ISER 2016: 2016 International Symposium on Experimental Robotics pp 799-808 | Cite as
Influence of Emotional Motions in Human-Robot Interactions
Conference paper
First Online:
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to establish if emotional motions are important for the human perception of robots using proxemics as a tool. In this Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) experiment, participants were given instructions from a robot that was conveying either a sad, happy or neutral emotion. The emotional motions were generated as a low priority task using the robot Jacobian null-space. Participants were guided by the robot to sit at a desk to fill in a questionnaire and then to approach the robot to a distance that made them feel comfortable. A significant difference was found between the distance taken towards the robot in the Happy and the Sad conditions confirming our hypothesis that emotions conveyed by the robots influence how it is perceived.
Keywords
Proxemics HRI Emotional motionNotes
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by the JSPS Challenging Exploratory Research Grant 15K12124, and partially supported by the Spanish MINECO project DPI2014-57757-R and the Spanish predoctoral grant BES-2012-054899.
References
- 1.Barnes, L., Fincannon, T., Murphy, R., Riddle, D.R.: Evidence of the need for social intelligence in rescue robots. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1089–1095 (2004)Google Scholar
- 2.Fiore, S.M., Wiltshire, T.J., Lobato, E.J.C., Jentsch, F.G., Huang, W.H., Axelrod, B.: Toward understanding social cues and signals in humanrobot interaction: effects of robot gaze and proxemic behavior. Front. Psychol. 4(859), 1–15 (2013)Google Scholar
- 3.Breazeal, C.: Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C 34(2), 181–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Mori, M.: The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4), 33–35 (1970)Google Scholar
- 5.Bethel, C.L., Murphy, R.R.: Survey of non-facial and non-verbal affective expressions for appearance-constrained robots. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C 38, 83–92 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Moshkina, L., Arkin, R.C.: Human perspective on affective robotic behavior: a longitudinal study. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, Canada (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Przyrembel, M., Smallwood, J., Pauen, M., Singer, T.: Illuminating the dark matter of social neuroscience: considering the problem of social interaction from philosophical, psychological, and neuroscientific perspectives. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 190 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hall, E.T.: The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, New York (1966)Google Scholar
- 9.Kenneth, B.: Little, personal space. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1, 237–247 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Knapp, M.L., Hall, J., Horgan, T.: Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. Wadsworth Publishing, New York (2013)Google Scholar
- 11.Baumeister, R.F., Bushman, B.J.: Social Psychology and Human Nature. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont (2008)Google Scholar
- 12.Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., Syrdal, D.S.: Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In: 17th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 707–712, Munich (2008)Google Scholar
- 13.Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R.: The influence of subjects personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In: IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Nashville, TN (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Izui, T., Milleville, I., Sakka, S., Venture, G.: Expressing emotions using gait of humanoid robot. In: 4th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Kobe (2015)Google Scholar
- 15.Mumm, J., Mutlu, B.: HumanRobot Proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in humanrobot interaction. In: 6th International Conference on HumanRobot Interaction, Lausanne, Switzerland (2011)Google Scholar
- 16.Mukaka, M.M.: Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med. J. 24, 69–71 (2012)Google Scholar
- 17.Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D.: Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. In: Metrics for HRI Workshop, Technical report, vol. 471, pp. 37–44 (2008)Google Scholar
- 18.McCrae, R.R., John, O.P.: An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60(2), 175–215 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Goldberg, L.R.: The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4, 26–42 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Nomura, T., Shintani, T., Fujii, K., Hokabe, K.: Experimental investigation of relationships between anxiety, negative attitudes, and allowable distance of robots. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 13–18 (2007)Google Scholar
- 21.Chin, S.: Animations Library (2014). https://github.com/NightHacking/NaoHacking/blob/master/Animations%20Library/AnimationsLibrary.cbl
- 22.Mehrabian, A.: Pleasure-arousal-dominance: a general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in Temperament. Current Psychol. 14(4), 261–292 (1996). SpringerMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Glowinski, D., Dael, N., Camurri, A., Volpe, G., Mortillaro, M., Scherer, K.: Towards a minimal representation of affective gestures. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 2, 106–118 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Adams Jr., B.R., Kleck, R.E.: Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion 5, 3–11 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Carney, D.R., Hall, J.A., LeBeau, L.S.: Beliegs about the nonverbal expression of social power. J. Nonverbal Behav. 29, 105–123 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Chiaverini, S., Oriolo, G., Walker, I.D.: Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York (2007). Chap. 11Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017