1 / 19

The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction

The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction Social Robotics Reading Group 3 November 2003 Agenda “All Robots Are Not Created Equal: The Design and Perception of Humanoid Robot Heads” Carl DiSalvo, Francine Gemperle, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler

paul
Download Presentation

The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction Social Robotics Reading Group 3 November 2003

  2. Agenda • “All Robots Are Not Created Equal: The Design and Perception of Humanoid Robot Heads” • Carl DiSalvo, Francine Gemperle, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler • “Matching Robot Appearance and Behavior to Tasks to Improve Human-Robot Cooperation” • Jennifer Goetz, Sara Kiesler, Aaron Powers • Discussion

  3. Paper 1, “All Robots Are Not Created Equal”: overview • Assumption: A human-like head is desirable for human-robot interaction • Valid? See paper #2! • Question: What makes a “humanoid” robotic head more (or less) human-like? • Study: Survey

  4. Method • Images of 48 robots from 3 categories • Research (e.g. Pearl) • Consumer Products (e.g. ASIMO) • Fiction (e.g. Transformer) • Images rated on a scale of 1 (“Not very human-like”) to 5 (“Very human-like”) • 20 participants per survey

  5. Analysis: Presence of features • Presence (or lack) of features is important • Nose, Eyelids, Mouth • Increase perception of humanness the most • More features == more human-like

  6. Analysis: Dimensions

  7. Analysis: Comparison to human head • Prototypical human head: average of • Mona Lisa • George Bush • Michelangelo’s David • Britney Spears • Most “human-like” robots: very similar dimensions • Less “human-like”: diverged

  8. Conclusion: Design Suggestions

  9. How human-like is too human-like? • The Uncanny Valley • “As a robot increases in humanness there is a point where the robot is not 100% similar to humans but the balance between humanness and machine-like is uncomfortable.”

  10. Paper 2, “Matching Robot Appearance and Behavior”: overview • Question: How should service robots look and behave, so that people comply? • Example: getting elderly to exercise • Three studies: • 1. Preferences for humanlike robots in jobs • 2. Compliance with a playful or serious robot • 3. Study 2 plus entertaining vs. serious task (Findings just presented at RO-MAN)

  11. Study 1: Preferences for robots in jobs • Three stages of humanlikeness • Human • “Midstage” • Machine • Male vs. female; youth vs. adult (heads only) • Survey: which robot would be suitable for which jobs? • Robots presented in pairs (“which would be more suitable for <x>?”)

  12. Study 1: results • Humanlike preferred over machinelike: • Actress, drawing instructor (Artistic) • Retail clerk, sales representative (Enterprise) • Office clerk, hospital message carrier (Conventional) • Aerobics instructor, museum tour guide (Social)

  13. Study 1: results (continued) • Machinelike preferred over humanlike: • Lab assistant, customs inspector (Investigative) • Soldier, security guard (Realistic)

  14. Study 2: Compliance with a serious or playful robot,Background • Positivity hypothesis • More attractive, extroverted, cheerful robot will have greater compliance • Matching hypothesis • Appearance and behavior should match the seriousness of the situation

  15. Study 2: Method • Pearl leads participant in exercise • Playful: “Close your eyes… Relax… Breathe in… Don’t forget to breathe out. I don’t want you to pass out!” • Serious: “Close your eyes… Relax… Breathe in… Breathe out... Are you feeling relaxed?” • Asked to exercise on own (“as long as you can”)

  16. Study 2: Results • Compliance: how long the participant exercised • Playful robot: average of 25 seconds • Serious robot: average of 53 seconds • Consistent with matching hypothesis • Manipulation check: • Serious robot: more conscientious, smarter • Playful robot: more playful and witty (and obnoxious)

  17. Study 3: Fun vs. Serious Task, overview • 2x2 design • Playful vs. Serious robot • Fun vs. Serious task • Tasks: • Serious: Exercise task from study 2 • Slight change: “as many exercises as you can” • Fun: Jellybean task • Create “recipes” using gourmet jellybeans • “As many combinations as you can”

  18. Study 3: Results

  19. Conclusions • Match appearance and behavior to task • More humanlike appearance seems better for human-robot social interaction • Behavior needs to match task • What thresholds are appropriate? • How human in appearance? • How playful/serious?

More Related