Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How wild is wild? A taxonomy to characterize the ‘wildness’ of child-robot interaction

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When thinking about Child-Robot Interaction (CRI) in the ‘wild’ or natural settings, many ideas come to mind, such as a home or a school that involve chaotic settings with autonomous robotic devices and people that are freely interacting with them. However, there certainly are degrees of ‘wild’, and different experimental settings can have varying levels of control in place. It would be helpful to have a common framework to interpret and identify the many different influencing factors or levels of control surrounding CRI experimentation. Having a framework to help towards standardizing evaluation of CRI studies would benefit researchers wishing to identify or plan the varying dimensions present in CRI experimentation. This paper presents a simple taxonomy to characterize the ‘wildness’ factors in CRI over two main dimensions (Participant and Robotic) that can effect the overall outcome of such studies. The use of this taxonomy is illustrated by its application to current CRI research. Specifically, we use it in reflection to rate six of our CRI trials that have been conducted over a ten year period. From the classification of these studies, a general view of our work so far is outlined and new research perspectives are identified. The application of the taxonomy is also validated by reviewing a selection of other CRI studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balch T, Parker LE (2002) Robot teams: from diversity to polymorphism. A.K. Peters, Willesley

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bartneck C, Hu J (2004) Rapid prototyping for interactive robots. In: Proceedings 8th conference on intelligent autonomous systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 136–145

  3. Besio S (2002) An Italian research project to study the play of children with motor disabilities: the first year of activity. Disabil Rehabil 24:72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dautenhahn K (2007) Methodology & themes of human-robot interaction: a growing research field. Int J Adv Robot Syst 4:103–108

    Google Scholar 

  5. Duquette A, Michaud F, Mercier H (2007) Exploring the use of a mobile robot as an imitation agent with children with low-functioning autism. Auton Robot, Special Issue on Socially Assistive Robotics 147–157

  6. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 143–166

  7. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum-Comput Interact 19:61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kozima H, Nakagawa C (2007) Longitudinal child-robot interaction at preschool. In: AAAI spring symposium on multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotic, Palo Alto, CA, USA

  9. Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2005) Interactive robots for communication-care: a case-study in autism therapy. In: Proceedings of IEEE workshop on robots and human interactive communications, pp 341–346

  10. Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2005) Proceedings of designing and observing human-robot interactions for the study of social development and its disorders. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation

  11. Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2005) Using robots for the study of human social development. In: Proceedings of AAAI spring symposium on developmental robotics, pp 111–114

  12. Weiss A, Wurhofer D, Tscheligi M (2009) “I love this dog”? Children’s emotional attachment to the robotic dog AIBO. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):243–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lathan C, Brisben A, Safos C (2005) Cosmobot levels the playing field for disabled children. Interactions 12(2):14–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1649–1652

    Google Scholar 

  15. Michaud F, Caron S (2002) Roball—an autonomous toy-rolling robot. In: Proceedings of the workshop on interactive robotics and entertainment, pp 127–134

  16. Michaud F, Caron S (2002) Roball, the rolling robot. Auton Robots 12(2):211–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Michaud F, Laplante J-F, Larouche H, Duquette A, Caron S, Letourneau D, Masson P (2005) Autonomous spherical mobile robot for child-development studies. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 35:471–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nielsen CW, Bruemmer DJ, Few DA, Gertman DI (2008) Framing and evaluating human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of workshop on metrics for human-robot interaction, pp 29–36

  19. Prazak B, Hochgatterer A, Kronreif G, Furst M (2003) Robot supported play—new possibilities for physically handicapped children?! In: Proceedings of the association for the advancement of assistive technology in Europe, Dublin, Ireland

  20. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Dubowski J (2004) Investigating autistic children’s attitudes towards strangers with the theatrical robot—a new experimental paradigm in human-robot interaction studies. In: 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan

  21. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv CL, Mirza NA, Francois D, Olsson L (2005) Sustaining interaction dynamics and engagement in dyadic child-robot interaction kinesics: lessons learnt from an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Nashville, TN, USA

  22. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? In: Universal access in the information society, pp 105–120

  23. RoboToy.com. http://www.robotoys.com/, Last accessed 12/08/08

  24. Sabanovic S, Michalowski MP, Simmons R (2006) Robots in the wild: Observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on advanced motion control, Istanbul, Turkey

  25. Salter T, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R (2004) Learning about natural human-robot interaction. Robot Auton Syst 54(2):127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Salter T, Michaud F, Dautenhahn K, Letourneau D, Caron S (2005) Recognizing interaction from a robot’s perspective. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Nashville, TN, USA

  27. Salter T, Michaud F, Letourneau D (2009) A preliminary investigation into the effects of adaptation in child-robot interaction. In: FIRA international conference on social robotics, Incheon, South Korea

  28. Salter T, Michaud F, Letourneau D, Lee DC, Werry IP (2007) Using proprioceptive sensors for categorizing human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd human-robot interaction, Washington, EC, USA, p 105

  29. Salter T, te Boekhorst R, Dautenhahn K (2004) Detecting and analysing children’s play styles with autonomous mobile robots: a case study comparing observational data with sensor readings. In: IAS-8, 8th conference on intelligent autonomous systems, Amsterdam, NL, pp 61–70

  30. Salter T, Werry IP, Michaud F (2007) Going into the wild in child-robot interaction studies—issues in social robotic development. Int J Robot, Special Issue on Multidisciplinary Collaboration in Socially Assistive Robotics

  31. Stiehl W, Breazeal C (2005) Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Nashville, TN

  32. Tanaka F, Movellan JR, Fortenberry B, Aisaka K (2006) Daily HRI evaluation at a classroom environment: reports from dance interaction experiments. In: Proceedings of the 1st annual conference on conference on human-robot interaction, Salt Lake City

  33. Tanka F, Fortenberry B, Aisaka K, Movellan JR (2005) Plans for developing real-time dance interaction between QRIO and toddlers in a classroom environment. In: 4th IEEE international conference on development and learning

  34. Werry I, Dautenhahn K, Ogen W, Harwin B (2001) Can social interaction skills be taught by a social agent? The role of a robotic mediator in autism therapy. In: Fourth international conference on cognitive technology: instruments of mind, University of Warwick, United Kingdom

  35. Yanco HA, Drury JL (2002) A taxonomy for human-robot interaction. In: AAAI fall symposium on human-robot interaction, Technical Report FS-02-03, Falmouth, Massachusetts, pp 111–119

  36. Yanco HA, Drury JL (2004) Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on systems, man and cybernetics

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

    Tamie Salter, François Michaud & Hélène Larouche

Authors
  1. Tamie Salter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. François Michaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hélène Larouche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamie Salter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salter, T., Michaud, F. & Larouche, H. How wild is wild? A taxonomy to characterize the ‘wildness’ of child-robot interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 2, 405–415 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0069-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0069-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation