Autonomous Robots

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 335–349 | Cite as

Multivariate evaluation of interactive robot systems

Article

Abstract

In designing robot systems for human interaction, designers draw on aspects of human behavior that help them achieve specific design goals. For instance, the designer of an educational robot system may use speech, gaze, and gesture cues in a way that enhances its student’s learning. But what set of behaviors improve such outcomes? How might designers of such a robot system determine this set of behaviors? Conventional approaches to answering such questions primarily involve designers carrying out a series of experiments in which they manipulate a small number of design variables and measure the effects of these manipulations on specific interaction outcomes. However, these methods become infeasible when the design space is large and when the designer needs to understand the extent to which each variable contributes to achieving the desired effects. In this paper, we present a novel multivariate method for evaluating what behaviors of interactive robot systems improve interaction outcomes. We illustrate the use of this method in a case study in which we explore how different types of narrative gestures of a storytelling robot improve its users’ recall of the robot’s story, their ability to retell the robot’s story, their perceptions of and rapport with the robot, and their overall engagement in the experiment.

Keywords

Multivariate evaluation Interactive robot systems  Human-robot interaction Storytelling Narrative gestures 

Supplementary material

10514_2014_9415_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (195 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 195 KB)

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management journal, 37(3), 670–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayes, M. A. (1972). Behavioral cues of interpersonal warmth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 333.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bremner, P., Pipe, A. G., Melhuish, C., Fraser, M., & Subramanian, S. (2011). The effects of robot-performed co-verbal gesture on listener behaviour. In 2011 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), (pp. 458–465). IEEE.Google Scholar
  6. Brendgen, M., Bowen, F., Rondeau, N., & Vitaro, F. (1999). Effects of friends characteristics on childrens social cognitions. Social Development, 8(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chidambaram, V., Chiang, Y. H., & Mutlu, B. (2012). Designing persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), (pp. 293–300). IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavioral categories. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.Google Scholar
  10. Fasola, J., & Mataric, M. J. (2012). Using socially assistive human-robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(8), 2512–2526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster, M. E., Giuliani, M., & Knoll, A. (2009). Comparing objective and subjective measures of usability in a human-robot dialogue system. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2-Volume 2, (pp. 879–887). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  12. Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(11), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing Gesture: How our hands help up think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, J. (1975). A cross-cultural study of the communication of extra-verbal meaning by gestures. International Journal of Psychology, 10, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ham, J., Bokhorst, R., Cuijpers, R., van der Pol, D., & Cabibihan, J. J. (2011). Making robots persuasive: the influence of combining persuasive strategies (gazing and gestures) by a storytelling robot on its persuasive power. Social robotics (pp. 71–83). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, C. M., & Mutlu, B. (2012). Robot behavior toolkit: Generating effective social behaviors for robots. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), (pp. 25–32).Google Scholar
  17. Huang, C. M., & Mutlu, B. (2013). Modeling and evaluating narrative gestures for humanlike robots. In Proceedings of the Robotics: Science and Systems Conference, RSS’13.Google Scholar
  18. Huang, C. M., Iio, T., Satake, S., & Kanda, T. (2014). Modeling and controlling friendliness for an interactive museum robot. In Proceedings of the Robotics: Science and Systems Conference, RSS’14.Google Scholar
  19. Kendon, A. (1994). Do gestures communicate? a review. Research on language and social interaction. Edmonton: Boreal Scholarly Publishers & Distributors.Google Scholar
  20. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kidd, C. D. (2008). Designing for long-term human-robot interaction and application to weight loss. PhD thesis, Cambridge, aAI0819995.Google Scholar
  22. Krauss, R., Chen, Y., & Gottesman, R. (2000). Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model (pp., 261–283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., Forlizzi, J., Srinivasa, S., & Rybski, P. (2010). Gracefully mitigating breakdowns in robotic services. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), (pp. 203–210). IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. Lozano, S., & Tversky, B. (2006). Communicative gestures facilitate problem solving for both communicators and recipients. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGrath, J. E. (1995). Methodology matters: doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. Human-computer interaction, (pp. 152–169). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  27. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J., & Hodgins, J. (2006). A storytelling robot: Modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior. In 2006 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, (pp. 518–523). IEEE.Google Scholar
  29. Narahara, H., & Maeno, T. (2007). Factors of gestures of robots for smooth communication with humans. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Robot Communication and Coordination, (pp. 44). IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  30. Neggers, S., & Bekkering, H. (2001). Gaze anchoring to a pointing target is present during the entire pointing movement and is driven by a non-visual signal. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86(2), 961–970.Google Scholar
  31. Okuno, Y., Kanda, T., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). Providing route directions: Design of robot’s utterance, gesture, and timing. In 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), (pp. 53–60). IEEE.Google Scholar
  32. Peltason, J., Riether, N., Wrede, B., & Lütkebohle, I. (2012). Talking with robots about objects: A system-level evaluation in hri. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (pp. 479–486). ACM.Google Scholar
  33. Persson, S., Wei, H., Milne, J., Page, G. P., & Somerville, C. R. (2005). Identification of genes required for cellulose synthesis by regression analysis of public microarray data sets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(24), 8633–8638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richmond, V. (2002). Teacher nonverbal immediacy: Use and outcomes (pp. 65–82). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Riek, L. D., Rabinowitch, T. C., Bremner, P., Pipe, A. G., Fraser, M., & Robinson, P. (2010). Cooperative gestures: Effective signaling for humanoid robots. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), (pp. 61–68). IEEE.Google Scholar
  36. Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salem, M., Kopp, S., Wachsmuth, I., Rohlfing, K., & Joublin, F. (2012). Generation and evaluation of communicative robot gesture. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sauppé, A., & Mutlu, B. (2014). How social cues regulate task coordination and communication. In Proceedings of the ACM 2014 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Schegloff, E. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to speech (pp. 266–296). Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological bulletin, 86(2), 420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Streeck, J. (1988). The significance of gestures: How it is established. Papers in Pragmatics, 2(1/2), 60–83.Google Scholar
  44. Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communications Monographs, 60(4), 275–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sugiyama, O., Kanda, T., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2007). Natural deictic communication with humanoid robots. In IROS 2007. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, (pp. 1441–1448). IEEE.Google Scholar
  46. Szafir, D., & Mutlu, B. (2012). Pay attention!: Designing adaptive agents that monitor and improve user engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 11–20). ACM.Google Scholar
  47. Tanaka, F., & Cicourel, A. (2007). Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(46), 17,954–17,958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Terrell, A., & Mutlu, B. (2012). A regression-based approach to modeling addressee backchannels. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, (pp. 280–289). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, L., Driscoll, D., & Markson, L. (1998). Memory for visual-spoken language in children and adults. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walker, M. A., Litman, D. J., Kamm, C. A., & Abella, A. (1997). Paradise: A framework for evaluating spoken dialogue agents. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, (pp. 271–280). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  51. Yamazaki, A., Yamazaki, K., Kuno, Y., Burdelski, M., Kawashima, M., & Kuzuoka, H. (2008). Precision timing in human-robot interaction: Coordination of head movement and utterance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 131–140). ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations