Effects of Different Robot Interaction Strategies During Cognitive Tasks

  • Sebastian Schneider
  • Ingmar Berger
  • Nina Riether
  • Sebastian Wrede
  • Britta Wrede
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7621)

Abstract

A growing field in Human-Robot Interaction aims at social assistance for users on specific tasks. These applications allow for insights regarding the acceptance of the robot’s presence and interaction-related performance effects. We present a scenario in which a socially assistive robot assists users on a cognitive task. Furthermore, we quantitatively evaluate the effects of two distinct interaction strategies on performance of the user and acceptance of the robot’s presence. In one strategy, the robot acts as a structuring guide and in the other, the robot tries to individually enhance the performance of the user. Results show that users benefit from a suited interaction strategy in terms of test performance and that the robot’s presence is regarded as acceptable and also desirable.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1(1), 71–81 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fasola, J., Matarić, M.J.: Robot motivator: Increasing user enjoyment and performance on a physical/cognitive task. In: International Conference on Development and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI (August 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feil-seifer, D., Matarić, M.J.: Defining socially assistive robotics. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR 2005), pp. 465–468 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kidd, C.D.: A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breazeal, C., Kidd, C.: Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Midden, C., Ham, J.: Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Persuasive 2009, pp. 12:1–12:6. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K.: Prediction of human behavior in human–robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24(2), 442–451 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K.: Altered attitudes of people toward robots: Investigation through the negative attitudes toward robots scale (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park, E., Kim, K.J., del Pobil, A.P.: The Effects of a Robot Instructor’s Positive vs. Negative Feedbacks on Attraction and Acceptance towards the Robot in Classroom. In: Mutlu, B., Bartneck, C., Ham, J., Evers, V., Kanda, T. (eds.) ICSR 2011. LNCS, vol. 7072, pp. 135–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peters, M., et al.: Brain and cognition, vol. 28, pp. 39–58 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riether, N., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., Horstmann, G.: Social facilitation with social robots? In: International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, HRI 2012 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Schneider
    • 1
  • Ingmar Berger
    • 1
  • Nina Riether
    • 1
  • Sebastian Wrede
    • 1
  • Britta Wrede
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Cognition and Robotics (CoR-Lab)Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations