Subtle Reaction and Response Time Effects in Human-Robot Touch Interaction
This paper reports subtle reactions and response time effects in human-robot touch interaction with an android named ERICA whose has a human-like appearance. People usually prefer a quick response from interaction targets, regardless whether the targets are computer systems or robots. One famous guideline to design response timing is called the “two second rule,” which argues that a system should not take more than two seconds to respond to input. To investigate whether such a response time design is applicable to human-robot touch interactions, we investigated several response times when a robot is touched by people. We also implemented subtle reactions for a robot to being touched and investigated whether they increased the robot’s human-likeness. Our experimental results with 12 participants showed that the robot’s perceived human-likeness increased because it showed a subtle reaction to being touched. The results also showed that people would prefer quick responses to their touch interactions. In this study, zero seconds showed significantly higher preference than two seconds, but one second did not show significant differences with two seconds.
KeywordsHuman-robot interaction Touch Subtle reaction Reaction time
This research work was supported by JST ERATO Ishiguro Symbiotic Human Robot Interaction Project (Grant Number: JPMJER1401), and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP15H05322 and JP16K12505.
- 3.Miller, R.B.: Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In: Proceedings of the December 9–11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I, pp. 267–277 (1968)Google Scholar
- 5.Wada, K., Asano, Y.: Investigation of appropriate response time for an animal type robot. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 331–334 (2016)Google Scholar
- 6.Funakoshi, K., Kobayashi, K., Nakano, M., Yamada, S., Kitamura, Y., Tsujino, H.: Smoothing human-robot speech interactions by using a blinking-light as subtle expression. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 293–296 (2008)Google Scholar
- 8.Shiomi, M., Nakagawa, K., Hagita, N.: Design of a gaze behavior at a small mistake moment for a robot. Interact. Stud. 14(3), 317–328 (2013)Google Scholar
- 9.Gharbi, M., Paubel, P.V., Clodic, A., Carreras, O., Alami, R., Cellier, J.M.: Toward a better understanding of the communication cues involved in a human-robot object transfer. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 319–324 (2015)Google Scholar
- 10.Glas, D.F., Minato, T., Ishi, C.T., Kawahara, T., Ishiguro, H.: Erica: the erato intelligent conversational android. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 22–29 (2016)Google Scholar
- 14.Shiomi, M., Nakata, A., Kanbara, M., Hagita, N.: A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (2017, to appear)Google Scholar
- 15.Hirano, T., Shiomi, M., Iio, T., Kimoto, M., Nagashio, T., Tanev, I., Shimohara, K., Hagita, N.: Communication cues in a human-robot touch interaction. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, Biopolis, Singapore, pp. 201–206 (2016)Google Scholar