Advertisement

Autonomous Robots

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 159–178 | Cite as

Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion

  • Michael L. Walters
  • Dag S. Syrdal
  • Kerstin Dautenhahn
  • René te Boekhorst
  • Kheng Lee Koay
Article

Abstract

This article presents the results of video-based Human Robot Interaction (HRI) trials which investigated people’s perceptions of different robot appearances and associated attention-seeking features and behaviors displayed by robots with different appearance and behaviors. The HRI trials studied the participants’ preferences for various features of robot appearance and behavior, as well as their personality attributions towards the robots compared to their own personalities. Overall, participants tended to prefer robots with more human-like appearance and attributes. However, systematic individual differences in the dynamic appearance ratings are not consistent with a universal effect. Introverts and participants with lower emotional stability tended to prefer the mechanical looking appearance to a greater degree than other participants. It is also shown that it is possible to rate individual elements of a particular robot’s behavior and then assess the contribution, or otherwise, of that element to the overall perception of the robot by people. Relating participants’ dynamic appearance ratings of individual robots to independent static appearance ratings provided evidence that could be taken to support a portion of the left hand side of Mori’s theoretically proposed ‘uncanny valley’ diagram. Suggestions for future work are outlined.

Keywords

HRI Robot companion Appearance Personality Behavior User study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 387–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asquith, P. J. (1997). Why anthropomorphism is not metaphor: crossing concepts and cultures in animal behavior studies. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 22–34). Albany: State University of New York Press. Google Scholar
  3. Ball, G., & Breese, J. (2000). Emotion and personality in a conversational agent. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  4. Bethal, C. L., & Murphy, R. R. (2006). Affective expression in appearance-constrained robots. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’06) (pp. 327–328), Salt Lake City, Utah, US. Google Scholar
  5. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 645–657. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breazeal, C. L. (2002). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  7. Brenton, H., Gillies, M., Ballin, D., & Chattin, D. (2005). The uncanny valley: does it exist? In Proceedings of conference of human computer interaction, workshop on human animated character interaction, Napier University, Edinburgh. Available online at: http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cogsys/workshop/program.html.
  8. Bruce, A., Nourbakhsh, I., & Simmons, R. (2002). The role of expressiveness and attention in human–robot interaction. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2002) (pp. 4138–4143), Washington DC, USA. Google Scholar
  9. Burgoon, J.K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dautenhahn, K. (2002). Design spaces and niche spaces of believable social robots. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 02) (pp. 192–197), Berlin, Germany. Google Scholar
  11. Dautenhahn, K. (2004) Robots We like to live with?—A developmental perspective on a personalized, life-long robot companion. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2004) (pp. 17–22). Google Scholar
  12. Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S. N., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler? In Proceedings of IEEE RSJ international conference on intelligent robot systems (IROS’05) (pp. 1488–1493), Edmonton, Canada. Google Scholar
  13. Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M. L., Woods, S. N., Koay, K. L., Nehaniv, C. L., Sisbot, E. A., et al. (2006). How may I serve you? A robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd conference on human robot interaction (HRI ’06) (pp. 172–179), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Google Scholar
  14. Davis, H. (1997). Animal cognition versus animal thinking: the anthropomorphic. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals. Albany: State University of New York Press. Google Scholar
  15. Deaux, K., Dane, F. C., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1993). Social psychology in the ’90s (6th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Google Scholar
  16. Dryer, D. C. (1999). Getting personal with computers: how to design personalities for agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(3), 273–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 177–190. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferber, D. (2003). The man who mistook his girlfriend for a robot. Popular Science, September 2003. Google Scholar
  19. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(4-3), 143–166. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman, B., Khan, P. H. & Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware companions?—What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human–robotic relationship. In Proceedings of the CHI 2003 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 273–279), Ft Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Google Scholar
  21. Gill, A. J., Oberlander, J., & Austin, E. (2006). Rating e-mail personality at zero acquaintance. Personality and Individual-Differences, 40(3), 497–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillespie, D. L., & Leffler, A. (1983). Theories of nonverbal behavior: a critical review of proxemics research. Sociological Theory, 1, 120–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gockley, R. Matarić, M. (2006). Encouraging physical therapy compliance with a handsoff mobile robot. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd conference on human robot interaction (HRI ’06) (pp. 150–155), Salt Lake City, USA. Google Scholar
  24. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human–robot cooperation. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 55–60), Berkeley, CA, USA. Google Scholar
  25. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28. Google Scholar
  26. Gong, L., & Nass, C. (2007). When a talking-face computer agent is half-human and half-humanoid: human identity and consistency preference. Journal of Human Communication Research, 33(2), 163–193. Google Scholar
  27. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. Google Scholar
  28. Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9(2-3), 83–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanson, D. (2006). Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. In Proceedings of cognitive science (CogSci 2006) workshop on android science (pp. 16–20), Vancouver, BC, Canada. Google Scholar
  30. Hanson, D., Olney, A., Pereira, I. A. & Zielke, M. (2005). Upending the uncanny valley. In Proceedings of the American association for artificial intelligence (AAII) conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Google Scholar
  31. Hinds, P. J., Roberts, T. L., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 151–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ishiguro, H. (2007). Scientific issues concerning androids. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 26, 101–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanda, T., Hirano, T., & Eaton, D. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 61–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanda, T., Kamasima, M., Imai, M., Ono, T., Sakamoto, D., Ishiguro, H., & Anzai, Y. (2007). A humanoid robot that pretends to listen to route guidance from a human. Autonomous Robots, 22(1), 87–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Khan, Z. (1998). Attitudes towards intelligent service robots (Technical report). IPLab, NADA, Royal Institute of Technology. TRITA-NA-E98421, IPLab-154. Google Scholar
  36. Kiesler, S., & Goetz, J. (2000). Machine trait scales for evaluating mechanistic mental models of robots and computer-based machines. White paper, www.peopleandrobots.org/hri/images/Machine_scales.pdf. Site last accessed January 2007.
  37. Koay, K. L., Syrdal, D. S., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007, in press). Living with robots: investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human–robot interaction study. In IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN07) (pp. 564–569), Jeju Island, Korea. Google Scholar
  38. Lambert, D. (2004). Body language. New York: HarperCollins. Google Scholar
  39. Lee, S., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Human mental models of humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 05) (pp. 2767–2772), Barcelona, Spain. Google Scholar
  40. Li, S., Wrede, B., & Sagerer, G. (2006). A dialog system for comparative user studies on robot verbal behavior. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN06) (pp. 129–134). Google Scholar
  41. Luczak, H., Roetting, M., & Schmidt, L. (2003). Let’s talk: anthropomorphization as means to cope with stress of interacting with technical devices. Ergonomics, 46(13/14), 1361–1374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacDorman, K. F. (2005). Androids as an experimental apparatus: why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? In Proceedings of the CogSci 2005 workshop: toward social mechanisms of android science (pp. 106–118), Stresa, Italy (2003). Google Scholar
  43. MacDorman, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2004a). Development of an android robot for studying human–robot interaction, innovations in applied artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on industrial and engineering applications of artificial intelligence and expert systems (IEA/AIE 04) (pp. 424–434). Google Scholar
  45. Minato, T., MacDorman, K. F., Shimada, M., Itakura, S., Lee, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Evaluating humanlikeness by comparing responses elicited by an android and a person. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on man-machine symbiotic systems (pp. 373–383), Kyoto, Japan. Google Scholar
  46. Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani (The uncanny valley). Energy, 7(4), 33–35. Google Scholar
  47. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., & Reeves, B. (1995a). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 43(2), 223–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nass, C. I., Lombard, M., Henriksen, L., & Steuer, J. (1995b). Anthropocentrism and computers. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14(4), 229–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norman, D. (2001). How might humans interact with robots. In Keynote address to the DARPA/NSF workshop on human–robot interaction. San Luis Obispo, CA. Google Scholar
  50. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  51. Sabanovic, S., Michalowski, M. P., & Caporael, L. R., (2007). Making friends: building social robots through interdisciplinary collaboration. In Multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics: papers from the AAAI spring symposium (Technical Report SS-07-07) (pp. 71–77). Google Scholar
  52. Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M. V., D’Amico, A. M., & Fornara, F. (2004). If I had a robot at home…. Peoples’ representation of domestic robot. In S. Keates, J. Clarkson, P. Langdon, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing a more inclusive world (pp. 257–266). Google Scholar
  53. Severinson-Eklundh, K., Green, A., & Huutenrauch, H. (2003). Social and/colaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robotics and Autonomous systems, 42, 223–234. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stratton, L. O., Tekippe, D. J., & Flick, G. L. (1973). Personal space and self concept. Sociometry, 36, 424–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., & Koay, K. L. (2006). Doing the right thing wrong’—personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN06) (pp. 183–188), University of Hertfordshire, UK. Google Scholar
  56. Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Walters, M., & Koay, K. L. (2007a). Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In Multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics: papers from the AAAI spring symposium. (Technical Report SS-07-07: 86-92). Google Scholar
  57. Syrdal, D. S., Koay, K.-L., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007b). A personalised robot companion? The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. In IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN07) (pp. 26–29), Jeju Island, Korea. Google Scholar
  58. Tapus, A., & Matarić, M. J. (2006). User personality matching with hands-off robot for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. In Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on experimental robotics (ISER-06), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Google Scholar
  59. te Boekhorst, R., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., Dautenhahn, K., & Nehaniv, C. L. (2005). A study of a single robot interacting with groups of children in a rotation game scenario. In Proceedings of IEEE CIRA 2005 (pp. 35–40), Espoo, Finland. Google Scholar
  60. Walters, M. L., Woods, S. N., Koay, K. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2005a). Practical and methodological challenges in designing and conducting human–robot interaction studies. In Proceedings of the AISB’05 symposium on robot companions hard problems and open challenges in human–robot interaction (pp. 110–119), UK. Google Scholar
  61. Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K. L., Kaouri, C., te Boekhorst, R., Nehaniv, C. L., Werry, I., & Lee, D. (2005b). Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. In Proceedings of IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids2005) (pp. 450–455), Tsukuba, Japan Google Scholar
  62. Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K. L., Kaouri, C., Woods, S. N., Nehaniv, C. L., Lee, D., & Werry, I. (2005c). The influence of subjects’personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment. In Proceedings of IEEE Ro-man 2005, 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RoMan05) (pp. 347–352), Nashville, USA. Google Scholar
  63. Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., & Koay, K. L. (2007). Exploring the design space of robot appearance and behavior in an attention-seeking ‘living room’ scenario for a robot companion. In Proceedings of IEEE artificial life (Alife 07) (pp. 341–347), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Google Scholar
  64. Woods, S. N., Dautenhahn, K., & Schulz, J. (2004). The design space of robots: investigating children’s views. In Proceedings of 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 04) (pp. 47–52), Kurashiki, Okayama Japan. Google Scholar
  65. Woods, S. N., Dautenhahn, K., & Kaouri, C. (2005). Is someone watching me? Consideration of social facilitation effects in human–robot interaction experiments. In Proceedings of 2005 IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation (CIRA 2005) (pp. 53–60), Espoo, Finland. Google Scholar
  66. Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2006a). Comparing human robot interaction scenarios using live and video based methods: towards a novel methodological approach. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on advanced motion control (AMC’06) (pp. 750–755), Istanbul, Turkey. Google Scholar
  67. Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2006b). Methodological issues in HRI: a comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN06) (pp. 51–58), Hertfordshire, UK. Google Scholar
  68. Woods, S. N., Dautenhahn, K., Kaouri, C., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K. L., & Walters, M. L. (2007). Are robots like people?—Relationships between participant and robot personality traits in human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 281–305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yan, C., Peng, W., Lee, K. M., & Jin, S. (2004). Can robots have personality? An empirical study of personality manifestation, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 54th annual conference of the international communication association. Online at: www.allacademic.com/meta/p112661_index.html.
  70. Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Looking smart and looking good: facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 238–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael L. Walters
    • 1
  • Dag S. Syrdal
    • 1
  • Kerstin Dautenhahn
    • 1
  • René te Boekhorst
    • 1
  • Kheng Lee Koay
    • 1
  1. 1.Adaptive Systems Research Group, School of Computer ScienceUniversity of HertfordshireHertsUK

Personalised recommendations