Enabling Symbiotic Autonomy in Short-Term Interactions: A User Study

  • Francesco Riccio
  • Andrea Vanzo
  • Valeria Mirabella
  • Tiziana Catarci
  • Daniele Nardi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9979)


The presence of robots in everyday environments is increasing day by day, and their deployment spans over various applications: industrial and working scenarios, health care assistance in public areas or at home. However, robots are not yet comparable to humans in terms of capabilities; hence, in the so-called Symbiotic Autonomy, robots and humans help each other to complete tasks. Therefore, it is interesting to identify the factors that allow to maximize human-robot collaboration, which is a new point of view with respect to the HRI literature and very much leaning toward a social behavior. In this work, we analyze a subset of such variables as possible influencing factors of humans’ Collaboration Attitude in a Symbiotic Autonomy framework, namely: Proxemics setting, Activity Context, and Gender and Height as valuable features of the users. We performed a user study that takes place in everyday environments expressed as activity contexts, such as relaxing and working ones. A statistical analysis of the collected results shows a high dependence of the Collaboration Attitude in different Proxemics settings and Gender.


Symbiotic Autonomy Spatial interaction Human-robot collaboration 


  1. 1.
    Rosenthal, S., Biswas, J., Veloso, M.: An effective personal mobile robot agent through symbiotic human-robot interaction. In: International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), vol. 1, pp. 915–922, May 2010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coradeschi, S., Saffiotti, A.: Symbiotic robotic systems: humans, robots, and smart environments. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(3), 82–84 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nikolaidis, S., Ramakrishnan, R., Gu, K., Shah, J.: Efficient model learning from joint-action demonstrations for human-robot collaborative tasks. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2015), pp. 189–196. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fischer, K., Yang, S., Mok, B., Maheshwari, R., Sirkin, D., Ju, W.: Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: a robotic trash can in the field. In: AAAI Symposium on Turn-taking and Coordination in Human-Machine Interaction, pp. 10–16 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall, E.T.: The Hidden Dimension: Man’s Use of Space in Public and Private. The Bodley Head Ltd., London (1966)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takayama, L., Pantofaru, C.: Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2009), pp. 5495–5502, October 2009Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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: The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2007), pp. 1143–1148, August 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Nehaniv, C.L.: An empirical framework for human-robot proxemics. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 144–149, Edinburgh, Scottland (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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, 469–488 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mumm, J., Mutlu, B.: Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2011), pp. 331–338. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitsunaga, N., Smith, C., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Adapting robot behavior for human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans. Robot. 24, 911–916 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torta, E., Cuijpers, R.H., Juola, J.F.: A model of the user’s proximity for Bayesian inference. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI 2011), pp. 273–274, NY, USA. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engel, C.: Dictator games: a meta study. Exp. Econ. 14, 583–610 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Song, H., Restivo, M., van de Rijt, A., Scarlatos, L.L., Tonjes, D., Orlov, A.: The hidden gender effect in online collaboration: an experimental study of team performance under anonymity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 50, 274–282 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Riccio
    • 1
  • Andrea Vanzo
    • 1
  • Valeria Mirabella
    • 1
  • Tiziana Catarci
    • 1
  • Daniele Nardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering “Antonio Ruberti”Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations