Evaluating Supportive and Instructive Robot Roles in Human-Robot Interaction

  • Manuel Giuliani
  • Alois Knoll
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7072)

Abstract

Humans take different roles when they work together on a common task. But how do humans react to different roles of a robot in a human-robot interaction scenario? In this publication, we present a user evaluation, in which naïve participants work together with a robot on a common construction task. The robot is able to take different roles in the interaction: one group of the experiment participants worked with the robot in the instructive role, in which the robot first instructs the user how to proceed with the construction and then supports the user by handing over building pieces. The other group of participants used the robot in its supportive role, in which the robot hands over assembly pieces to the human that fit to the current progress of the assembly plan and only gives instructions when necessary. The results of the experiment show that the users do not prefer one of the two roles of the robot, but take the counterpart to the robot’s role and adjust their own behaviour according to the robot’s actions. This is revealed by the objective data that we collected as well as by the subjective answers of the experiment participants to a user questionnaire. The data suggests that the most influential factors for user satisfaction are the number of times the users picked up a building piece without getting an explicit instruction by the robot and the number of utterances the users made themselves. While the number of pickup actions had a positive or negative influence, depending on the role the users took, the number of own utterances always had a strong negative influence on the user’s satisfaction.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Breazeal, C.: Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews 34(2), 181–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foster, M.E., Giuliani, M., Isard, A., Matheson, C., Oberlander, J., Knoll, A.: Evaluating description and reference strategies in a cooperative human-robot dialogue system. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), Pasadena, California (July 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giuliani, M., Foster, M.E., Isard, A., Matheson, C., Oberlander, J., Knoll, A.: Situated reference in a hybrid human-robot interaction system. In: International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG 2010), Dublin, Ireland (July 2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hinds, P.J., Roberts, T.L., Jones, H.: Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human–Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 151–181 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kipp, M.: Multimedia annotation, querying and analysis in ANVIL. In: Multimedia Information Extraction (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Litman, D.J., Pan, S.: Designing and evaluating an adaptive spoken dialogue system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 12(2–3), 111–137 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Looije, R., Neerincx, M., Kruijff, G.J.M.: Affective Collaborative Robots for Safety & Crisis Management in the Field. In: Intelligent Human Computer Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2007), Delft, Netherlands (May 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., Knoblich, G.: Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2), 70–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tapus, A., Mataric, M.: Socially assistive robots: The link between personality, empathy, physiological signals, and task performance. In: AAAI Spring, vol. 8 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Breemen, A.J.N.: iCat: Experimenting with animabotics. In: AISB 2005 Creative Robotics Symposium (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker, M., Kamm, C., Litman, D.: Towards developing general models of usability with PARADISE. Natural Language Engineering 6(3–4), 363–377 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Giuliani
    • 1
  • Alois Knoll
    • 2
  1. 1.fortiss GmbHMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Robotics and Embedded SystemsTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations