Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 67–83 | Cite as

The Uncanny in the Wild. Analysis of Unscripted Human–Android Interaction in the Field

  • Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten
  • Nicole C. Krämer
  • Christian Becker-Asano
  • Kohei Ogawa
  • Shuichi Nishio
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
Article

Abstract

Against the background of the uncanny valley hypothesis we investigated how people react towards an android robot in a natural environment dependent on the behavior displayed by the robot (still vs. moving) in a quasi-experimental observational field study. We present data on unscripted interactions between humans and the android robot “Geminoid HI-1” in an Austrian public café and subsequent interviews. Data were analyzed with regard to the participants’ nonverbal behavior (e.g. attention paid to the robot, proximity). We found that participants’ behavior towards the android robot as well as their interview answers were influenced by the behavior the robot displayed. In addition, we found huge inter-individual differences in the participants’ behavior. Implications for the uncanny valley and research on social human–robot interactions are discussed.

Keywords

Human–robot interaction Field study Observation Multimodal evaluation of human interaction with robots Uncanny valley 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by a doctoral fellowship of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes (German National Academic Foundation), by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S), KAKENHI (20220002) and a post-doctoral fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).

References

  1. 1.
    Onishi M, Luo Z, Odashima T et al (2007) Generation of human care behaviors by human–interactive robot RI-MAN. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, ICRA’07. IEEE Press, New York, pp 3128–3129 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matarić MJ, Eriksson J, Feil-Seifer DJ et al (2007) Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. J NeuroEng Rehabil 4(1):5. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-4-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matarić MJ (2006) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):81–83 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319–330. doi: 10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ceccarelli M (2011) Problems and issues for service robots in new applications. Int J Soc Robot 3(3):299–312. doi: 10.1007/s12369-011-0097-8 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Jayawardena C et al (2013) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J Soc Robot. doi: 10.1007/s12369-013-0186-y Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matsumoto N, Fujii H, Okada M (2006) Minimal design for human–agent communication. Artif Life Robot 10(1):49–54. doi: 10.1007/s10015-005-0377-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blow MP, Dautenhahn K, Appleby A et al (2006) Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human–robot interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2006), pp 469–474 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishiguro H (2006) Interactive humanoids and androids as ideal interfaces for humans. In: Paris CL, Sidner CL, Edmonds E et al (eds) Proceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’06. ACM Press, New York, pp 2–9 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–337. doi: 10.1075/is.7.3.03mac CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacDorman KF (2006) Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familarity, and eeriness: an exploration of the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of the cog sci 2006 workshop on android science, pp 26–29 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanson D, Olney A, Pereira IA et al (2005) Upending the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 20, pp 1728–1729 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brenton M, Gillies M, Ballin D et al (2005) The uncanny valley: does it exist? In: Proceedings of the conference of human computer interaction, workshop on human animated character interaction Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanson D (2006) Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the cog sci 2006 workshop on android science, pp 16–20 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pollick FE (2010) In search of the uncanny valley. In: Daras P, Ibarra OM (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on user centric media, UCMedia 2009, Venice, Italy, December 9–11, 2009. Revised selected papers. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–78 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gee FC, Browne WN, Kawamura K (2005) Uncanny valley revisited. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE workshop ro-man, pp 151–157 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H et al (2007) Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff? In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2007), pp 368–373 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shimada M, Minato T, Itakura S et al (2006) Evaluation of android using unconscious recognition. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids 2006), pp 157–162. doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2006.321378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minato T, Shimada M, Itakura S et al (2005) Does gaze reveal the human likeness of an android? In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on development and learning, pp 106–111 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Minato T, Shimada M, Itakura S et al (2006) Evaluating the human likeness of an android by comparing gaze behaviors elicited by the android and a person. Adv Robot 20(10):1147–1163. doi: 10.1163/156855306778522505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    von der Pütten AM, Eimler SC, Krämer NC (2011) Living with a robot companion. empirical study on the interaction with an artificial health advisor. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM international conference on multimodal interaction, ICMI’11. ACM Press, New York, pp 327–334 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sung J (2009) Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 45–52 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sung J, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2010) Domestic robot ecology. Int J Soc Robot. doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0065-8 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weiss A, Igelsböck J, Tscheligi M et al (2010) Robots asking for directions: the willingness of passers-by to support robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI 2010. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 23–30 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hayashi K, Sakamoto D, Kanda T et al (2007) Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium. In: Breazeal CL, Schultz AC, Fong T et al (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’07. ACM, New York, pp 137–144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H et al (2007) Interactive humanoid robots for a science museum. Intell Syst 22(2):25–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N et al (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2007.904904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bartneck C, Takayuki K, Ishiguro H et al (2009) My robotic doppelgänger—a critical look at the uncanny valley theory. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2009), pp 269–276 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mori M, MacDorman K, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19(2):98–100. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hara F (2004) Artificial emotion of face robot through learning in communicative interactions with human. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, (RO-MAN 2004), pp 7–15. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374712 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R et al (2007) Exploring the design space of robot appearance and behavior in an attention-seeking ‘Living room’ scenario for a robot companion. In: IEEE symposium on artificial life (ALIFE ’07), pp 341–347. doi: 10.1109/ALIFE.2007.367815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kanda T, Miyashita T, Osada T et al (2008) Analysis of humanoid appearances in human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 24(3):725–735. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2008.921566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tondu B, Bardou N (2011) A new interpretation of Mori’s uncanny valley for future humanoid robots. Int J Robot Autom. doi: 10.2316/Journal.206.2011.3.206-3348 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gray K, Wegner DM (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125(1):125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McDorman KF (2005) Mortality salience and the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, pp 399–405 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T, Solomon S et al (1990) Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(2):308–318. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ho C, MacDorman KF, Pramono Z (2008) Human emotion and the uncanny valley: a GLM, MDS, and isomap analysis of robot video ratings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2008), pp 169–176 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noma M, Saiwaki N, Itakura S et al (2006) Composition and evaluation of the humanlike motions of an android. In: 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, pp 163–168 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(336):433–460 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    French RM (1990) Subcognition and the limits of the TuringTest. Mind XCIX(393):53–65. doi: 10.1093/mind/XCIX.393.53 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Straub I, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2010) Incorporated identity in interaction with a teleoperated android robot: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2010), pp 119–144. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598695 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference of human factors in computing systems (CHI 1994), pp 72–78 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nass C, Moon Y, Morkes J et al (1997) Computers are social actors: a review of current research. In: Friedman B (ed) Human values and the design of computer technology, vol 72. CSLI Publications, Cambridge, pp 137–162 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ramey CH (2006) An inventory of reported characteristics for home computers, robots, and human beings: applications for android science and the uncanny valley. In: MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (eds) Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium “Toward social mechanisms of android science”, pp 21–25 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Becker-Asano C, Ogawa K, Nishio S et al (2010) Exploring the uncanny valley with geminoid HI-1 in a real world application. In: Blashki K (ed) Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on interfaces and human computer interaction, IHCI 2010, pp 121–128 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ortony A, Norman D, Revelle W (2005) Affect and proto-affect in effective functioning. In: Fellous J, Arbib MA (eds) Who needs emotions: the brain meets the robot. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 173–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cowley JS, McDorman KF (2006) What baboons, babies, and Tetris players tell us about interaction: a biosocial view of norm-based social learning. Connect Sci 18(4):363–378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Minsky M (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston PH (ed) The psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 211–277 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ramey CH (2005) The uncanny valley of similarities concerning abortion, baldness, heaps of sand, and humanlike robots. In: Proceedings of views of the uncanny valley workshop: IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Tsukuba, Japan, pp 8–13 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rozin P, Fallon AE (1987) A perspective on disgust. Psychol Rev 94(1):23–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley C et al (1999) Individual differences in disgust sensitivity: comparisons and evaluations of paper-and-pencil versus behavioral measures. J Res Pers 33(3):330–351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Blow MP, Dautenhahn K, Appleby A et al (2006) The art of designing robot faces—dimensions for human–robot interaction. In: Goodrich MA, Schultz AC, Bruemmer DJ (eds) Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd conference on human robot interaction (HRI2006). ACM, New York, pp 321–332 Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y (1996) Can computers be teammates? Int J Hum-Comput Stud 45:669–678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC (2012) A survey on robot appearances. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2012), pp 267–268 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Geminoid: teleoperated android of an existing person. In: de Pina Filho AC (ed) Humanoid Robots: New Developments. I-Tech Education and Publishing, Rijeka, pp 343–352 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    Wittenburg P, Brugman H, Russel A et al (2006) Elan: a professional framework for multimodality research. In: Proceedings of language resources and evaluation conference (LREC) Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hall ET (1982) The hidden dimension. An anthropologist examines humans’ use of space in public and private. Anchor, New York Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hall ET (1974) Handbook for proxemics research. In: Society for the anthropology of visual communication, Washington DC Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Howell DC (2010) Statistical methods for psychology, 7th edn. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten
    • 1
  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  • Christian Becker-Asano
    • 2
  • Kohei Ogawa
    • 3
    • 4
  • Shuichi Nishio
    • 4
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Duisburg EssenDuisburgGermany
  2. 2.Albert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Osaka UniversityOsakaJapan
  4. 4.Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute InternationalKeihanna Science CityJapan

Personalised recommendations