Advertisement

How a Robot’s Social Credibility Affects Safety Performance

  • Patrick HolthausEmail author
  • Catherine Menon
  • Farshid Amirabdollahian
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11876)

Abstract

This paper connects the two domains of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) and safety engineering to ensure that the design of interactive robots considers the effect of social behaviours on safety functionality. We conducted a preliminary user study with a social robot that alerts participants during a puzzle-solving task to a safety hazard. Our study findings show an indicative trend where users who were interrupted by a socially credible robot were more likely to act to mitigate the hazard than users interrupted by a robot lacking social credibility.

Keywords

Human-robot interaction Social credibility Robot safety 

References

  1. 1.
    Admoni, H., Scassellati, B.: Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction: a review. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 6(1), 25–63 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartneck, C., Forlizzi, J.: A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In: RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 591–594. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 71–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bensch, S., Jevtić, A., Hellström, T.: On Interaction Quality in Human-Robot Interaction, February 2017Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breazeal, C.: Role of expressive behaviour for robots that learn from people. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 364(1535), 3527–3538 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breazeal, C., Dautenhahn, K., Kanda, T.: Social robotics. In: Siciliano, B., Khatib, O. (eds.) Springer Handbook of Robotics, pp. 1935–1972. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van den Brule, R., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D.H.J., Haselager, P.: Do robot performance and behavioral style affect human trust? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(4), 519–531 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carpinella, C.M., Wyman, A.B., Perez, M.A., Stroessner, S.J.: The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS): development and validation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 254–262. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castro-González, Á., et al.: The effects of an impolite vs. a polite robot playing rock-paper-scissors. In: Agah, A., Cabibihan, J.-J., Howard, A.M., Salichs, M.A., He, H. (eds.) ICSR 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9979, pp. 306–316. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fraunhofer IPA: Care-o-bot data sheet (2018). https://www.care-o-bot.de/en/care-o-bot-4/technical-data.html
  11. 11.
    Health and Safety Executive: Health and Safety At Work Act (1974)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holthaus, P., Pitsch, K., Wachsmuth, S.: How can i help? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(4), 383–393 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 13482:2014: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for personal care robots (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klamer, T., Ben Allouch, S., Heylen, D.: “Adventures of harvey” – use, acceptance of and relationship building with a social robot in a domestic environment. In: Lamers, M.H., Verbeek, F.J. (eds.) HRPR 2010. LNICST, vol. 59, pp. 74–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19385-9_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D., Bormann, R., Saunders, J., Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K.: Initial design, implementation and technical evaluation of a context-aware proxemics planner for a social robot. In: Kheddar, A. et al. (eds.) Social Robotics. ICSR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10652, pp. 12–22. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Ashgari-Oskoei, M., Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K.: Social roles and baseline proxemic preferences for a domestic service robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(4), 469–488 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lichtenthäler, C., Kirsch, A.: Legibility of robot behavior: a literature review (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22, 1–55 (1932)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menon, C., Holthaus, P.: Does a loss of social credibility impact robot safety? balancing social and safety behaviours of assistive robots. In: International Conference on Performance. Safety and Robustness in Complex Systems and Applications (PESARO 2019), pp. 18–24. IARIA, Valencia, Spain (2019)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Transportation Safety Board: Collision Between a Car Operating with Automated Vehicle Control Systems and a Tractor Semitrailer Truck Near Williston, Florida, May 7 2016. Technical Report HAR1702 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Transportation Safety Board: Preliminary Report Highway HWY18FH011. Technical Report HWYFH011 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Renner, P., Pfeiffer, T., Wachsmuth, I.: Spatial references with gaze and pointing in shared space of humans and robots. In: Freksa, C., Nebel, B., Hegarty, M., Barkowsky, T. (eds.) Spatial Cognition 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8684, pp. 121–136. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rios-Martinez, J., Spalanzani, A., Laugier, C.: From proxemics theory to socially-aware navigation: a survey. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(2), 137–153 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., Dautenhahn, K.: Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction HRI 2015, pp. 141–148. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salem, M., Ziadee, M., Sakr, M.: Effects of politeness and interaction context on perception and experience of HRI. In: Herrmann, G., Pearson, M.J., Lenz, A., Bremner, P., Spiers, A., Leonards, U. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8239, pp. 531–541. Springer, Cham (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarter, N.B., Woods, D.D.: Team play with a powerful and independent agent: operational experiences and automation surprises on the airbus A-20. Hum. Factors 39(4), 553–569 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Syrdal, D.S., Koay, K.L., Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K.: A personalized robot companion?-the role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. In: RO-MAN 2007-The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 1143–1148. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wall, J., Cuenca, V., Creef, K., Barnes, B.: Attitudes and opinions towards intelligent speed adaptation. In: 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops), pp. 37–42. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wise, M., Ferguson, M., King, D., Diehr, E., Dymesich, D.: Fetch & Freight: Standard Platforms for Service Robot Applications (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adaptive Systems Research Group, School of Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations