Responsive Social Agents

Feedback-Sensitive Behavior Generation for Social Interactions
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9979)

Abstract

How can we generate appropriate behavior for social artificial agents? A common approach is to (1) establish with controlled experiments which action is most appropriate in which setting, and (2) select actions based on this knowledge and an estimate of the setting. This approach faces challenges, as it can be very hard to acquire and reason with all the required knowledge. Estimating the setting is challenging too, as many relevant aspects of the setting (e.g. personality of the interactee) can be unobservable. We formally describe an alternative approach that can handle these challenges; responsiveness. This is the idea that a social agent can utilize the many feedback cues given in social interactions to continuously adapt its behavior to something more appropriate. We theoretically discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches, which allows for more explicitly considering their application in social agents.

Keywords

Control architectures Social robotics Feedback 

References

  1. 1.
    Aiello, J.R.: Human spatial behavior. In: Stokols, D., Altman, I. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology, pp. 389–504. Wiley, New York (1987). Chap. 12Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birnbaum, G.E., Mizrahi, M., Hoffman, G., Reis, H.T., Finkel, E.J., Sass, O.: Machines as a source of consolation: robot responsiveness increases human approach behavior and desire for companionship. In: 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 165–171. IEEE Press (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bretan, M., Hoffman, G., Weinberg, G.: Emotionally expressive dynamic physical behaviors in robots. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 78, 1–16 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cappella, J.N.: Mutual influence in expressive behavior: adult-adult and infantadult dyadic interaction. Psychol. Bull. 89(1), 101–132 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jung, M.F., Lee, J.J., DePalma, N., Adalgeirsson, S.O., Hinds, P.J., Breazeal, C.: Engaging robots: easing complex human-robot teamwork using backchanneling. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 1555–1566. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mead, R., Matarić, M.J.: Robots have needs too: people adapt their proxemic preferences to improve autonomous robot recognition of human social signals. In: Proceedings of New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 100–107 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patterson, M.L., Mullens, S., Romano, J.: Compensatory reactions to spatial intrusion. Sociometry 34, 114–121 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snijders, D.: Robot’s recovery from invading personal space. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, University of Twente (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takayama, L., Pantofaru, C.: Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5495–5502. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vroon, J.: Regulated reactive robotics: a formal framework. Unpublished master’s thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vroon, J., Kim, J., Koster, R.: Robot response behaviors to accommodate hearing problems. In: Proceedings of New Friends 2015, pp. 48–49. Windesheim Flevoland University (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Nehaniv, C.L.: An empirical framework for human-robot proxemics. In: Proceedings of New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 144–149 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations