Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The automatic tendency to anthropomorphize our interaction partners and make use of experience acquired in earlier interaction scenarios leads to the suggestion that social interaction with humanoid robots is more pleasant and intuitive than that with industrial robots. An objective method applied to evaluate the quality of human–robot interaction is based on the phenomenon of motor interference (MI). It claims that a face-to-face observation of a different (incongruent) movement of another individual leads to a higher variance in one’s own movement trajectory. In social interaction, MI is a consequence of the tendency to imitate the movement of other individuals and goes along with mutual rapport, sense of togetherness, and sympathy. Although MI occurs while observing a human agent, it disappears in case of an industrial robot moving with piecewise constant velocity. Using a robot with human-like appearance, a recent study revealed that its movements led to MI, only if they were based on human prerecording (biological velocity), but not on constant (artificial) velocity profile. However, it remained unclear, which aspects of the human prerecorded movement triggered MI: biological velocity profile or variability in movement trajectory. To investigate this issue, we applied a quasi-biological minimum-jerk velocity profile (excluding variability in the movement trajectory as an influencing factor of MI) to motion of a humanoid robot, which was observed by subjects performing congruent or incongruent arm movements. The increase in variability in subjects’ movements occurred both for the observation of a human agent and for the robot performing incongruent movements, suggesting that an artificial human-like movement velocity profile is sufficient to facilitate the perception of humanoid robots as interaction partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blake R, Turner LM, Smoski MJ, Pozdol SL, Stone WL (2003) Visual recognition of biological motion is impaired in children with autism. Psychol Sci 14(2):151–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blow MP, Dautenhahn K, Appleby A, Nehaniv CL, Lee D (2006) Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human-robot interaction design. In: 15th IEEE Int symposium on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 06). 469–474

  • Bouquet CA, Gaurier V, Shipley T, Toussaint L, Blandin Y (2007) Influence of the perception of biological or non-biological motion on movement execution. J Sports Sci 25:519–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass M, Bekkering H, Prinz W (2001) Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychol 106(1–2):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breazeal C, Buchsbaum D, Gray J, Gatenby D, Blumberg B (2005) Learning from and about others: towards using imitation to bootstrap the social understanding of others by robots. Artif Life 11(1–2):31–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Seitz RJ, Zilles K, Rizzolati G, Freund HJ (2001) Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci 13:400–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Buccino G, Binkofski F, Riggio L (2004) The mirror neuron system and action recognition. Brain Lang 89(2):370–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaminade T (02008) Applying motor resonance to humanoid robots In: Proceedings of IRO’S 2008, Nice, France, Sept 26

  • Chaminade T, Franklin D, Oztop E, Cheng G (2005) Motor interference between humans and humanoid robots: effect of biological and artificial motion. In IEEE 4th international conference on development and learning, Osaka (Japan), pp 96–101

  • Chartrand TL, Bargh JA (1999) The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(6):893–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakin S, Frith U (2005) Vagaries of visual perception in autism. Neuron 48(3):497–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, London, England, 25–28 June 2002

  • Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Rob Auton Syst 42(3–4):177–190

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, Rizzolatti G (1995) Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J Neurophysiol 73(6):2608–2611

    Google Scholar 

  • Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5(7):1688–1703

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzola V, Rizzolatti G, Wicker B, Keysers C (2007) The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. NeuroImage 35:1674–1684

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergely C (2008) Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition 107:705–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation, In: ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2003), pp. 55–60

  • Gowen E, Stanley J, Miall RC (2008) Movement interference in autism-spectrum disorder. Neuropsychologia 46(4):1060–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjikhani N, Joseph RM, Snyder J, Tager-Flusberg H (2007) Abnormal activation of the social brain during face perception in autism. Hum Brain Mapp 28(5):441–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegel F, Lohse M, Swadzba A, Rohlfing K, Wachsmuth S, Wrede B (2007) Classes of applications for social robots: a user study. In proceedings of international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). Jeju Island, Korea

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber M, Rickert M, Knoll A, Brandt T, Glasauer S (2008) Human-robot interaction in handing-over tasks. In: Proceedings of 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp. 107–112

  • Iacoboni M, Molnar-Szakacs I, Gallese V, Buccino G, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (2005) Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology 3(3):e79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson S, Brady N, Cummins F, Monaghan K (2006) Interaction effects in simultaneous motor control and movement perception tasks. Artif Intell Rev 26(1):141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs A, Pinto J, Shiffrar M (2004) Experience, context, and the visual perception of human movement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30(5):822–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (2001) Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage 14(1):103–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson MH (2006) Biological motion: a perceptual life detector? Curr Biol 16(10):376–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan H, Reiss JE, Hoffman JE, Landau B (2002) Intact perception of biological motion in the face of profound spatial deficits: Williams syndrome. Psychol Sci 13(2):162–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T (2004) Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. In proceedings of the IEEE (special issue on human interactive robot for psychological enrichment) 92:1839–1850

  • Kilner J, Paulignan Y, Blakemore S (2003) An Interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Curr Biol 13(6):522–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilner J, Hamilton AFDC, Blakemore S (2007) Interference effect of observed human movement on action is due to velocity profile of biological motion. Social Neurosci 2(3):158–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrae CN, Duffy OK, Miles LK, Lawrence J (2008) A case of hand waving: action synchrony and person perception. Cognition 109(1):152–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono T, Imai M, Ishiguro H (2001) A model of embodied communications with gestures between humans and robots, In proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting cognitive science society, pp. 732–737

  • Oztop E, Franklin D, Chaminade T, Cheng G (2005) Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? Int J HR 2:537–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Paccalin C, Jeannerod M (2000) Changes in breathing during observation of effortful actions. Brain Res 862(1–2):194–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul BM, Stiles J, Passarotti A, Bavar N, Bellugi U (2002) Face and place processing in Williams syndrome: evidence for a dorsal-ventral dissociation. Neuroreport 13(9):1115–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premack D (1990) The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition 36:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz W (1997) Perception and action planning. Eur J Cogn Psychol 9:129–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart G, Vogl W, Rösel W, Wallhoff F, Lenz C (2007) JAHIR—Joint action for humans and industrial robots. Fachforum “Intelligente Sensorik—Robotik und Automation”, Bayern Innovativ—Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH, Augsburg

  • Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V (2001) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat Rev Neurosci 2(9):661–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz N, Bekkering H, Knoblich G (2006) Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends Cogn Sci 10(2):70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J, Gowen E, Miall RC (2007) Effects of agency on movement interference during observation of a moving dot stimulus. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33(4):915–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syrdal DS, Walters ML, Koay KL, Woods SN, Dautenhahn K. (2007) Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In: technical report of the aaai—spring symposium 2007, multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics, pp. 86–92

  • Troje NF, Westhoff C (2006) The inversion effect in biological motion perception: evidence for a “life detector”? Curr Biol 16(8):821–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troje NF, Sadr J, Geyer H, Nakayama K (2006) Adaptation aftereffects in the perception of gender from biological motion. J Vision, 6(8):850–857

    Google Scholar 

  • Trout DL, Rosenfeld HM (1980) The effect of postural lean and body congruence on the judgment of psychotherapeutic rapport. J Nonverbal Behav 4(3):176–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Graduiertenförderung nach dem Bay. Eliteförderungsgesetz and the DFG Cluster of Excellence “CoTeSys”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center For Sensorimotor Research, Clinical Neurosciences, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistrasse 23, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Aleksandra Kupferberg, Stefan Glasauer & Markus Huber

  2. Robotics and Embedded Systems Lab, Department of Computer Science, Technical University Munich, Bolzmannstrasse 3, 85748, Munich, Germany

    Markus Rickert & Alois Knoll

  3. Chair For Clinical Neurosciences, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Thomas Brandt

Authors
  1. Aleksandra Kupferberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Glasauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Markus Rickert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alois Knoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksandra Kupferberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kupferberg, A., Glasauer, S., Huber, M. et al. Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction. AI & Soc 26, 339–345 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0314-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0314-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation