Advertisement

Lend a Hand to Service Robots: Overcoming System Limitations by Asking Humans

  • Felix Schüssel
  • Marcel Walch
  • Katja Rogers
  • Frank Honold
  • Michael Weber
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 427)

Abstract

Service robots such as vacuum-cleaning robots have already entered our homes . But in the future there will also be robots in public spaces. These robots may often reach their system limitations while performing their day-to-day work. To address this issue we suggest asking passersby for help. We enhanced an iRobot Roomba vacuum cleaning robot to set up a low-budget Wizard-of-Oz (WOZ) evaluation platform designed to investigate human-robot interaction (HRI). Furthermore, we suggest how HRI can be investigated in public spaces with a robot in need. An early evaluation shows that our prototype is a promising approach to explore how robots can cope with their limitations by asking somebody for help.

Keywords

Human robot interaction Public spaces Service robots System limitations Dialog strategies WOZ-study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all passersby who participated in our study. Moreover, the authors would like to thank the Carl-Zeiss-Foundation for the partially funding of this work. This work was also supported by the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TRR 62 “Companion-Technology for Cognitive Technical Systems”, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

References

  1. 1.
    Goodrich, M.A., Schultz, A.C.: Human-robot interaction: a survey. Found. Trends Human-Comput. Interact. 1(3), 203–275 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breazeal, C.: Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. C Appl. Rev. 34(2), 181–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Werry, I.: What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler? In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005 (IROS 2005), pp. 1192–1197. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ezer, N., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: More than a servant: self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 53, pp. 136–140. SAGE Publications (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kidd, C.D., Taggart, W., Turkle, S.: A Sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006, ICRA 2006, pp. 3972–3976. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hutson, S., Lim, S.L., Bentley, P.J., Bianchi-Berthouze, N., Bowling, A.: Investigating the suitability of social robots for the wellbeing of the elderly. In: Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, pp. 578–587. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dario, P., Guglielmelli, E., Laschi, C.: Humanoids and personal robots: design and experiments. J. Rob. Syst. 18(12), 673–690 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smarr, C., Fausset, C.B., Rogers, W.A.: Understanding the potential for robot assistance for older adults in the home environment. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, J.L.: Robots at the tipping point: the road to iRobot Roomba. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 13(1), 76–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tribelhorn, B., Dodds, Z.: Evaluating the Roomba: A low-cost, ubiquitous platform for robotics research and education. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1393–1399. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fink, J.: Dynamics of Human-Robot Interaction in Domestic Environments. Ph.D. thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forlizzi, J.: How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 129–136. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(4), 319–330 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sung, J.Y., Guo, L., Grinter, R.E., Christensen, H.I.: My Roomba Is Rambo: Intimate Home Appliances. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sung, J.Y., Grinter, R.E., Christensen, H., Guo, L. et al.: Housewives or technophiles?: understanding domestic robot owners. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 129–136. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sung, J.Y., Grinter, R.E., Christensen, H.I.: Pimp my Roomba: designing for personalization. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 193–196. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Riek, L.D.: Wizard of oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J. Human-Robot Interact. 1(1) (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Schüssel
    • 1
  • Marcel Walch
    • 1
  • Katja Rogers
    • 1
  • Frank Honold
    • 1
  • Michael Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Media InformaticsUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations