Advertisement

Perception of Control in Artificial and Human Systems: A Study of Embodied Performance Interactions

  • Catie CuanEmail author
  • Ishaan Pakrasi
  • Amy LaViers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11357)

Abstract

Robots in human facing environments will move alongside human beings. This movement has both functional and expressive meaning and plays a crucial role in human perception of robots. Secondarily, how the robot is controlled – through methods like movement or programming and drivers like oneself or an algorithm – factors into human perceptions. This paper outlines the use of an embodied movement installation, “The Loop”, to understand perceptions generated between humans and various technological agents, including a NAO robot and a virtual avatar. Participants were questioned about their perceptions of control in the various agents. Initial results with human subjects demonstrate an increased likelihood to rate a robot and a robotic shadow as algorithmically controlled, versus a human performer and a human-shaped VR avatar which were more likely rated as human actor controlled or split between algorithm/human actor. Participants also showed a tendency to rate their own performance in the exercise as needing improvement. Qualitative data, collected in the form of text and drawings, was open-ended and abstract. Drawings of humans and geometric shapes frequently appeared, as did the words “mirror”, “movement”, and variations on the word “awareness”.

Keywords

Human robot interaction Robot performance Embodied learning Virtual reality 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was conducted under IRB #17427 and supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #1528036. The authors would like to thank the organizing committee of the 5th Annual Conference on Movement and Computing, which was the site of this experiment and provided production support. Novoneel Chakraborty contributed to the creation of the installation. The authors wish to thank Alexandra Bacula, Roshni Kaushik, and Cameron Scoggins for their assistance in running the experiment on site.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrahamson, D., et al.: You’re it! body, action, and object in STEM learning. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Future of learning (ICLS 2012), vol. 1, pp. 283–290 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashenfelter, K.T., Boker, S.M., Waddell, J.R., Vitanov, N.: Spatiotemporal symmetry and multifractal structure of head movements during dyadic conversation. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 35(4), 1072 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K.: Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Robot Companions (SSAISB 2005 Convention), pp. 1–4 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartneck, C., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Nomura, T.: The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. Ai Soc. 21(1–2), 217–230 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benenson, J.F., Apostoleris, N.H., Parnass, J.: Age and sex differences in dyadic and group interaction. Dev. Psychol. 33(3), 538 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bessiere, K., Ceaparu, I., Lazar, J., Robinson, J., Shneiderman, B.: Social and psychological influences on computer user frustration. In: Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use, pp. 169–192 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Emotion and motivation. In: Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd edn, pp. 602–642 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgoon, J.K., Stern, L.A., Dillman, L.: Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cantú, N.E.: La quinceañera: towards an ethnographic analysis of a life-cycle ritual. South. Folk. 56(1), 73 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuan, C., Pakrasi, I., LaViers, A.: Time to compile: an interactive art installation. In: 16th Biennial Symposium on Arts & Technology, vol. 51, p. 19 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Du, G., Zhang, P., Mai, J., Li, Z.: Markerless kinect-based hand tracking for robot teleoperation. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 9(2), 36 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelin, R., et al.: Towards a storytelling humanoid robot. In: AAAI Fall Symposium: Dialog with Robots, Arlington (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grammer, K., Kruck, K.B., Magnusson, M.S.: The courtship dance: patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. J. Nonverbal Behav. 22(1), 3–29 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Han, J., Campbell, N., Jokinen, K., Wilcock, G.: Investigating the use of non-verbal cues in human-robot interaction with a Nao robot. In: 2012 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), pp. 679–683. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen, S.L.: Dating choices of high school students. Fam. Coord. 26, 133–138 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson-Glenberg, M.: Immersive VR and education: embodied design principles that include gesture and hand controls. Front. Robot. AI 5, 81 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson-Glenberg, M.C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C.: Embodied science and mixed reality: how gesture and motion capture affect physics education. Cogn. Res.: Princ. Implic. 2(1), 24 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson-Glenberg, M.C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Birchfield, D.A., Savio-Ramos, C.: Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention of physics content: centripetal force. Front. Psychol. 7, 1819 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jokinen, K., Wilcock, G.: Multimodal open-domain conversations with the Nao robot. In: Mariani, J., Rosset, S., Garnier-Rizet, M., Devillers, L. (eds.) Natural Interaction with Robots, Knowbots and Smartphones, pp. 213–224. Springer, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8280-2_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaeppler, A.L.: II. Dance ethnology and the anthropology of dance. Danc. Res. J. 32(1), 116–125 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kendal, R.: Infographic: virtual reality stats everyone should see. Technical report, BOSS Magazine, 01 August 2018. https://thebossmagazine.com/virtual-reality-statistics-infographic/
  22. 22.
    Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., Felton, M.: Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cogn. Instr. 15(3), 287–315 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laver, K.E., Lange, B., George, S., Deutsch, J.E., Saposnik, G., Crotty, M.: Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (11), Art. No.: CD008349 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub4
  24. 24.
    Lazar, J., Jones, A., Shneiderman, B.: Workplace user frustration with computers: an exploratory investigation of the causes and severity. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(03), 239–251 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M.: Enacted misconceptions: using embodied interactive simulations to examine emerging understandings of science concepts. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, CO (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Machida, E., Cao, M., Murao, T., Hashimoto, H.: Human motion tracking of mobile robot with Kinect 3D sensor. In: 2012 Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference (SICE), pp. 2207–2211. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCarthy, J., Wright, P.: Technology as experience. Interactions 11(5), 42–43 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Davis, T.J.: Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: a meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 70, 29–40 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morris, R., Wander, P.: Native American rhetoric: dancing in the shadows of the ghost dance. Q. J. Speech 76(2), 164–191 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Navarre, D.: Posture sharing in dyadic interaction. Am. J. Danc. Ther. 5(1), 28–42 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Noy, L., Dekel, E., Alon, U.: The mirror game as a paradigm for studying the dynamics of two people improvising motion together. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(52), 20947–20952 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Qian, K., Niu, J., Yang, H.: Developing a gesture based remote human-robot interaction system using Kinect. Int. J. Smart Home 7(4), 203–208 (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosen, E., et al.: Communicating robot arm motion intent through mixed reality head-mounted displays. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03655 (2017)
  35. 35.
    Shamsuddin, S., et al.: Humanoid robot NAO: review of control and motion exploration. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE), pp. 511–516. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shamsuddin, S., et al.: Initial response of autistic children in human-robot interaction therapy with humanoid robot NAO. In: 2012 IEEE 8th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications (CSPA), pp. 188–193. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Statista: Number of TV households worldwide from 2010 to 2021. Technical report, Statista, 01 January 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/268695/number-of-tv-households-worldwide/
  38. 38.
    Stern, D.N.: Mother and infant at play: the dyadic interaction involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors (1974)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Strickhouser, J.E., Zell, E.: Self-evaluative effects of dimensional and social comparison. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 59, 60–66 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tesser, A.: Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 181–227. Elsevier (1988)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vinayagamoorthy, V., et al.: Building expression into virtual characters (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Whitney, D., Rosen, E., Phillips, E., Konidaris, G., Tellex, S.: Comparing robot grasping teleoperation across desktop and virtual reality with ROS reality. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Robotics Research (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Science and Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations