Does the Design of a Robot Influence Its Animacy and Perceived Intelligence?

Abstract

Robots exhibit life-like behavior by performing intelligent actions. To enhance human-robot interaction it is necessary to investigate and understand how end-users perceive such animate behavior. In this paper, we report an experiment to investigate how people perceived different designs of robot embodiments in terms of animacy and intelligence. iCat and Robovie II were used as the two embodiments in this experiment. We conducted a between-subject experiment where robot type was the independent variable, and perceived animacy and intelligence of the robot were the dependent variables. Our findings suggest that a robot’s perceived intelligence is significantly correlated with animacy. The correlation between the intelligence and the animacy of a robot was observed to be stronger in the case of the iCat embodiment. Our results also indicate that the more animated the face of the robot, the more likely it is to attract the attention of a user. We also discuss the possible and probable explanations of the results obtained.

References

  1. 1.

    Oxford University Press (1999) Animate. The Oxford American dictionary of current English. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rakison DH, Poulin-Dubois D (2001) Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychol Bull 127:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ishiguro H (2007) Scientific issues concerning androids. Int J Robot Res 26:105–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Holland O, McFarland D (2001) Artificial ethology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Webb B (2000) What does robotics offer animal behaviour? Anim Behav 60:545–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Halloy J, Sempo G, Caprari G, Rivault C, Asadpour M, Tache F, Said I, Durier V, Canonge S, Ame JM, Detrain C, Correll N, Martinoli A, Mondada F, Siegwart R, Deneubourg JL (2007) Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices. Science 318:1155–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kubinyi E, Miklosi A, Kaplan F, Gacsi M, Topal J, Csanyi V (2004) Social behaviour of dogs encountering AIBO, an animal-like robot in a neutral and in a feeding situation. Behav Process 65:231–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sony (1999) Aibo. http://www.aibo.com

  9. 9.

    Bartneck C, Kanda T (2007) HRI caught on film. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Washington, DC, 2007. ACM, New York, pp 177–183

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Poulin-Dubois D, Lepage A, Ferland D (1996) Infants’ concept of animacy. Cogn Dev 11:19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kahn PH, Friedman B, Perez-Granados DR, Freier NG (2004) Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. In: CHI ’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria, 2004. ACM, New York, pp 1449–1452

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Melson GF, Kahn PH, Beck AM, Friedman B, Roberts T, Garrett E (2005) Robots as dogs?: children’s interactions with the robotic dog AIBO and a live Australian shepherd. In: CHI ’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, USA, 2005. ACM, New York, pp 1649–1652

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Turkle S (1998) Cyborg babies and cy-dough-plasm: ideas about life in the culture of simulation. In: Davis-Floyd R, Dumit J (eds) Cyborg babies: from techno-sex to techno-tots. Routledge, New York, pp 317–329

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kahn P, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T (2006) What is a human?—Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN, Salt Lake City, 2006. IEEE, New York, pp 364–371

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jipson JL, Gelman SA (2007) Robots and rodents: children’s inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Dev 78:1675–1688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Okita SY, Schwartz DL (2006) Young children’s understanding of animacy and entertainment robots. Int J Hum Robot 3:393–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Nass C, Reeves B (1996) The media equation. SLI publications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Scholl B, Tremoulet PD (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4:299–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Blythe P, Miller GF, Todd PM (1999) How motion reveals intention: Categorizing social interactions. In: Gigerenzer G, Todd P (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 257–285

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sparrow R (2004) The turing triage test. Ethics Inf Technol 6:203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bartneck C, Verbunt M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) To kill a mockingbird robot. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Washington, DC, 2007. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–87

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bartneck C, Hoek Mvd, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do!—Switching off a robot. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Washington, DC, 2007. ACM Press, New York, pp 217–222

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57:243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29:943–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    McAleer P, Mazzarino B, Volpe G, Camurri A, Paterson H, Smith K, Pollick FE (2004) Perceiving animacy and arousal in transformed displays of human interaction. In: 2nd international symposium on measurement, analysis and modeling of human functions, 1st Mediterranean conference on measurement, Genova, 2004

  26. 26.

    Lee KM, Park N, Song H (2005) Can a robot be perceived as a developing creature? Hum Commun Res 31:538–563

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Tavistock, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives MV (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE 1:e39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Warner RM, Sugarman DB (1996) Attributes of personality based on physical appearance, speech, and handwriting. J Personal Soc Psychol 50:792–799

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Parise S, Kiesler S, Sproull LD, Waters K (1996) My partner is a real dog: cooperation with social agents. In: 1996 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. ACM Press, New York, pp 399–408

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kiesler S, Sproull L, Waters K (1996) A prisoner’s dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and human-like computers. J Personal Soc Psychol 70:47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robotic Doppelgänger—a critical look at the uncanny valley theory. Submitted to the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), 2009

  33. 33.

    Dawis RV (1987) Scale construction. J Couns Psychol 34:481–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Bartneck C, Kulic D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81. doi:10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kulic D, Croft E (2006) Estimating robot induced affective state using hidden Markov models. In: Dautenhahn K (ed) RO-MAN 2006—the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Hatfield, 2006. IEEE, New York, pp 257–262

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    McGurk H, Macdonald J (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bartneck C (2003) Interacting with an embodied emotional character. In: Forzlizzi J, Hamington B, Jordan PW (eds) Design for pleasurable products conference (DPPI2004), Pittsburgh. ACM Press, New York, pp 55–60

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Honda (2002) Asimo. http://www.honda.co.jp/ASIMO/

  39. 39.

    NEC (2001) PaPeRo. http://www.incx.nec.co.jp/robot/

  40. 40.

    Breemen A, Yan X, Meerbeek B (2005) iCat: an animated user-interface robot with personality. In: Fourth international conference on autonomous agents & multi agent systems, Utrecht, 2005

  41. 41.

    DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM Press, London, pp 321–326

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omar Mubin.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bartneck, C., Kanda, T., Mubin, O. et al. Does the Design of a Robot Influence Its Animacy and Perceived Intelligence?. Int J of Soc Robotics 1, 195–204 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0013-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robot
  • Intelligence
  • Animacy
  • Embodiment
  • Perception