Autonomous Robots

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 143–156 | Cite as

A Midsummer Night’s Dream (with flying robots)

  • Robin Murphy
  • Dylan Shell
  • Amy Guerin
  • Brittany Duncan
  • Benjamin Fine
  • Kevin Pratt
  • Takis Zourntos
Article

Abstract

Seven flying robot “fairies” joined human actors in the Texas A&M production of William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The production was a collaboration between the departments of Computer Science and Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Theater Arts. The collaboration was motivated by two assertions. First, that the performing arts have principles for creating believable agents that will transfer to robots. Second, the theater is a natural testbed for evaluating the response of untrained human groups (both actors and the audience) to robots interacting with humans in shared spaces, i.e., were believable agents created? The production used two types of unmanned aerial vehicles, an AirRobot 100-b quadrotor platform about the size of a large pizza pan, and six E-flite Blade MCX palm-sized toy helicopters. The robots were used as alter egos for fairies in the play; the robots did not replace any actors, instead they were paired with them. The insertion of robots into the production was not widely advertised so the audience was the typical theatergoing demographic, not one consisting of people solely interested technology. The use of radio-controlled unmanned aerial vehicles provides insights into what types of autonomy are needed to create appropriate affective interactions with untrained human groups. The observations from the four weeks of practice and eight performances contribute (1) a taxonomy and methods for creating affect exchanges between robots and untrained human groups, (2) the importance of improvisation within robot theater, (3) insights into how untrained human groups form expectations about robots, and (4) awareness of the importance of safety and reliability as a design constraint for public engagement with robot platforms. The taxonomy captures that apparent affect can be created without explicit affective behaviors by the robot, but requires talented actors to convey the situation or express reactions. The audience’s response to robot crashes was a function of whether they had the opportunity to observe how the actors reacted to robot crashes on stage, suggesting that pre-existing expectations must be taken into account in the design of autonomy. Furthermore, it appears that the public expect robots to be more reliable (an expectation of consumer product hardening) and safe (an expectation from product liability) than the current capabilities and this may be a major challenge or even legal barrier for introducing robots into shared public spaces. These contributions are expected to inform design strategies for increasing public engagement with robot platforms through affect, and shows the value of arts-based approaches to public encounters with robots both for generating design strategies and for evaluation.

Keywords

Robot theater Robot affect Human-robot interaction Public performance Unmanned aerial vehicles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambach, J., & Repenning, A. (1996). Participatory theater: interacting with autonomous tools for creative applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(6), 351–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apostolos, M. K., Littman, M., Lane, S., Handelman, D., & Gelfand, J. (1996). Robot choreography: an artistic-scientific connection. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 32(1), 1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumer, A., & Magerko, B. (2009). Narrative development in improvisational theatre. In Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 5915. Interactive storytelling (pp. 140–151). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont, C. (1958). Puppets and puppetry. New York: Studio Publications. Google Scholar
  5. Breazeal, C., Brooks, A., Gray, J., Hancher, M., Kidd, C., McBean, J., Stiehl, D., & Striken, J. (2003). Interactive robot theatre. In IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and system’s (pp. 3648–3655), Las Vegas, NV. Google Scholar
  6. Bruce, A., Knight, J., Listopad, S., Magerko, B., & Nourbakhsh, I. R. (2000). Robot improv: using drama to create believable agents. In Proceedings IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (Vol. 4, pp. 4002–4008), San Francisco, CA. Google Scholar
  7. Burke, J., Friedman, J., Mendelowitz, E., Park, H., & Srivastava, M. B. (2006). Embedding expression: pervasive computing architecture for art and entertainment. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 2(1), 1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatley, A. R., Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S., & Christianson, B. (2010). Theatre as a discussion tool in human-robot interaction experiments—a pilot study. In Proceedings of the third international conference on advances in computer-human interactions (ACHI ’10) (pp. 73–78). Google Scholar
  9. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: the psychology of persuasion. Glasgow: Collins. Google Scholar
  10. Demers, L.-P., & Horakova, J. (2008). Anthropocentrism and the staging of robots. In Sound, vision and the new screen, communication in computer and information science: Vol. 7. Transdisciplinary digital art (pp. 434–450). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dompierre, C., & Laurendeau, D. (2006). Avatar: a virtual reality based tool for collaborative production of theater shows. In The 3rd Canadian conference on computer and robot vision, 2006 (p. 35). Google Scholar
  12. Gerhart, A. (2009). A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ is a successful team effort. The Battalion, 9 November 2009. Google Scholar
  13. Göbel, S., Malkewitz, R., & Iurgel, I. (Eds.) (2006). Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 4326. Technologies for interactive digital storytelling and entertainment. Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goto, S., & Yamasaki, F. (2007). Integration of percussion robots “RobotMusic” with the Data-Suit “BodySuit”: technological aspects and concepts. In The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2007. RO-MAN 2007 (pp. 775–779). Google Scholar
  15. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behaviour. American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iida, K., Itai, S., Watanabe, T., & Miwa, Y. (2008). Public viewing with shadows: design of theater-type space where remote actors and audiences can coexist using the shadow as their own agents. In The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2008. RO-MAN 2008 (pp. 677–682). Google Scholar
  17. Lin, C.-Y., Tseng, C.-K., Teng, W.-C., Lee, W.-C., Kuo, C.-H., Gu, H.-Y., Chung, K.-L., & Fahn, C.-S. (2009). The realization of robot theater: humanoid robots and theatric performance. In International conference on advanced robotics, 2009. ICAR 2009 (pp. 1–6). Google Scholar
  18. Mavridis, N., & Hanson, D. (2009a). The IbnSina Center: an augmented reality theater with intelligent robotic and virtual characters. In The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2009. RO-MAN 2009 (pp. 681–686). Google Scholar
  19. Mavridis, N., & Hanson, D. (2009b). The IbnSina interactive theater: where humans, robots and virtual characters meet. In The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2009. RO-MAN 2009 (pp. 213–213). Google Scholar
  20. McCoy, A. (2008). Quantum clicks gears with Robot 250. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 31 2008. Google Scholar
  21. Ohya, J., Ebihara, K., Kurumisawa, J., & Nakatsu, R. (1996). Virtual Kabuki Theater: towards the realization of human metamorphosis systems. In 5th IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication, 1996 (pp. 416–421). Google Scholar
  22. Paricio García, R., & Moreno Aróstegui, J. M. (2007). A cooperative robotic platform for adaptive and immersive artistic installations. Computers & Graphics, 31(6), 809–817. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perkowski, M., Sasao, T., Kim, J. H., Lukac, M., Allen, J., & Gebauer, S. (2005). Hahoe kaist robot theatre: learning rules of interactive robot behavior as a multiple-valued logic synthesis problem. In Proceedings of the 35th international symposium on multiple-valued logic, 2005 (pp. 236–248). Google Scholar
  24. Perlin, K. (2000). Creaing emotive responsive characters within virtual worlds. In Lecture notes in computer science. Virtual worlds (pp. 99–106). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruggiero, P. (2008). Shakespeare’s Cymbeline is a machine of sorts—or so proposes Quantum Theatre. Pittsburgh City Paper, July 31 2008. Google Scholar
  26. Squatriglia, C. (2009). Robots perform Shakespeare. Wired, November 18 2009. Google Scholar
  27. Tillis, S. (1992). Toward an aesthetics of the puppet: puppetry as a theatrical art. Westport: Greenwood Press. Google Scholar
  28. Wallis, M., Popat, S., McKinney, J., Bryden, J., & Hogg, D.C. (2010). Embodied conversations: performance and the design of a robotic dancing partner. Design Studies, 31(2), 99–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Werger, B. (1998). Profile of a winner: Brandeis University and Ullanta performance robotics robotic love triangle. AI Magazine, 19(3), 35–38. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Murphy
    • 1
  • Dylan Shell
    • 1
  • Amy Guerin
    • 2
  • Brittany Duncan
    • 1
  • Benjamin Fine
    • 1
  • Kevin Pratt
    • 1
  • Takis Zourntos
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Performance StudiesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations