Pilot Study of Person Robot Interaction in a Public Transit Space

  • Mikael Svenstrup
  • Thomas Bak
  • Ouri Maler
  • Hans Jørgen Andersen
  • Ole B. Jensen
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 33)


This paper describes a study of the effect of a human interactive robot placed in an urban transit space. The underlying hypothesis is that it is possible to create interesting new living spaces and induce value in terms of experiences, information or economics, by putting socially interactive mobile agents into public urban transit area. To investigate the hypothesis, an experiment was carried out at a bus terminal serving both as a transit space and a shopping mall, where an autonomous robot were to detect and follow random people. The people that were followed were asked to fill out a questionnaire for quantitative analysis of the experiment. In addition video documentation of the experiment was used in the evaluation. The results showed that people were generally positive towards having mobile robots in this type of environment where shopping is combined with transit. However, it also showed harder than expected to start interaction with commuters due to their determination and speed towards their goal. Further it was demonstrated that it was possible to track and follow people, who were not beforehand informed on the experiment. The evaluation indicated, that the distance to initiate interaction was shorter than initially expected, but complies with the distance for normal human to human interaction.


Human-Robot Interaction Transit Space Pilot Study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dautenhahn, K.: Methodology & themes of human-robot interaction: A growing research field. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 4(1), 103–108 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thrun, S., Bennewitz, M., Burgard, W., Cremers, A., Dellaert, F., Fox, D., Hahnel, D., Rosenberg, C., Roy, N., Schulte, J., Schulz, D.: Minerva: a second-generation museum tour-guide robot. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 10-15, vol. 3, pp. 1999–2005 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanda, T.: Field trial approach for communication robots. In: Proc. 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human interactive Communication RO-MAN 2007, pp. 665–666 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L.: Doing the right thing wrong personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches. In: The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2006), Hatfield, UK (September 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sisbot, E., Alami, R., Simeon, T., Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., Woods, S.: Navigation in the presence of humans. In: 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, December 5, pp. 181–188 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koay, K.L., Walters, M., Dautenhahn, K.: Methodological issues using a comfort level device in human-robot interactions. In: IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. ROMAN 2005, August 13-15, pp. 359–364 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall, E.T.: A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American anthropologist 65(5), 1003–1026 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K.L., Kaouri, C., Woods, S.N., Lee, D., Werry, I.: The influence of subjects personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In: Proc. IEEE Ro-man, Hashville, August 2005, pp. 347–352 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michalowski, M., Sabanovic, S., Simmons, R.: A spatial model of engagement for a social robot. In: The 9th International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, AMC 2006, Istanbul (March 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mozos, O.M., Jensfelt, P., Zender, H., Kruijff, G.J.M., Burgard, W.: An integrated system for conceptual spatial representations of indoor environments for mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the IROS 2007 Workshop: From Sensors to Human Spatial Concepts (FS2HSC), San Diego, CA, USA, November 2007, pp. 25–32 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prassler, E., Bank, D., Kluge, B.: Motion coordination between a human and a mobile robot. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and System, 2002, September 30- October 5, vol. 2, pp. 1228–1233 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayashi, K., Sakamoto, D., Kanda, T., Shiomi, M., Koizumi, S., Ishiguro, H., Ogasawara, T., Hagita, N.: Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium: A field experiment at a train station. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Arlington, VA, United States, pp. 137–144 (2007); Train station; Communication robot; Human robot interactionGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Althaus, P., Ishiguro, H., Kanda, T., Miyashita, T., Christensen, H.: Navigation for human-robot interaction tasks. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. ICRA 2004, April 26-May 1, vol. 2, pp. 1894–1900 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Urry, J.: Mobilities. Blackwell, Malden (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen, O.B.: Facework, flow and the city – simmel, goffman and mobility in the contemporary city. In: Mobilities. vol. 2, pp. 143–165 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Infrastrukturkommissionen: Infrastrukturkommissionens betaenkning (January 2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cresswell, T.: On The Move. Mobility in the Modern Western World. Routledge (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nair, R., Tambe, M., Marsella, S.: The role of emotions in multiagent teamwork. In: Fellous, J.M., Arbib, M. (eds.) Who needs emotions: the brain meets the robot. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Breazeal, C.: Designing Sociable Robots. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xavier, J., Pacheco, M., Castro, D., Ruano, A., Nunes, U.: Fast line, arc/circle and leg detection from laser scan data in a player driver. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2005. ICRA 2005, April 18-22, pp. 3930–3935 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Collett, T., MacDonald, B.A., Gerkey, B.P.: Player 2.0: Toward a practical robot programming framework. In: Sammut, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation (ACRA 2005), Sydney, Australia (December 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nabe, S., Kanda, T., Hiraki, K., Ishiguro, H., Kogure, K., Hagita, N.: Analysis of human behavior to a communication robot in an open field. In: HRI 2006: Proceeding of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, pp. 234–241. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Likhachev, M., Arkin, R.: Spatio-temporal case-based reasoning for behavioral selection. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA, vol. 2, pp. 1627–1634 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kracht, S., Nielsen, C.: Robots in everyday human environments. Master science thesis, Department of Electronic Systems, Automation & Control, Aalborg University (June 2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pacchierotti, E., Pacchierotti, E., Christensen, H., Jensfelt, P.: Evaluation of passing distance for social robots. In: Christensen, H. (ed.) Proc. 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication ROMAN 2006, pp. 315–320 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Svenstrup
    • 1
  • Thomas Bak
    • 1
  • Ouri Maler
    • 1
  • Hans Jørgen Andersen
    • 2
  • Ole B. Jensen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Electronic Systems, Automation & ControlAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department for Media TechnologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  3. 3.Department for Architecture and DesignAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations