International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 383–393 | Cite as

How Can I Help?

Spatial Attention Strategies for a Receptionist Robot
Article

Abstract

Social interaction between humans takes place in the spatial environment on a daily basis. We occupy space for ourselves and respect the dynamics of spaces that are occupied by others. In human-robot interaction, spatial models are commonly used for structuring relatively far-away interactions or passing-by scenarios. This work instead, focuses on the transition between distant and close communication for an interaction opening. We applied a spatial model to a humanoid robot and implemented an attention system that is connected to it. The resulting behaviors have been verified in an online video study. The questionnaire revealed that these behaviors are applicable and result in a robot that has been perceived as more interested in the human and shows its attention and intentions earlier and to a higher degree than other strategies.

Keywords

Human-robot interaction Attention Interaction opening Experimental evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lütkebohle I, Peltason J, Schillingmann L, Elbrechter C, Wrede B, Wachsmuth S, Haschke R (2009) The curious robot—structuring interactive robot learning. In: International conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, Japan, 2009. IEEE, New York Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breazeal C, Takanishi A, Kobayashi T (2008) Social robots that interact with people. In: Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 1349–1369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schegloff EA (2002) Opening sequencing. In: Katz JE, Aakhus M (eds) Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 326–385 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kendon A (1990) Conducting interaction: patterns of social behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2010) A larger audience, please!: encouraging people to listen to a guide robot. In: HRI ’10: Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shiomi M, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Ishi CT, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) A semi-autonomous communication robot: a field trial at a train station. In: HRI ’08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pitsch K, Kuzuoka H, Suzuki Y, Luff P, Heath C, Yamazaki K, Yamazaki A, Kuno Y (2009) The first five seconds: contingent step-wise entry as a means to secure sustained engagement in human-robot-interaction. In: International symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Toyama, Japan, September 2009 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodwin C (1981) Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuzuoka H, Pitsch K, Suzuki Y, Kawaguchi I, Yamazaki K, Kuno Y, Yamazaki A, Luff P, Heath Ch (2008) Effects of restarts and pauses on achieving a state of mutual gaze between a human and a robot. In: CSCW Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall ET (1968) Proxemics. Curr Anthropol 9(2/3):83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tasaki T, Komatani K, Ogata T, Okuno H (2005) Spatially mapping of friendliness for human-robot interaction. In: Proc of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Edmonton, August 2005, pp 52–526 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakauchi Y, Simmons R (2000) A social robot that stands in line. In: Proc of the IEEE/RSJ intern conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 357–364 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pacchierotti E, Christensen HI, Jensfelt P (2006) Evaluation of passing distance for social robots. In: IEEE workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN), Hartfordshire Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirby R, Simmons R, Forlizzi J (2009) Companion: a constraint optimizing method for person-acceptable navigation. In: IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), September 2009, pp 607–612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS), St Louis, MO Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dautenhahn K, Walters M, Woods S, Koay KL, Nehaniv CL, Sisbot A, Simeon T (2006) How may I serve you?: a robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2007) Living with robots: investigating the habituation effect in participants: preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. In: 16th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huettenrauch H, Eklundh KS, Green A, Topp EA (2006) Investigating spatial relationships in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 5052–5059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yamaoka F, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) How close? A model of proximity control for information-presenting robots. In: HRI Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2006) Interactive humanoid robots for a science museum. In: HRI’06. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pitsch K, Wrede S, Seele J-Ch, Süssenbach L (2011) Attitude of German museum visitors towards an interactive art guide robot. In: HRI2011 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamazaki K, Kawashima M, Kuno Y, Akiya N, Burdelski M, Yamazaki A, Kuzuoka H (2007) Prior-to-request and request behaviors within elderly day care: implications for developing service robots for use in multiparty settings. In: ECSCW Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schegloff EA (1998) Body torque. Soc Res 65(3):535–596 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuzuoka H, Suzuki Y, Yamashita J, Yamazaki K Reconfiguring spatial formation arrangement by robot body orientation. In: HRI ’10: proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Breazeal C, Scassellati B (1999) How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In: Intelligent robot systems (IROS), Kyonjiu, Korea, pp 858–863 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muhl C, Nagai Y (2007) Does disturbance discourage people from communicating with a robot. In: The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Jeju, Korea Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beuter N, Spexard T, Lütkebohle I, Peltason J, Kummert F (2008) Where is this?—gesture based multimodal interaction with an anthropomorphic robot. In: International conference on humanoid robots, Daejeon, Korea. IEEE-RAS, New York Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hackel M, Schwope M, Fritsch J, Wrede B, Sagerer G (2006) Designing a sociable humanoid robot for interdisciplinary research. Adv Robot 20(11):1219–1235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lütkebohle I, Hegel F, Schulz S, Hackel M, Wrede B, Wachsmuth S, Sagerer G (2010) The Bielefeld anthropomorphic robot head “flobi”. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Anchorage, Alaska. IEEE, New York Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hegel F (2010) Gestalterisch konstruktiver Entwurf eines sozialen Roboters. PhD thesis, Bielefeld University Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Viola P, Jones M (2001) Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), vol 1, pp 511–518 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kendon A (1967) Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychol 26:22–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Holthaus
    • 1
  • Karola Pitsch
    • 1
  • Sven Wachsmuth
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Informatics, Faculty of TechnologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations