Advertisement

Abstract

We evaluate the influence robots can have on the perceived funniness of jokes. We let people grade how funny simple word play jokes are, and vary the presentation method. The jokes are presented as text only or said by a small robot. The same joke is rated significantly higher when presented by the robot. We also let one robot tell a joke and have one more robot either laugh, boo, or do nothing. Laughing and booing is significantly funnier than no reaction, though there was no significant difference between laughing and booing.

Keywords

Evaluation Score Humanoid Robot Text Form Total Average Score Small Robot 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Binsted, K., Bergen, B., Coulson, S., Nijholt, A., Stock, O., Strapparava, C., Ritchie, G., Manurung, R., Pain, H., Waller, A., O’Mara, D.: Computational humor. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(2), 59–69 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Binsted, K.: Machine Humour: An Implemented Model of Puns. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binsted, K., Takizawa, O.: BOKE: A Japanese punning riddle generator. Journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence 13(6), 920–927 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yokogawa, T.: Generation of Japanese puns based on similarity of articulation. In: Proceedings of IFSA/NAFIPS 2001, Vancouver, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stark, J., Binsted, K., Bergen, B.: Disjunctor selection for one-line jokes. In: Proceedings of INTETAIN, Madonna di Campiglio, Italy, pp. 174–182 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sjöbergh, J., Araki, K.: A complete and modestly funny system for generating and performing Japanese stand-up comedy. In: Coling 2008: Companion volume: Posters and Demonstrations, Manchester, UK, pp. 109–112 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor, J., Mazlack, L.: Toward computational recognition of humorous intent. In: Proceedings of Cognitive Science Conference 2005 (CogSci 2005), Stresa, Italy, pp. 2166–2171 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mihalcea, R., Strapparava, C.: Making computers laugh: Investigations in automatic humor recognition. In: Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP, Vancouver, Canada (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sjöbergh, J., Araki, K.: Recognizing humor without recognizing meaning. In: Masulli, F., Mitra, S., Pasi, G. (eds.) WILF 2007. LNCS, vol. 4578, pp. 469–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, R., Cohen, W.: Language-independent set expansion of named entities using the web. In: Perner, P. (ed.) ICDM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4597, pp. 342–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayashi, K., Kanda, T., Miyashita, T., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Robot manzai - robots’ conversation as a passive social medium. In: IEEE International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids 2005), Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 456–462 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Sjöbergh
    • 1
  • Kenji Araki
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Information Science and TechnologyHokkaido UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations