Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 141–155 | Cite as

How Quickly Should a Communication Robot Respond? Delaying Strategies and Habituation Effects

  • Toshiyuki ShiwaEmail author
  • Takayuki Kanda
  • Michita Imai
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
  • Norihiro Hagita
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper reports a study about system response time (SRT) in communication robots that utilize human-like social features, such as anthropomorphic appearance and conversation in natural language. Our research purpose is to establish SRT design guidelines in communication robots. The first experiment observed user preferences toward different SRTs in interactions with a robot which indicated that user SRT preferences in a communication robot are peak at one-second SRT.

Based on the results of the first experiment, we conducted two further SRT investigations. One is for delaying strategy and we propose conversational filler which is a behavior that notifies listeners that the robot intends to respond. The other is for habituation effect to see the trend of the first experiment’s result will remain or not when using robots in daily life. In both investigations, we addressed how the delaying strategy and the habituation effect affect on SRT preferences.

Keywords

Communication robots System response time Delaying strategy Conversational filler Habituation effect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fujita M (2001) AIBO: towards the era of digital creatures. Int J Robot Res 20(10):781–794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgard W, Cremers AB, Fox D, Hahnel D, Lakemeyer G, Schulz D, Steiner W, Thrun S (1998) The interactive museum tour-guide robot. In: Proc of national conference on artificial intelligence, 1998, pp 11–18 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirai K, Hirose M, Haikawa Y, Takenaka T (1998) The development of the Honda humanoid robot. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA’98), 1998, pp 1321–1326 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sakagami Y, Watanabe R, Aoyama C, Matsunaga S, Higaki N, Fujimura K (2002) The intelligent ASIMO: system overview and integration. In: IEEE/RSJ int conf on intelligent robots and systems (IROS’02), 2002, pp 2478–2483 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kidd C, Breazeal C (2004) Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In: IEEE/RSJ int conf on intelligent robots and systems (IROS’04), 2004, pp 3559–3564 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Powers A, Kiesler S, Fussell S, Torrey C (2007) Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In: Proc of the 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI2007), 2007, pp 145–152 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mutlu B, Forlizzi J, Hodgins J (2006) A storytelling robot: modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior. In: IEEE int conf on humanoid robots (Humanoids2006), 2006, pp 518–523 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugiyama O, Kanda T, Imai M, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2006) Humanlike conversation with gestures and verbal cues based on a three-layer attention-drawing model. Connect Sci 18(4):379–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahn PH Jr, Freier NG, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Ruckert JR, Severson RL, Kane SK (2008) Design patterns for sociality in human robot interaction. In: Human robot interaction, 2008, pp 97–104 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foster ME, Bard EG, Guhe M, Hill RL, Oberlander J, Knoll A (2008) The roles of haptic-ostensive referring expressions in cooperative, task-based human-robot dialogue. In: Proc of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI2008), 2008, pp 295–302 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nagaoka C, Komori M, Draguna MR, Kawase S, Yuki M, Kataoka T, Nakamura T (2003) Mutual congruence of vocal behavior in cooperative dialogues: comparison between receptive and assertive dialogues. In: Human interface symposium, Sept 30th–Oct 2nd, Tokyo, Japan, 2003, pp 167–170 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green A, Höttenrauch H, Severinson Eklundh K (2004) Applying the wizard-of-oz framework to cooperative service discovery and configuration. In: Proc IEEE int workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2004, pp 575–580 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koizumi S, Kanda T, Shiomi M, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2006) Preliminary field trial for teleoperated communication robots. In: Proc IEEE int workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2006, pp 145–150 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696–735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edelsky C (1981) Who’s got the floor? Lang Soc 10(3):383–421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Power RJD, Dal Martello MF (1986) Some criticism of Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson on turn taking. Semotica 58:29–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garvey G, Berninger G (1981) Timing and turn taking in children’s conversation. Discourse Process 4:562–568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLaughlin MR (1984) Conversation: how talk is organized. Sage Publication, Beverly Hills Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clark HH (1996) Using language. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagaoka C, Komori M, Nakamura T (2005) Influence of response latencies on impression evaluation of speakers in dialogues: differences of cues used for evaluation by degree of social skill. Tech Rep IEICE 104(745):57–60 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaffe J, Feldstein S (1970) Rhythms of dialogue. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kawashima H, Scoggins L, Matsuyama T (2007) Analysis of the dynamic structure of Manzai—toward a natural utterance-timing control. J Hum Interface Soc 9(3):97–108 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanda T, Kamashima 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. Auton Robots 22(1):87–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamamoto M, Watanabe T (2006) Time lag effects of utterance to communicative actions on CG character-human greeting interaction. In: Robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN2006), 2006, pp 629–634 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robins B, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Nehaniv CL (2008) Behaviour delay and robot expressiveness in child-robot interactions: a user study on interaction kinetics. In: Proc of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI2008), 2008, pp 17–24 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barber RE, Lucas HC Jr (1983) System response time operator productivity, and job satisfaction. Commun ACM 26(11):972–986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goodman T, Spence R (1978) The effect of system response time on interactive computer aided problem solving. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 12(3):100–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guynes JL (1988) Impact of system response time on state anxiety. Commun ACM 31(3):342–347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Hara K, Payne SJ (1999) Planning and the user interface: the effects of lockout time and error recovery cost. Int J Human-Comput Studies 41–59 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller RB (1968) Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In: Proc spring joint computer conference. AFIPS Press, Montvale, pp 267–277 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Starner T (2001) The challenges of wearable computing: Part 2. IEEE Micro 21(4):54–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shneiderman B (2001) Designing the user interface, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 358–367 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Takubo Y (1995) Toward a linguistic model of speech performance. J Inf Process Soc Jpn 36(11):1020–1026 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Watanabe M, Hirose K, Den Y, Minematsu N (2005) Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of following phrases. In: Proc European conf speech communication and technology (EUROSPEECH’2005), 2005, pp 37–40 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Itoh T, Minematsu N, Nakagawa S (1999) Analysis of filled pauses and their use in a dialogue system. J Acoust Soc Jpn 55(5):333–342 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tanaka F, Movellan JR, Fortenberry B, Aisaka K (2006) Daily HRI evaluation at a classroom environment—reports from dance interaction experiments. In: Proc of the 1st ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI2006), 2006, pp 3–9 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shibata T (2004) An overview of human interactive robots for psychological enrichment. Proc IEEE 92(11):1749–1758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2005) Interactive robots for communication-care: a case-study in autism therapy. In: Proc the 2005 IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN2005), 2005, pp 341–346 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gockley R, Forlizzi J, Simmons R (2006) Interactions with a moody robot. In: Proc of the 1st ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI2006), 2006, pp 186–193 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T (2004) Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. Proc IEEE 92(11):1839–1850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshiyuki Shiwa
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Takayuki Kanda
    • 1
  • Michita Imai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
    • 1
    • 3
  • Norihiro Hagita
    • 1
  1. 1.ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication LaboratoryKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Information and Computer ScienceKeio UniversityYokohamaJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of EngineeringOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations