, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 35–49 | Cite as

Toward combining autonomy and interactivity for social robots

  • Yasser MohammadEmail author
  • Toyoaki Nishida
Original Article


The success of social robots in achieving natural coexistence with humans depends on both their level of autonomy and their interactive abilities. Although a lot of robotic architectures have been suggested and many researchers have focused on human–robot interaction, a robotic architecture that can effectively combine interactivity and autonomy is still unavailable. This paper contributes to the research efforts toward this architecture in the following ways. First a theoretical analysis is provided that leads to the notion of co-evolution between the agent and its environment and with other agents as the condition needed to combine both autonomy and interactivity. The analysis also shows that the basic competencies needed to achieve the required level of autonomy and the envisioned level of interactivity are similar but not the same. Secondly nine specific requirements are then formalized that should be achieved by the architecture. Thirdly a robotic architecture that tries to achieve those requirements by utilizing two main theoretical hypothesis and several insights from social science, developmental psychology and neuroscience is detailed. Lastly two experiments with a humanoid robot and a simulated agent are reported to show the potential of the proposed architecture.


Humanoid Robot Motor Plan Social Robot Effect Channel Interaction Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Argyle M (2001) Bodily communication. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Birdwhistell RL (1970) Kinesics and context. University of Philadelphia Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumberg BM (1997) Old tricks, new dogs: ethology and interactive creatures. PhD thesis. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks RA (1991) Challenges for complete creature architectures. In: Meyer JA, Wilson SW (eds) From animals to animats. MIT, Cambridge, pp 434–443Google Scholar
  5. Buchsbaum D (2004) Imitation and social learning for synthetic characters. PhD thesis. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2004) Founding autonomy: the dialectics between (social) environment and agent’s architecture and powers. Lect Notes Artif Intell 2969:40–54Google Scholar
  7. Condon WS, Ogston WD (1966) Sound film analysis of normal and pathological behavior patterns. J Nerv Ment Dis 143:338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies M, Stone T (1995) Mental simulation. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Ishiguro H et al (1999) A robot architecture based on situated modules. In: IEEE/RSJ Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol 3, pp 1617–1624Google Scholar
  10. Kendon A (1970) Movement coordination in social interaction: some examples considered. Acta Pyschol 32:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee C (1999) Robust radial basis function neural networks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 29(6):674–685Google Scholar
  12. McDowall JJ (1978) Interactional synchrony: a reappraisal. J Pers Soc Psychol 36:963–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mohammad YFO, Nishida T (2006) Interactive perception for amplification of intended behavior in complex noisy environments. In: International workshop of Social Intelligence Design 2006 (SID2006), Osaka, pp 173–187Google Scholar
  14. Mohammad YFO, Nishida T (2007) Intention through interaction: towards mutual intention in human–robot interactions. In: IEA/AIE 2007 conference, Kyoto, pp 114–124Google Scholar
  15. Mohammad YFO, Nishida T (2008) Two layers action integration for HRI: action integration with attention focusing for interactive robots. Accepted for ICINCO 2008, MaderiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Mohammad Y et al (2007) Embodiment of knowledge into the interaction and physical domains using robots. In: ICCAS 2007, Seoul, pp 737–744Google Scholar
  17. Murata A et al (1997) Object representation in the ventral premotor cortex (area F5) of the monkey. J Neurophysiol 78:2226–2230Google Scholar
  18. Oberman LM et al (2007) EEG evidence for mirror neuron activity during the observation of human and robot actions: toward and analysis of the human qualities of interactive robots. Neurocomputing 70:2194–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perez MC (2003) A proposal for a behavior-based control architecture with reinforcement learning for an autonomous underwater robot. PhD thesis. University of Girona, GironaGoogle Scholar
  20. Sabbagh MA (2004) Understanding orbitofrontal contributions to theory-of-mind reasoning: implications for autism. Brain Cogn 55:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vogt P (2002) The physical symbol grounding problem. Cogn Syst Res 3:429–457CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Ziemke T (1999) Does representation need reality. In: Rethinking grounding. Plenum, New York, pp 177–190Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of InformaticsKyoto UniversitySakyo-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations