Advertisement

Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction

  • Julia Fink
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7621)

Abstract

In this literature review we explain anthropomorphism and its role in the design of socially interactive robots and human-robot interaction. We illustrate the social phenomenon of anthropomorphism which describes people’s tendency to attribute lifelike qualities to objects and other non lifelike artifacts. We present theoretical backgrounds from social sciences, and integrate related work from robotics research, including results from experiments with social robots. We present different approaches for anthropomorphic and humanlike form in a robot’s design related to its physical shape, its behavior, and its interaction with humans. This review provides a comprehensive understanding of anthropomorphism in robotics, collects and reports relevant references, and gives an outlook on anthropomorphic human-robot interaction.

Keywords

anthropomorphism design human-robot interaction literature review social robots social factors in robotics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K.: A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 143–166 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duffy, B.R.: Anthropomorphism and Robotics. Presented at the Symposium on Animating Expressive Characters of Social Interactions, Imperial College, London (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oberman, L.M., McCleery, J.P., Ramachandran, V.S., Pineda, J.A.: EEG evidence for mirror neuron activity during the observation of human and robot actions: Toward an analysis of the human qualities of interactive robots. Neurocomputing 70, 2194–2203 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Admoni, H., Scassellati, B.: A Multi-Category Theory of Intention. In: Proceedings of COGSCI 2012, Sapporo, Japan, pp. 1266–1271 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T.: On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropo-morphism. Psychological Review 114, 864–886 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DiSalvo, C., Gemperle, F.: From seduction to fulfillment: the use of anthropomorphic form in design. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 67–72. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiSalvo, C.F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S.: All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 321–326. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DiSalvo, C.: Imitating the Human Form: Four Kinds of Anthropomorphic Form, http://www.anthropomorphism.org/pdf/Imitating.pdf
  10. 10.
    Mori, M.: The Uncanny Valley (1970)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartneck, C., Forlizzi, J.: Shaping human-robot interaction: understanding the social aspects of intelligent robotic products. In: CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1731–1732. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 46, 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duffy, B.R.: Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 177–190 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goetz, J., Kiesler, S.: Cooperation with a robotic assistant. In: CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 578–579. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eyssel, F., Hegel, F., Horstmann, G., Wagner, C.: Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: A case study. In: 2010 IEEE RO-MAN, pp. 646–651. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riek, L.D., Rabinowitch, T.-C., Chakrabarti, B., Robinson, P.: How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 245–246. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krach, S., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., Sagerer, G., Binkofski, F., Kircher, T.: Can Machines Think? Interaction and Perspective Taking with Robots Investigated via fMRI. PLoS ONE 3, e2597 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., Powers, A.: Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2003, pp. 55–60. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bartneck, C., Forlizzi, J.: A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2004, pp. 591–594. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Axelrod, L., Hone, K.: E-motional advantage: performance and satisfaction gains with affective computing. In: CHI 2005 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1192–1195. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Austermann, A., Yamada, S., Funakoshi, K., Nakano, M.: How do users interact with a pet-robot and a humanoid. In: Proceedings of the 28th of the International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3727–3732. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan, F.: Who is afraid of the Humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caporael, L.R.: Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior 2, 215–234 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 & Society 21, 217–230 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee, S., Lau, I.Y., Kiesler, S., Chiu, C.-Y.: Human Mental Models of Humanoid Robots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2005, pp. 2767–2772. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmitz, M.: Concepts for life-like interactive objects. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 157–164. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kiesler, S., Goetz, J.: Mental models of robotic assistants. In: CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 576–577. ACM, Minneapolis (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Breazeal, C.: Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 167–175 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dautenhahn, K., Billard, A.: Bringing up robots or—the psychology of socially intelligent robots: from theory to implementation. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 366–367. ACM, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kahn, P.H., Ishiguro, H., Friedman, B., Kanda, T.: What is a Human? - Toward Psychological Benchmarks in the Field of Human-Robot Interaction. In: The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2006, pp. 364–371 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement Instruments for the Anthropo-morphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 71–81 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P.H., Hagman, J.: Hardware companions?: what online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 273–280. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fink, J., Mubin, O., Kaplan, F., Dillenbourg, P.: Anthropomorphic Language in Online Forums about Roomba, AIBO, and the iPad. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO 2012), pp. 54–59 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Admoni, H., Bank, C., Tan, J., Toneva, M., Scassellati, B.: Robot gaze does not reflexively cue human attention. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 1983–1988 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oztop, E., Franklin, D.W., Chaminade, T., Cheng, G.: Human-humanoid interaction: Is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 2, 537–559 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Forlizzi, J.: How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of clean-ing in the home. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 129–136. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Feil-Seifer, D., Mataric, M.J.: Human-robot interaction. In: Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science, Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kanda, T., Miyashita, T., Osada, T., Haikawa, Y., Ishiguro, H.: Analysis of Humanoid Appearances in Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24, 725–735 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kiesler, S., Powers, A., Fussell, S.R., Torrey, C.: Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot–like Agent. Social Cognition 26, 169–181 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bainbridge, W., Hart, J., Kim, E., Scassellati, B.: The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 41–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K.: Cultural Differences in Attitudes Towards Robots. In: Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Human-Robot Interaction, Hatfield, pp. 1–4 (2005)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Short, E., Hart, J., Vu, M., Scassellati, B.: No fair‼ An interaction with a cheating robot. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). pp. 219 –226 (2010).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gonsior, B., Sosnowski, S., Mayer, C., Blume, J., Radig, B., Wollherr, D., Kuhnlenz, K.: Improving aspects of empathy and subjective performance for HRI through mirroring facial expressions. In: 2011 IEEE RO-MAN, pp. 350–356. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fussell, S.R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L.D., Yew, V.: How people anthropomorphize robots. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 145–152. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Powers, A., Kiesler, S.: The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 218–225. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dautenhahn, K., Saunders, J.: New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company (2011)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Park, J., Kim, G.J.: Robots with projectors: an alternative to anthropomorphic HRI. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 221–222. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shibata, T., Kawaguchi, Y., Wada, K.: Investigation on People Living with Seal Robot at Home. International Journal of Social Robotics 4, 53–63 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Fink
    • 1
  1. 1.CRAFTEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations