Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article
Open access
Just Accepted

Perceptions of a Robot that Interleaves Tasks for Multiple Users

Online AM: 23 May 2024 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    When robots have multiple tasks to perform, they must determine the order in which to complete them. Interleaving tasks is efficient for the robot trying to finish its to-do list, but it may be less satisfying for a human whose request was delayed in favor of schedule efficiency. Following online research that examined delays with various motivations [4, 27], we created two in-person studies in which participants’ tasks were impacted by the robot’s other tasks. In the first, participants either requested a task for the robot to complete on their behalf or watched the robot performing tasks for other people. We measured how their opinions changed depending on whether their task’s completion was delayed due to another participant’s task or they were observing without a task of their own. In the second, participants had a robot walk them to an office and became delayed as the robot detoured to another location. We measured how opinions of the robot changed depending on who requested the detour task and the length of the detour. Overall, participants positively viewed task interleaving as long as the delay and inconvenience imposed by someone else’s task were small and the task was well-justified. Also, observers often had lower opinions of the robot than participants who requested tasks, highlighting a concern for online research.

    References

    [1]
    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.
    [2]
    Kyle EC Booth, Goldie Nejat, and J Christopher Beck. 2016. A constraint programming approach to multi-robot task allocation and scheduling in retirement homes. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. Springer, 539–555.
    [3]
    Colleen M Carpinella, Alisa B Wyman, Michael A Perez, and Steven J Stroessner. 2017. The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS) development and validation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 254–262.
    [4]
    Elizabeth J Carter, Laura M Hiatt, and Stephanie Rosenthal. 2022. You’re delaying my task?! Impact of task order and motive on perceptions of a robot. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 304–312.
    [5]
    Tathagata Chakraborti, Anagha Kulkarni, Sarath Sreedharan, David E Smith, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2019. Explicability? Legibility? Predictability? Transparency? Privacy? Security? The emerging landscape of interpretable agent behavior. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, Vol. 29. 86–96.
    [6]
    Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Susan Wilhite. 2004. A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 175–182.
    [7]
    Christoph Gebhardt, Antti Oulasvirta, and Otmar Hilliges. 2021. Hierarchical reinforcement learning explains task interleaving behavior. Computational Brain & Behavior 4, 3 (2021), 284–304.
    [8]
    Matthew C Gombolay, Ronald J Wilcox, and Julie A Shah. 2018. Fast scheduling of robot teams performing tasks with temporospatial constraints. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34, 1 (2018), 220–239.
    [9]
    Karen Zita Haigh and Manuela Veloso. 1998. Interleaving planning and robot execution for asynchronous user requests. In Autonomous Agents. Springer, 79–95.
    [10]
    Marc Hanheide, Nick Hawes, Jeremy Wyatt, Moritz Göbelbecker, Michael Brenner, Kristoffer Sjöö, Alper Aydemir, Patric Jensfelt, Hendrik Zender, and Geert-Jan Kruijff. 2010. A framework for goal generation and management. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Goal-Directed Autonomy.
    [11]
    Thomas Hellström and Suna Bensch. 2018. Understandable robots—what, why, and how. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 9, 1 (2018), 110–123.
    [12]
    Sandy H Huang, David Held, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca D Dragan. 2019. Enabling robots to communicate their objectives. Autonomous Robots 43, 2 (2019), 309–326.
    [13]
    Christian P Janssen, Duncan P Brumby, and Rae Garnett. 2012. Natural break points: The influence of priorities and cognitive and motor cues on dual-task interleaving. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 6, 1 (2012), 5–29.
    [14]
    Max Korein, Brian Coltin, and Manuela Veloso. 2013. Self-scheduled exploration to improve robot services. In Proceedings of AAMAS’13, the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems [Extended abstract]. Saint Paul, Minneapolis.
    [15]
    Max Korein, Brian Coltin, and Manuela Veloso. 2014. Constrained scheduling of exploration tasks for service robots to learn about their environment. In Proceedings of AAMAS’14, the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. Paris, France.
    [16]
    Isaac Lage, Daphna Lifschitz, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Ofra Amir. 2019. Toward robust policy summarization. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems 2019 (2019), 2081.
    [17]
    Min Kyung Lee, Jodi Forlizzi, Paul E Rybski, Frederick Crabbe, Wayne Chung, Josh Finkle, Eric Glaser, and Sara Kiesler. 2009. The snackbot: Documenting the design of a robot for long-term human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 7–14.
    [18]
    JMP Statistical Discovery LLC. 2023. JMP 17. Retrieved June 7, 2023 from http://www.jmp.com
    [19]
    Bharadwaj RK Mantha, Min Kyu Jung, Borja García de Soto, Carol C Menassa, and Vineet R Kamat. 2020. Generalized task allocation and route planning for robots with multiple depots in indoor building environments. Automation in Construction 119 (2020), 103359.
    [20]
    Anahita Mohseni-Kabir and Manuela Veloso. 2018. Robot task interruption by learning to switch among multiple models. In Proceedings of IJCAI’18, the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Stockholm, Sweden.
    [21]
    H. D. Patterson and Robin Thompson. 1974. Maximum likelihood estimation of components of variance. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Biochemistry.
    [22]
    Sharon M Singer and David L Akin. 2010. Scheduling robot task performance for a cooperative human and robotic team. Acta Astronautica 66, 1-2 (2010), 102–116.
    [23]
    Walter W. Stroup. 2012. Generalized Linear Mixed Models: Modern Concepts, Methods and Applications. CRC Press.
    [24]
    Veniamin Tereshchuk, John Stewart, Nikolay Bykov, Samuel Pedigo, Santosh Devasia, and Ashis G Banerjee. 2019. An efficient scheduling algorithm for multi-robot task allocation in assembling aircraft structures. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4, 4 (2019), 3844–3851.
    [25]
    Sebastian Thrun, Jamieson Schulte, and Charles Rosenberg. 2000. Robots with humanoid features in public places: A case study. IEEE Intelligent Systems 15, 04 (2000), 7–11.
    [26]
    Rodrigo Ventura, Brian Coltin, and Manuela Veloso. 2013. Web-based remote assistance to overcome robot perceptual limitations. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-13), Workshop on Intelligent Robot Systems. AAAI, Bellevue, WA.
    [27]
    Nick Walker, Kevin Weatherwax, Julian Allchin, Leila Takayama, and Maya Cakmak. 2020. Human Perceptions of a Curious Robot that Performs Off-Task Actions. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 529–538.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction Just Accepted
    EISSN:2573-9522
    Table of Contents
    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

    Online AM: 23 May 2024
    Accepted: 28 March 2024
    Revised: 26 February 2024
    Received: 03 February 2023

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Robot task scheduling
    2. off-task behaviors
    3. perceptions of robots

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 39
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)39
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24
    Reflects downloads up to

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media