Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated Prediction of Extraversion During Human–Humanoid Interaction

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

Abstract

One of the most important challenges in robotics is to achieve natural and engaging interactions between humans and robots. Interpersonal interaction, the process by which two or more people exchange information through verbal and nonverbal messages, could be exploited by robots both to establish interaction and to inform about its quality. The production of social signals being influenced by individual factors, such as personality traits, is critical for robots to have personalized models of interaction. This paper focuses on estimating social traits such as human personality from the dynamics of interpersonal interaction. The work was carried out in the framework of the project engagement during human–humanoid interaction which focuses on understanding individual factors influencing joint human–humanoid actions. In particular, this work addresses the automated prediction of the Extraversion trait during a human–humanoid interaction. We show how it is possible to take into account the specificity of human–robot interaction scenarios by contextualizing personality through the attitude that participants show towards the robots. This attitude is influenced by the a priori knowledge that people have on social robotics, and their prior anxiety in interacting with them. The proposed model exploits a set of nonverbal features chosen according to literature in Psychology and Personality Computing. These features are adopted to characterize human behaviors and the dynamics of human–robot interaction. Experimental results highlight that it possible to predict Extraversion of the human partner from nonverbal behavior during human–robot interaction with an accuracy of 62%. A higher accuracy, 70%, is obtained from the computational model by explicitly combining the dynamics of interpersonal interaction and the attitude of the participants towards the robots. Results show that 120 s are needed to obtain such performance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.smart-labex.fr/EDHHI.html.

  2. By naïve end-users here we intend people that are not experts in robotics or have no prior significant experience in operating or interacting with robots.

  3. Ivaldi et al., IRB n.20135200001072.

References

  1. Ajzen I (2005) Attitudes, personality, and behavior. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allport G (1999) Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aly A, Tapus A (2013) A model for synthesizing a combined verbal and nonverbal behavior based on personality traits in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 325–332

  4. Ambady N, Rosenthal R (1992) Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 111(2):256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ambady N, Rosenthal R (1993) Half a minute: predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. J Personal Soc Psychol 64(3):431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Andrist S, Mutlu B, Tapus A (2015) Look like me: matching robot personality via gaze to increase motivation. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3603–3612

  7. Anzalone SM, Boucenna S, Ivaldi S, Chetouani M (2015) Evaluating the engagement with social robots. Int J Soc Robot 7(4):465–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anzalone SM, Yoshikawa Y, Ishiguro H, Menegatti E, Pagello E, Sorbello R (2012) Towards partners profiling in human robot interaction contexts. In: International conference on simulation, modeling, and programming for autonomous robots. Springer, Berlin, pp 4–15

  9. Batrinca LM, Mana N, Lepri B, Pianesi F, Sebe N (2011) Please, tell me about yourself: automatic personality assessment using short self-presentations. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on multimodal interfaces. ACM, pp 255–262

  10. Bernieri FJ, Rosenthal R (1991) Interpersonal coordination: behavior matching and interactional synchrony. In: Feldman RS, Bernard R (eds) Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 401–432

  11. Biel JI, Gatica-Perez D (2013) The youtube lens: crowdsourced personality impressions and audiovisual analysis of vlogs. IEEE Trans Multimed 15(1):41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boucenna S, Cohen D, Meltzoff AN, Gaussier P, Chetouani M (2016) Robots learn to recognize individuals from imitative encounters with people and avatars. Sci Rep 6:19908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):167–175

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Breazeal CL (2004) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Burger J (1997) Personality. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  16. Camurri A, Trocca R, Volpe G (2002) Interactive systems design: A kansei-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2002 conference on New interfaces for musical expression. National University of Singapore, pp 1–8

  17. Cantor N, Kihlstrom JF (1987) Personality and social intelligence. Pearson College Division, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Costa P, McCrae R, Rolland J (1998) Neo-pi-r. inventaire de personnalité révisé. adaptation française. P. Rolland. Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée, Paris

  19. Costa PT, MacCrae RR (1992) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources

  20. Dautenhahn K (1998) The art of designing socially intelligent agents: science, fiction, and the human in the loop. Appl Artif Intell 12(7–8):573–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dautenhahn K (2004) Robots we like to live with? A developmental perspective on a personalized, life-long robot companion. In: 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2004 (ROMAN 2004). IEEE, pp 17–22

  22. Delaherche E, Chetouani M, Mahdhaoui A, Saint-Georges C, Viaux S, Cohen D (2012) Interpersonal synchrony: a survey of evaluation methods across disciplines. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(3):349–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dewaele JM, Furnham A (2000) Personality and speech production: a pilot study of second language learners. Pers Individ Differ 28(2):355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ester M, Kriegel HP, Sander J, Xu X et al (1996) A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Kdd 96:226–231

    Google Scholar 

  25. Feist J, Feist GJ (2009) Theories of personality. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education

  26. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Fumagalli M, Ivaldi S, Randazzo M, Natale L, Metta G, Sandini G, Nori F (2012) Force feedback exploiting tactile and proximal force/torque sensing. Auton Robots 33(4):381–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Funder DC (2015) The personality puzzle: seventh international student edition. WW Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gaudiello I, Zibetti E, Lefort S, Chetouani M, Ivaldi S (2016) Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers. Comput Hum Behav 61:633–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hall ET, Edward T (1969) Hall: the hidden dimension, vol 20. Anchor Books, New York, p 71

  31. Hara F, Kobayashi H (1995) Use of face robot for human–computer communication. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 1995. Intelligent systems for the 21st century, vol 2. IEEE, pp 1515–1520

  32. Hasnain SK, Mostafaoui G, Salesse R, Marin L, Gaussier P (2013) Intuitive human robot interaction based on unintentional synchrony: a psycho-experimental study. In: 2013 IEEE third joint international conference on development and learning and epigenetic robotics (ICDL). IEEE, pp 1–7

  33. Iizuka Y (1992) Extraversion, introversion, and visual interaction. Percept Motor Skills 74(1):43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Iocchi L, Lázaro MT, Jeanpierre L, Mouaddib AI (2015) Personalized short-term multi-modal interaction for social robots assisting users in shopping malls. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 264–274

  35. Ivaldi S, Anzalone SM, Rousseau W, Sigaud O, Chetouani M (2014) Robot initiative in a team learning task increases the rhythm of interaction but not the perceived engagement. Front Neurorobot 8:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ivaldi S, Lefort S, Peters J, Chetouani M, Provasi J, Zibetti E (2017) Towards engagement models that consider individual factors in hri: On the relation of extroversion and negative attitude towards robots to gaze and speech during a human-robot assembly task. Int J Soc Robot 9(1):63–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ivanov AV, Riccardi G, Sporka AJ, Franc J (2011) Recognition of personality traits from human spoken conversations. In: INTERSPEECH, pp 1549–1552

  38. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL (1991) The big five inventoryversions 4a and 54

  39. Joosse M, Lohse M, Pérez JG, Evers V (2013) What you do is who you are: the role of task context in perceived social robot personality. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 2134–2139

  40. Kamide H, Eyssel F, Arai T (2013) Psychological anthropomorphism of robots. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 199–208

  41. 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(1):61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee KM, Peng W, Jin SA, Yan C (2006) Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. J Commun 56(4):754–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lehmann H, Saez-Pons J, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2015) In good company? Perception of movement synchrony of a non-anthropomorphic robot. PloS ONE 10(5):e0127,747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):291–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lippa R (1998) The nonverbal display and judgment of extraversion, masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity: a lens model analysis. J Res Pers 32(1):80–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lippa RA, Dietz JK (2000) The relation of gender, personality, and intelligence to judges’ accuracy in judging strangers’ personality from brief video segments. J Nonverbal Behav 24(1):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Maltby J, Day L, Macaskill A (2010) Pers Individ Differ Intell. Pearson Education, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. McCrae RR, Costa PT (2004) A contemplated revision of the neo five-factor inventory. Pers Individ Differ 36(3):587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mileounis A, Cuijpers RH, Barakova EI (2015) Creating robots with personality: the effect of personality on social intelligence. In: International work-conference on the interplay between natural and artificial computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–132

  51. Mischel W (1999) Introduction to personality. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. McCrae RR (2009) The five-factor model of personality traits: consensus and controversy. In: The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge University Press, pp 148–161

  53. Natale L, Nori F, Metta G, Fumagalli M, Ivaldi S, Pattacini U, Randazzo M, Schmitz A, Sandini G (2013) The icub platform: a tool for studying intrinsically motivated learning. In: Baldassarre G, Mirolli M (eds) Intrinsically motivated learning in natural and artificial systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 433–458

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pandey AK, Alami R (2012) Visuo-spatial ability, effort and affordance analyses: towards building blocks for robots complex socio-cognitive behaviors. In: Workshops at the twenty-sixth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

  56. Pantic M, Pentland A, Nijholt A, Huang TS (2007) Human computing and machine understanding of human behavior: a survey. In: Artifical intelligence for human computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–71

  57. Pianesi F, Mana N, Cappelletti A, Lepri B, Zancanaro M (2008) Multimodal recognition of personality traits in social interactions. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on multimodel interfaces. ACM, pp 53–60

  58. Qiu L, Lin H, Ramsay J, Yang F (2012) You are what you tweet: personality expression and perception on twitter. J Res Pers 46(6):710–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Quiroga RQ, Kreuz T, Grassberger P (2002) Event synchronization: a simple and fast method to measure synchronicity and time delay patterns. Phys Rev E 66(4):041,904

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Bremner P, Pipe AG, Fraser M, Robinson P (2010) Cooperative gestures: effective signaling for humanoid robots. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 61–68

  61. Salam H, Celiktutan O, Hupont I, Gunes H, Chetouani M (2016) Fully automatic analysis of engagement and its relationship to personality in human–robot interactions. IEEE Access. doi:10.1109/access.2016.2614525

  62. Scherer KR, Scherer U (1981) Speech behavior and personality. In: Speech evaluation in psychiatry. Grune & Stratton, New York, pp 115–135

  63. Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 5495–5502

  64. Tapus A, Mataric MJ (2008) Socially assistive robots: the link between personality, empathy, physiological signals, and task performance. In: AAAI spring symposium: emotion, personality, and social behavior, pp 133–140

  65. Thomas F, Johnston O, Thomas F (1995) The illusion of life: Disney animation. Hyperion, New York

    Google Scholar 

  66. Varni G, Avril M, Usta A, Chetouani M (2015) Syncpy: a unified open-source analytic library for synchrony. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on modeling INTERPERsonal SynchrONy And infLuence. ACM, pp 41–47

  67. Vernon PE (1933) Some characteristics of the good judge of personality. J Soc Psychol 4(1):42–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Vinciarelli A, Mohammadi G (2014) A survey of personality computing. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 5(3):273–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Bourlard H (2009) Social signal processing: survey of an emerging domain. Image Vis Comput 27(12):1743–1759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Heylen D, Pelachaud C, Poggi I, D’Errico F, Schroeder M (2012) Bridging the gap between social animal and unsocial machine: a survey of social signal processing. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(1):69–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Williams JL (1971) Personal space and its relation to extraversion–introversion. Can J Behav Sci 3(2):156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Woods S, Dautenhahn K, Kaouri C, te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, Walters ML (2007) Are robots like people? Relationships between participant and robot personality traits in human–robot interaction studies. Interact Stud 8(2):281–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zen G, Lepri B, Ricci E, Lanz O (2010) Space speaks: towards socially and personality aware visual surveillance. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Multimodal pervasive video analysis. ACM, pp 37–42

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was performed within the project EDHHI of Labex SMART (ANR-11-LABX-65) supported by French state funds managed by the ANR within the Investissements d’Avenir programme under reference ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02. The authors wish to thank the EDHHI team for the fruitful discussions and help in the experiments. The work was partially supported by the FP7 EU projects CoDyCo (No. 600716 ICT 2011.2.1 Cognitive Systems and Robotics).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire CHArt-THIM, EA4004, Université Paris 8, Saint-Denis, France

    Salvatore Maria Anzalone

  2. Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique, UMR 7222, CNRS, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 6, Paris, France

    Giovanna Varni & Mohamed Chetouani

  3. LARSEN, Inria, Villers-lès-Nancy, France

    Serena Ivaldi

  4. Loria, UMR 7503, CNRS, Université de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France

    Serena Ivaldi

  5. Intelligent Autonomous Systems, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Serena Ivaldi

Authors
  1. Salvatore Maria Anzalone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanna Varni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Serena Ivaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohamed Chetouani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore Maria Anzalone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no con ict of interest.

Ethical standard

The experimental protocol used in this work (Ivaldi et al., ”Engagement during human–humanoid interaction”, IRB n.20135200001072) received approbation by the local Ethics Committee (CERES) in Paris, France.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anzalone, S.M., Varni, G., Ivaldi, S. et al. Automated Prediction of Extraversion During Human–Humanoid Interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 9, 385–399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0399-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0399-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation