Abstract
In this treatise, we aim to characterize cooperation in human-robot interaction. Therefore we provide a two-dimensional approach to cooperation that allows (1) determining where precisely a specific phenomenon that is called ‘cooperation’ lies on the axis of a ‘behavioral dimension’ and the axis of a ‘cognitive dimension’ and (2) showing what this implies for the robustness of the cooperation. This approach not only enables scientists from different disciplines and traditions to locate themselves in the debate when investigating what they call ‘cooperation,’ it also provides a framework to spell out the cognitive preconditions that being engaged in cooperation on either dimension involves. Identifying such preconditions serves as a fruitful means to address the leading question of the present treatise. The analysis shows that robots are capable of being engaged in human-robot cooperation on either dimension. However, the implications of having a shared intention with respect to joint commitments being involved are only partly implemented in the robotic systems so far.
All authors contributed equally and author names are listed in alphabetical order.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We refer to embodied artificial agents as robots.
- 2.
In general, a third dimension could be added that discusses the phenomenological experiences of agents whilst cooperating. For the present purposes, however, the two dimensions mentioned here are sufficient.
- 3.
One remark needs to be made with respect to this definition. We deliberatively do not adopt Bratman’s conception of ‘mutual common knowledge’ but rather prefer to use a cognitively less demanding definition to stress that mutual common knowledge of aiming for the same goal neither requires an infinite number of overlapping embedded mental states nor do these mental states need to be linguistic in content (Wilby 2010) and hence can be involved in basic cooperative phenomena such as joint attention (Fiebich and Gallagher 2013) that are already present in preverbal infants (Tollefsen 2005).
- 4.
Contrary to Bratman (1992), Gilbert proposes that (2009) “people share an intention when and only when they are jointly committed to intend as a body to do such-and-such in the future” (p. 167). We keep neutral to this. Hence we do not discuss Gilbert’s ‘disjunction criterion’ according to which the shared intention of a plural subject to pursue a goal continues to exist even when the agents who constitute the plural subject no longer have personal contributory intentions. Whether or not cooperating agents act as a ‘plural subject’ or not is not relevant for the present purposes.
- 5.
We refer to the definition of intelligent agents as introduced by Wooldridge and Jennings (1995). An intelligent agent in their definition has one of the following abilities to satisfy predefined objectives (p. 116): reactivity (i.e. perceiving the environment, responding to changes), proactiveness (i.e. taking initiative in goal-directed behavior) and social ability (i.e. interacting with other agents, e.g. humans).
- 6.
A goal within an assembling task (e.g. a building task with toy blocks) that is to be reached by the involved partners.
- 7.
The underlying simulated emotional system was presented by Becker et al. (2004).
References
Allen, James F., Donna K. Byron, Myroslava Dzikovska, George Ferguson, Lucian Galescu, and Amanda Stent. 2001. Towards conversational human-computer interaction. AI Magazine 22(4): 27–37.
Becker, Christian, Stefan Kopp, and Ipke Wachsmuth. 2004. Simulating the emotion dynamics of a multimodal conversational agent. In Proceedings of affective dialogue systems: Tutorial and research workshop (ads 2004), 154–165. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Böckler, Anne, Günther Knoblich, and Natalie Sebanz. 2011. Giving a helping hand: Effects of joint attention on mental rotation of body parts. Experimental Brain Research 211: 531–545.
Bratman, Michael E. 1992. Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review 101(2): 327–341.
Bratman, Michael E. 1993. Shared intention. Ethics 104(1): 97–113.
Bratman, Michael E. 2009. Shared agency. In Philosophy of the social sciences: Philosophical theory and scientific practice, ed. C. Mantzavinos, 41–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carpenter, Malinda. 2009. Just how joint is joint action in infancy? Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 380–392.
Chaminade, Thierry, Jennifer L. Marchant, James Kilner, and Christopher D. Frith. 2012. An fMRI study of joint action – Varying levels of cooperation correlates with activity in control networks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6: 1–11 (Art. 179).
Decety, Jean, Philip L. Jackson, Jessica A. Sommerville, Thierry Chaminade, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 2004. The neural bases of cooperation and competition: An fMRI investigation. NeuroImage 23: 744–751.
Dominey, Peter, and Felix Warneken. 2011. The basis of shared intentions in human and robot cognition. New Ideas in Psychology 29: 260–274.
Fiebich, Anika, and Shaun Gallagher. 2013. Joint attention in joint action. Philosophical Psychology 26(4): 571–587.
Fong, Terrence, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42(3–4): 143–166.
Foster, Mary E., and Colin Matheson. 2008. Following assembly plans in cooperative, task-based human-robot dialogue. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (Londial 2008). London.
Gilbert, Margaret. 2009. Shared intention and personal intentions. Philosophical Studies 144: 167–187.
Goodfellow, Ian J., Dumitru Erhan, Pierre L. Carrier, Aaron Courville, Mehdi Mirza, Ben Hamner, and Yoshua Bengio. 2013. Challenges in representation learning: A report on three machine learning contests. In Neural information processing, ed. M. Lee, A. Hirose, Z.-G. Hou, and R.M. Kil, 117–124. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Goodrich, Michael A., and Alan C. Schultz. 2007. Human-robot interaction: A survey. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 1(3): 203–275.
Gray, Jesse, Cynthia Breazeal, Matt Berlin, Andrew Brooks, and Jeff Lieberman. 2005. Action parsing and goal inference using self as simulator. Robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN 2005, 202–209.
Grigore, Elena C., Kerstin Eder, Anthony G. Pipe, Chris Melhuish, and Ute Leonards. 2012. Joint action understanding improves robot-to-human object handover. IROS 2013, 4622–4629.
Hoffman, Guy, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2004. Collaboration in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of AIAA first intelligent systems technical conference, Chicago (AIAA), 1–18.
Isenhower, Robert W., Michael J. Richardson, Claudia Carello, Reuben M. Baron, and Kerry L. Marsh. 2010. Affording cooperation: Embodied constraints, dynamics, and action-scaled invariance in joint lifting. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(3): 342–347.
Lenz, Claus, Suraj Nair, Markus Rickert, Alois Knoll, Wolfgang Rösel, Jürgen Gast, Alexander Bannat, and Frank Wallhoff. 2008. Joint action for humans and industrial robots for assembly tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 130–135. Munich.
McCabe, Kevin, Daniel Houser, Lee Ryan, Vernon Smith, and Theodore Trouard. 2001. A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. PNAS 98(20): 11832–11835.
Moll, Henrike, and Michael Tomasello. 2007. Cooperation and human cognition: The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362(1480): 1–10.
Newman-Norlund, Roger D., Jurjen Bosga, Ruud G.J. Meulenbroek, and Harold Beckering. 2008. Anatomical substrates of cooperative joint-action in a continuous motor task: Virtual lifting and balancing. NeuroImage 41: 169–177.
Pfeiffer-Lessmann, Nadine. 2011. Kognitive Modellierung von Kooperationsfähigkeiten für einen künstlichen Agenten. Bielefeld: Universitätsbibliothek.
Pfeiffer-Lessmann, Nadine, and Ipke Wachsmuth. 2009. Formalizing joint attention in cooperative interaction with a virtual human. In KI 2009: Advances in artificial intelligence, ed. B. Mertsching, M. Hund, and Z. Aziz, 540–547. Berlin: Springer.
Reed, Kyle, Michael Peshkin, Mitra J. Hartmann, Marcia Grabowecky, James Patton, and Peter M. Vishton. 2006a. Haptically linked dyads. Are two motor-control systems better than one? Psychological Science 17(5): 365–366.
Reed, Kyle B., Michael Peshkin, Mitra J. Hartmann, James Patton, Peter M. Vishton, and Marcia Grabowecky. 2006b. Haptic cooperation between people, and between people and machines. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/RSJ (international conference on intelligent robots and systems), Oct 2006, Beijing, 2109–2114.
Searle, John. 1983. Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John. 1990. Collective intentions and actions. In Intentions in communication, ed. P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, 401–415. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sebanz, Natalie, Harold Bekkering, and Günther Knoblich. 2006. Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2): 70–76.
Shockley, Kevin, Marie Santana, and Carol A. Fowler. 2003. Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 29(2): 326–332.
Sofge, Donald, Magdalena D. Bugajska, J. Gregory Trafton, Dennis Perzanowski, Scott Thomas, Marjorie Skubic, Samuel Blisard, Nicholas L. Cassimatis, Derek P. Brock, William Adams, and Alan C. Schultz. 2005. Collaborating with humanoid robots in space. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 01/2005 2: 181–201.
Tollefsen, Deborah. 2005. Let’s pretend! Joint action and young children. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35: 75–97.
Tomasello, Michael, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanja Behne, and Henrike Moll. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 675–735.
Tuomela, Raimo. 2010. The philosophy of sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vonk, Roos. 1998. Effects of cooperative and competitive outcome dependency on attention and impression preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34: 265–288.
Wilby, Michael. 2010. The simplicity of mutual knowledge. Philosophical Explorations 13(2): 83–100.
Wooldridge, Michael, and Nicholas R. Jennings. 1995. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2): 115–152.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Olle Blomberg, Cédric Paternotte, and Nadine Pfeiffer-Lessmann for helpful comments on a previous version of this treatise. Moreover, we thank Stephanie Nicole Schwenke for proofreading this piece in grammar and spelling. This research has been supported by the VW-project “The Social Mind”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fiebich, A., Nguyen, N., Schwarzkopf, S. (2015). Cooperation with Robots? A Two-Dimensional Approach. In: Misselhorn, C. (eds) Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 122. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15515-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15515-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15514-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15515-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)