germain Forestier, Jonathan Weber, Lhassane Idoumghar, and Pierre-Alain Muller. 2019. Deep learning for time series classification: a review. Data mining and knowledge discovery 33, 4 (2019), 917–963.

Digital Library

[13]

Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and autonomous systems 42, 3-4 (2003), 143–166.

[14]

Raspberry Pi Foundation. 2019. Raspberry Pi. https://www.raspberrypi.org/

[15]

Michael A Goodrich and Alan C Schultz. 2008. Human-robot interaction: a survey. Now Publishers Inc.

[16]

Paul Green and Lisa Wei-Haas. 1985. The rapid development of user interfaces: Experience with the Wizard of Oz method. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 29. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 470–474.

[17]

Christabel Jananii Vaz and Eric Wade. 2016. Design of a low-cost social robot for children with complex communication needs. Journal of Medical Devices 10, 3 (2016).

[18]

Masayuki Kakio, Takahiro Miyashita, Noriaki Mitsunaga, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2008. How does swaying of a humanoid robot affect human swaying and their impressions?Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan 26, 6 (2008), 485–492.

[19]

Kiluck. [n.d.]. Rapiro. http://www.rapiro.com/

[20]

Jonghwa Kim and Elisabeth André. 2008. Emotion recognition based on physiological changes in music listening. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 30, 12(2008), 2067–2083.

Digital Library

[21]

R. Kiya. 2012. An experiment evaluating robot actions targetting human symbiosis.

[22]

Research and Markets. 2021. Insights on the Social Robots Global Market to 2026 - Rise in Automation is Driving Growth. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/22/2250900/28124/en/Insights-on-the-Social-Robots-GlobalMarket-to-2026-Rise-in-Automation-is-Driving-Growth.html

[23]

Nikolas Martelaro. 2016. Wizard-of-oz interfaces as a step towards autonomous hri. In 2016 AAAI spring symposium series.

[24]

Brian W Matthews. 1975. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Protein Structure 405, 2(1975), 442–451.

[25]

Toru Nakata, Tomomasa Sato, Taketoshi Mori, and Hiroshi Mizoguchi. 1997. Generating familiarity by robot behavior toward a human being. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan 15, 7 (1997), 1068–1074.

[26]

Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers Are Social Actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (CHI ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703

Digital Library

[27]

Feifei Qi, Wei Wu, Zhu Liang Yu, Zhenghui Gu, Zhenfu Wen, Tianyou Yu, and Yuanqing Li. 2020. Spatiotemporal-filtering-based channel selection for single-trial EEG classification. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 51, 2 (2020), 558–567.

[28]

M Scopelliti, Maria Vittoria Giuliani, AM D’amico, and Ferdinando Fornara. 2004. If I had a robot at home... Peoples’ representation of domestic robots. In Designing a more inclusive world. Springer, 257–266.

[29]

Umut Mehmet Sen, Veronica Perez-Rosas, Berrin Yanikoglu, Mohamed Abouelenien, Mihai Burzo, and Rada Mihalcea. 2020. Multimodal Deception Detection using Real-Life Trial Data. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing(2020).

[30]

Lin Shu, Jinyan Xie, Mingyue Yang, Ziyi Li, Zhenqi Li, Dan Liao, Xiangmin Xu, and Xinyi Yang. 2018. A review of emotion recognition using physiological signals. Sensors 18, 7 (2018), 2074.

[31]

Erin T Solovey, Marin Zec, Enrique Abdon Garcia Perez, Bryan Reimer, and Bruce Mehler. 2014. Classifying driver workload using physiological and driving performance data: two field studies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 4057–4066.

Digital Library

[32]

Dimitris Stathakis. 2009. How many hidden layers and nodes?International Journal of Remote Sensing 30, 8 (2009), 2133–2147.

[33]

Adriana Tapus and Maja J Mataric. 2006. Towards socially assistive robotics. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan 24, 5 (2006), 576–578.

[34]

Liisa Voutilainen, Pentti Henttonen, Mikko Kahri, Niklas Ravaja, Mikko Sams, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2018. Empathy, challenge, and psychophysiological activation in therapist–client interaction. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 530.

[35]

H Yarandi. 2004. Crossover Designs and Proc Mixed in SAS. In The Proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group(Nashville). Paper SD04.

Cited By

Tamantini CCordella FLauretti CLuzio FCampagnola BCricenti LBravi MBressi FDraicchio FSterzi SZollo L(2023)Tailoring Upper-Limb Robot-Aided Orthopedic Rehabilitation on Patients’ Psychophysiological StateIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering10.1109/TNSRE.2023.329838131(3297-3306)Online publication date: 2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3298381
Tusseyeva IOleinikov ASandygulova ARubagotti M(2023)Evaluation of Perceived Intelligence for a Collaborative Manipulator Sharing its Workspace with a Human Operator2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309368(2267-2272)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309368

Recommendations

A Long-Term Evaluation of Social Robot Impression
Human Interface and the Management of Information. Interacting with Information
Abstract
The impression of a social robot changes with long-term use due to novelty and familiarity effects. In this study, a psychological scale of the long-term change in impression of social robots was created through a long-term experiment focusing on ...
User impressions of a stuffed doll robot's facing direction in animation systems
ICMI '07: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Multimodal interfaces

This paper investigates the effect on user impressions of the body direction of a stuffed doll robot in an animation system. Many systems that combine a computer display with a robot have been developed, and one of their applications is entertainment, ...
Empathy between human and robot?
HRI '13: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction

This paper aims at finding the answer to the essential question: Can people perceive a robot's presence as having a social existence? We attempt to apply a sociological and psychological approach to understand the influence of robot beings, by observing ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2022

3066 pages

ISBN:9781450391566

DOI:10.1145/3491101

Editors:
Simone Barbosa
PUC-Rio, Brazil
,
Cliff Lampe
University of Michigan, USA
,
Caroline Appert
Université Paris-Saclay, France
,
David A. Shamma
Toyota Research Institute, USA

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 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: 28 April 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Poster
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

CHI '22

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 29 - May 5, 2022

LA, New Orleans, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CHI '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

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

2
Total Citations
View Citations
180
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)36
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 09 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Tamantini CCordella FLauretti CLuzio FCampagnola BCricenti LBravi MBressi FDraicchio FSterzi SZollo L(2023)Tailoring Upper-Limb Robot-Aided Orthopedic Rehabilitation on Patients’ Psychophysiological StateIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering10.1109/TNSRE.2023.329838131(3297-3306)Online publication date: 2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3298381
Tusseyeva IOleinikov ASandygulova ARubagotti M(2023)Evaluation of Perceived Intelligence for a Collaborative Manipulator Sharing its Workspace with a Human Operator2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309368(2267-2272)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309368

View Options

Get Access

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