1887
Volume 17, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

We present results of a quasi-experimental study investigating how user preference might change after direct interaction with two different types of robot regarding morphology and affordances: a machine-like that interacts through touch, and a human-like that interacts verbally. The study was performed in an art exhibition setting, where visitors had the opportunity to interact with the robots voluntarily, and were asked to fill out questionnaires before and after the experience. Post interactions, visitors preferred to touch the machine-like “hard” robot despite initial stated preference for soft materials, preferred mutual contact despite initial preference of subject to initiate touch, and preferred communication with a robot that could touch rather than initial preference for a robot that could “see”. Overall, users showed a significant constant preference for the machine-like robot, reportedly feeling a stronger connection with it than with the human-like one as it met their expectations, and they found its movements more appealing. Social conditioning can render people reluctant to touch a robot with very human-like appearance, and set the expectations for interaction too high to meet. Our results, lastly, indicate that interaction with more than one type of social robot can affect the interaction experience for each of the robots.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.17.3.04vla
2017-03-16
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bartneck, C. , Kulić, D. , Croft, E. , & Zoghbi, S.
    (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑008‑0001‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartneck, C. , Reichenbach, J. , & Carpenter, J.
    (2006) Use of praise and punishment in human-robot collaborative teams. InThe 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2006), pp.177–182. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314414
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314414 [Google Scholar]
  3. Basoeki, F. , DallaLibera, F. , & Ishiguro, H.
    (2015) How do People Expect Humanoids to Respond to Touch?International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 743–765. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑015‑0318‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0318-7 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bemelmans, R. , Gelderblom, G. J. , Jonker, P. , & De Witte, L.
    (2012) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 114–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, W. L. , & Šabanović, S.
    (2015) Interaction Expands Function: Social Shaping of the Therapeutic Robot PARO in a Nursing Home. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (pp.343–350). ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dautenhahn, K. , Walters, M. , Woods, S. , Koay, K. L. , Nehaniv, C. L. , Sisbot, A. , Alami, R. , & Siméon, T.
    (2006) How may I serve you?: a robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. InProceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, (pp.172–179). ACM. doi: 10.1145/1121241.1121272
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121272 [Google Scholar]
  7. De Ruyter, B. , Saini, P. , Markopoulos, P. , & Van Breemen, A.
    (2005) Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting with computers, 17(5), 522–541. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2005.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Goetz, J. , Kiesler, S. , & Powers, A.
    (2003) Matching robot appearance and behaviour to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. InThe 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN’03), pp.55–60. IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Heerink, M. , Kröse, B. , Evers, V. , & Wielinga, B.
    (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0068‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hoffman, G.
    (2011) On stage: robots as performers. InRSS 2011 Workshop on Human-Robot Interaction: Perspectives and Contributions to Robotics from the Human Sciences (Vol.1).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jochum, E. , Vlachos, E. , Christoffersen, A. , Nielsen, S. G. , Hameed, I. A. , & Tan, Z. H.
    (2016) Using Theatre to Study Interaction with Care Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(4), 457–470. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑016‑0370‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0370-y [Google Scholar]
  12. Kroos, C. , & Herath, D. C.
    (2012) Evoking agency: Attention model and behavior control in a robotic art installation. Leonardo, 45(5), 401–407. doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_00435
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00435 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kuwamura, K. , Yamazaki, R. , Nishio, S. , & Ishiguro, H.
    (2014) Elderly care using teleoperated android Telenoid. Gerontechnology, 13(2), 226. doi: 10.4017/gt.2014.13.02.091.00
    https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2014.13.02.091.00 [Google Scholar]
  14. Li, J. , Kizilcec, R. , Bailenson, J. , & Ju, W.
    (2015) Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lohse, M.
    (2010) Investigating the influence of situations and expectations on user behavior: empirical analyses in human-robot interaction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Doctoral Thesis. Bielefeld University, Technical Faculty, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mori, M. , MacDorman, K. F. , & Kageki, N.
    (2012) The uncanny valley [from the field]. Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
    https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 [Google Scholar]
  17. Moyle, W. , Cooke, M. , Beattie, E. , Jones, C. , Klein, B. , Cook, G. , & Gray, C.
    (2013) Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39(5), 46–53. doi: 10.3928/00989134‑20130313‑03
    https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20130313-03 [Google Scholar]
  18. BBC
    BBC (2015, July15). Five things about Japan’s robot hotel. Retrieved fromwww.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33562368
  19. Reeves, B. , & Nass, C.
    (2002) The Media Equations: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CLSI Publications
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Robins, B. , Dautenhahn, K. , & Dickerson, P.
    (2009) From isolation to communication: a case study evaluation of robot assisted play for children with autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot. InSecond International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI'09), pp.205–211. IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sciutti, A. , Rea, F. , & Sandini, G.
    (2014) When you are young, (robot’s) looks matter . Developmental changes in the desired properties of a robot friend. InThe 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2014), pp.567–573. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926313
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926313 [Google Scholar]
  22. Shiomi, M. , Kanda, T. , Ishiguro, H. , & Hagita, N.
    (2006) Interactive humanoid robots for a science museum. InProceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, (pp.305–312). ACM. doi: 10.1145/1121241.1121293
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121293 [Google Scholar]
  23. Sim, D. Y. Y. , & Loo, C. K.
    (2015) Extensive assessment and evaluation methodologies on assistive social robots for modelling human – robot interaction – A review. Information Sciences, 301, 305–344. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  24. Syrdal, D. S. , Dautenhahn, K. , Koay, K. L. , & Ho, W. C.
    (2014) Views from within a narrative: Evaluating long-term human – robot interaction in a naturalistic environment using open-ended scenarios. Cognitive computation, 6(4), 741–759 doi: 10.1007/s12559‑014‑9284‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-014-9284-x [Google Scholar]
  25. Van Erp, J. B. , & Toet, A.
    (2013) How to touch humans: Guidelines for social agents and robots that can touch. In2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp.780–785. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ACII.2013.145
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2013.145 [Google Scholar]
  26. Vlachos, E. , & Schärfe, H.
    (2013) The Geminoid Reality. InHCI International 2013-Posters’ Extended Abstracts, CCIS374 (pp.621–625). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑39476‑8_125
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39476-8_125 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2014) Social robots as persuasive agents. InInternational Conference on Social Computing and Social Media, LNCS 8531 (pp.277–284). Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015) An Open-Ended Approach to Evaluating Android Faces. InThe 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2015), pp.756–751. IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. von Der Pütten, A. M. , Krämer, N. C. , Becker-Asano, C. , & Ishiguro, H.
    (2011) An android in the field. InThe 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp.283–284. ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Walters, M. L. , Syrdal, D. S. , Dautenhahn, K. , Te Boekhorst, R. , & Koay, K. L.
    (2008) Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots, 24(2), 159–178. doi: 10.1007/s10514‑007‑9058‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9058-3 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.17.3.04vla
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/is.17.3.04vla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): human-like , machine-like , preference , Social human-robot interaction and touch

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error