Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 5–15 | Cite as

Comparative Study of Human Behavior in Card Playing with a Humanoid Playmate

  • Min-Gyu Kim
  • Kenji Suzuki
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the study of human behaviors in a poker game with the game playing humanoid robot. Betting decision and nonverbal behaviors of human players were analyzed between human–human and the human–humanoid poker game. It was found that card hand strength is related to the betting strategy and nonverbal interaction. Moreover, engagement in the poker game with the humanoid was assessed through questionnaire and by measuring the nonverbal behaviors between playtime and breaktime.

The findings of this study contribute to not only design of socially interactive game playing robot, but also the theoretical approach on the realization of the robot that behaves in the way of human doing in game playing.

Keywords

Human–robot interaction Social playmate Poker game Humanoid 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research and Global COE Program on “Cybernetics: fusion of human, machine, and information systems” by MEXT, Japan.

References

  1. 1.
    Lazzaro N (2004) Why we play games: four keys to more emotion without story. In: Game developers conference Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dantam N, Kolhe P, Stilman M (2011) The motion grammar for physical human–robot games. In: Int conf on robotics and automation, pp 5463–5469 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wallhoff F, Bannat A, Gast J, Rehrl T, Dausinger M, Rigoll G (2009) Statistics-based cognitive human–robot interfaces for board games—let’s play! In: Human interface part II. Lecture note in computer science, vol 5618. Springer, Berlin, pp 108–715 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marquis S, Elliott C (1994) Emotionally responsive poker playing agents. In: Notes for the 12th national conf on artificial intelligence workshop on artificial intelligence, artificial life, and entertainment, pp 11–15 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kovács G, Ruttkay Z, Fazekas A (2007) Virtual chess player with emotions. In: 4th Hungarian conf on computer graphics and geometry, pp 182–188 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caro M (2003) Caro’s book of poker tells. Cardoza Publishing, Las Vegas Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berne E (1996) Games people play. the basic hand book of transactional analysis. Ballantine, New York Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siler K (2010) Social and psychological challenges of poker source. J Gambl Stud 26(3):401–420 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seale DA, Phelan SE (2010) Bluffing and betting behavior in a simplified poker game. J Behav Decis Mak 23(4):335–352 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sung M, Pentland AP (2005) PokerMetrics: stress and lie detection through non-invasive physiological sensing. Ph.D. thesis, MIT Media Laboratory Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, Kaouri C, Woods S, Nehaniv C, Lee D, Werry I (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment. In: IEEE int workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 347–352 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Billings D, Papp D, Schaeffer J, Szafron D (1998) Opponent modeling in poker. In: Proc AAAI-98, pp 493–499 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    King GA, Sorrentino RM (1983) Psychological dimensions of goal-oriented interpersonal situations. Pers Soc Psychol 44:140–162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelley HH, Stahelski AJ (1970) Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. J Pers Soc Psychol 16(1):66–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J, Kim SR (2006) Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 64(10):962–973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2008) The effect of presence on human–robot interaction. In: 17th IEEE int sym on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T (2003) Body movement analysis of human–robot interaction. Int Joint Conf Artif Intell 18:177–182 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moriguchi Y, Minato T, Ishiguro H, Shinohara I, Itakura S (2010) Cues that trigger social transmission of disinhibition in young children. J Exp Child Psychol 107:181–187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mutlu B, Osman S, Forlizzi J, Hodgins J, Kiesler S (2006) Task structure and user attributes as elements of human–robot interaction design. In: The 15th IEEE int symp on robot and human interactive communication, pp 74–79 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Findler NV (1977) Studies in machine cognition using the game of poker. Commun ACM 20(4):230–245 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lombard M, Ditton T, Crane D, Davis B, Gil-Egul G, Horvath K, Rossman J (2000) Measuring presence: a literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper and pencil instrument. In: The third international workshop on presence, Delft, The Netherlands Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poels K, de Kort Y, IJsselsteijn W (2007) “It is always a lot of fun!!”: exploring dimensions of digital game experience using focus group methodology. In: Proc of the conf on future play, pp 83–89 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gu E, Badler NI (2006) Visual attention and eye gaze during multiparty conversations with distractions. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4133. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–204 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sidne CL, Kidd CD, Lee C, Lesh N (2004) Where to look: a study of human–robot engagement. In: Proc of intelligent user interaces, pp 78–84 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mahmud AA, Mubin O, Shahid S, Martens JB (2010) Designing social games for children and older adults: two related case studies. Comput Entertain 1(3):147–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim MG, Suzuki K (2010) A card playing humanoid for understanding socio-emotional interaction. In: Entertainment computing ICEC’10. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6243. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–19 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelley JF (1984) An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Trans Off Inf Syst 2(1):26–41 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hayano DM (1980) Communicative competency among poker players. J Commun 30(2):99–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Carlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129(1):74–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ekman P (1985) Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. W.W. Norton, New York Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ponse M, Tuyls K, Jong SD, Ramon J, Croonenborghs T, Driessens K (2008) The dynamics of human behaviour in poker. In: Proc of the 20th Belgium-Netherlands conf on artificial intelligence (BNAIC 2008), pp 225–232 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eckman P (2003) Darwin, deception, and facial expression. Ann NY Acad Sci 1000:205–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vrij A, Edward K, Roberts KP, Bull R (2004) Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. J Nonverbal Behav 24(4):239–263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pereira A, Martinho C, Leite I, Paiva A (2008) ICat, the chess player: the influence of embodiment in the enjoyment of a game. In: Proc of the 7th int joint conf on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 1253–1256 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):177–190 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wagner AR, Arkin RC (2009) Robot deception: recognizing when a robot should deceive. In: IEEE int symp on computational intelligence in robotics and automation, pp 46–54 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Intelligent Interaction TechnologiesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering, Information and SystemsUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations