Advertisement

Investigating the Effects of Gaze Behavior on the Perceived Delay of a Robot’s Response

  • Vivienne Jia ZhongEmail author
  • Theresa Schmiedel
  • Rolf Dornberger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11876)

Abstract

Slow responses of social robots cause user frustration in human-robot communication. This paper investigates how far the gaze behavior of a robot, meaning the way the robot looks at its conversation partner, influences the perceived delay of a robot’s response in human-robot conversations. To enhance a natural conversation pattern, a gaze behavior was designed and implemented into a humanoid robot. A within-subject experiment involving 31 test subjects was designed with two conditions (with and without gaze behavior). The results generally show a positive correlation between the gaze behavior that the robot exhibits and the perceived responsiveness of the robot (in the condition with gaze behavior). However, the perceived responsiveness is the same in both conditions. One reason for this finding may be that the response time of the robot might have been generally too short to identify an effect in the experimental setting. Future research can directly build on our research to assess the relation between gaze behavior and perceived responsiveness in further detail and draw upon the finding that gaze behavior generally plays an important role with regard to the perceived responsiveness of a robot. Robot designers can also build on our research and consider both gaze behavior and additional factors to address a perceived delay in a robot’s response.

Keywords

Human-robot interaction Gaze behavior Robot response time 

References

  1. 1.
    Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K.: A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42, 143–166 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurzon, D.: Discourse of Silence. John Benjamins Publishing (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruneau, T.J.: Communicative silences: forms and functions. J. Commun. 23, 17–46 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oto, K., Feng, J., Imai, M.: Investigating how people deal with silence in a human-robot conversation. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 195–200 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ward, N.G., Rivera, A.G., Ward, K., Novick, D.G.: Root causes of lost time and user stress in a simple dialog system. Presented at the INTERSPEECH-2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mukawa, N., Sasaki, H., Kimura, A.: How do verbal/bodily fillers ease embarrassing situations during silences in conversations? In: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 30–35 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galle, M., Kynev, E., Monet, N., Legras, C.: Context-aware selection of multi-modal conversational fillers in human-robot dialogues. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 317–322. IEEE, Lisbon (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zheng, K., Glas, D.F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Designing and implementing a human-robot team for social interactions. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. 43, 843–859 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skantze, G., Hjalmarsson, A.: Towards incremental speech generation in conversational systems. Comput. Speech Lang. 27, 243–262 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andrist, S., Tan, X.Z., Gleicher, M., Mutlu, B.: Conversational gaze aversion for humanlike robots. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, pp. 25–32. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coupland, J.: Small talk: social functions. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 36, 1–6 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shiwa, T., Kanda, T., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: How quickly should a communication robot respond? Delaying strategies and habituation effects. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 141–155 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ohshima, N., Kimijima, K., Yamato, J., Mukawa, N.: A conversational robot with vocal and bodily fillers for recovering from awkward silence at turn-takings. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 325–330 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Admoni, H., Scassellati, B.: Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction: a review. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 6, 25–63 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vertegaal, R., Slagter, R., van der Veer, G., van der Veer, G., Nijholt, A.: Eye gaze patterns in conversations: there is more to conversational agents than meets the eyes. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 301–308. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oertel, C., Włodarczak, M., Edlund, J., Wagner, P., Gustafson, J.: Gaze patterns in turn-taking. In: 13th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association 2012 (INTERSPEECH 2012), Portland, OR, pp. 2243–2246 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heylen, D.: Head gestures, gaze and the principles of conversational structure. Int. J. Human. Robot. 03, 241–267 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Satake, S., Kanda, T., Glas, D.F., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: How to approach humans?: Strategies for social robots to initiate interaction. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 109–116. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruce, A., Nourbakhsh, I., Simmons, R.: The role of expressiveness and attention in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292), vol. 4, pp. 4138–4142 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Schendel, J.A., Cuijpers, R.H.: Turn-yielding cues in robot-human conversation. Presented at the AISB Convention 2015, Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, Canterbury, April 20 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrist, S., Mutlu, B., Gleicher, M.: Conversational gaze aversion for virtual agents. In: Aylett, R., Krenn, B., Pelachaud, C., Shimodaira, H. (eds.) Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 249–262. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40415-3_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gambino, S.L., Zarrieß, S., Schlangen, D.: Testing strategies for bridging time-to-content in spoken dialogue Systems. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems Technology (IWSDS 2018), p. 7, Singapore (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gambino, S.L., Zarrieß, S., Schlangen, D.: Beyond on-hold messages: conversational time-buying in task-oriented dialogue. In: SIGDIAL Conference (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmiedel, T., vom Brocke, J., Recker, J.: Development and validation of an instrument to measure organizational cultures’ support of Business Process Management. Inf. Manag. 51, 43–56 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang, Y., Beskow, J., Kjellström, H.: Look but don’t stare: mutual gaze interaction in social robots. In: Kheddar, A., et al. (eds.) Social Robotics, pp. 556–566. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hair, J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. SAGE Publications Inc., Los Angeles (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information SystemsFHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations