Abstract
The aim of human-robot interaction (HRI) is that people intuitively understand robots. When integrating humanoid robots into our daily lives, a myriad of factors can influence how a person perceives and interacts with a robot. Particularly, humanoid robots’ embodiment, situatedness, and morphology can individually and collectively affect the interactions between a person and robot, including the utilitarian and aesthetic factors of the robot’s physical design. It is therefore necessary to investigate how humanoid design choices impact a robots functions in society. In this chapter, we discuss what it means for a robot to be embodied, situated, and to have morphology. Further, we consider relevant HRI research alongside research that underscores the need for roboticists to integrate embodied cognition, situatedness, and morphology in robotic design. For example, research findings demonstrate a materially embodied design that accounts for situatedness as a necessary element for eliciting positive perception of a robot agent. Moreover, we expand on the need for the robotics field to extend its empirical research with varying degrees of implementation that disassociate and control for design factors to distinguish which particular elements provoke positive, neutral, or negative effects in HRI. Without a more robust literature base to discern the most effective forms of robotics within commonplace applications, it will be difficult to know if the applied robotic forms achieve the most compelling HRI.
References
S.O. Adalgeirsson, C. Breazeal, Mebot: a robotic platform for socially embodied presence, in Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (IEEE Press, 2010), pp. 15–22
C. Bartneck, J. Reichenbach, A. van Breemen, In your face, robot! The influence of a character’s embodiment on how users perceive its emotional expressions, in Proceedings of the Design and Emotion 2004 Conference, Ankara, 2004
W. Bechtel, Explanation: mechanism, modularity, and situated cognition, in The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, ed. By M. Aydede, P. Robbins (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009), pp. 155–170
J. Blascovich, J. Bailenson, Infinite reality: avatars, eternal life, new worlds, and the dawn of the virtual revolution. Presence 20(5), 502–502 (2011) ISSN:1054-7460. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_r_00068
M. Blow, K. Dautenhahn, A. Appleby, C.L. Nehaniv, D.C. Lee, Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human-robot interaction design, in ROMAN 2006 – The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Sept 2006, pp. 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314372
J. Bongard, The utility of evolving simulated robot morphology increases with task complexity for object manipulation. Artif. Life 16(3), 201–223 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1162/artl.2010.bongard.024
C. Breazeal, A. Brooks, J. Gray, G. Hoffman, C. Kidd, H. Lee, J. Lieberman, A. Lockerd, D. Chilongo, Tutelage and collaboration for humanoid robots. Int. J. Humanoid Rob. 1(02), 315–348 (2004)
R.A. Brooks, Elephants don’t play chess. Robot. Auton. Syst. 6(1–2), 3–15 (1990). ISSN:0921-8890. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(05)80025-9
A. Butchibabu, C. Sparano-Huiban, L. Sonenberg, J. Shah, Implicit coordination strategies for effective team communication. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 58(4), 595–610 (2016)
A. Cangelosi, T. Ogata, Speech and language in humanoid robots, in Humanoid Robotics: A Reference (Springer, London, 2018)
Z. Carlson, L. Lemmon, M. Higgins, D. Frank, D. Feil-Seifer, This robot stinks! differences between perceived mistreatment of robot and computer partners. J. Hum. Robot Interact. (arXiv submission)
A. Clark, Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again (MIT Press, 1998). ISBN:978-0-262-53156-6
A. De Beir, B. Vanderboght, Evolutionary method for robot morphology: case study of social robot probo, in The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, HRI’2016, Piscataway (IEEE Press, 2016), pp. 609–610. ISBN:978-1-4673-8370-7. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2906831.2907005
C.F. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, S. Kiesler, 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, DIS’02, New York (ACM, 2002), pp. 321–326. ISBN:1-58113-515-7. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/778712.778756
B. Duffy, G. Joue, Intelligent robots: the question of embodiment, in Brain-Machine Workshop, Ankara, 2000
B.R. Duffy, Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3–4), 177–190 (2003). ISSN:0921-8890. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889002003743. Socially Interactive Robots
J. Fasola, M. Mataric, A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. J. Hum. Robot Interact. 2(2), 3–32 (2013)
D. Feil-Seifer, The tail; shouldn’t way the dog: why modeling dog-human interaction is not ideal for socially assistive robotics. Interact. Stud. 15(2), 195–200 (2014)
D. Feil-Seifer, M. Matarić, Defining socially assistive robotics, in International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Chicago, June 2005, pp. 465–468. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2005.1501143
D. Feil-Seifer, M. Matarić, Ethical principles for socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 18(1), 24–31 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2010.940150
D. Feil-Seifer, M. Matarić, Distance-based computational models for facilitating robot interaction with children. J. Hum. Robot Interact. 1(1), 55–77 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Feil-Seifer
J. Fink, Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Social Robotics, ICSR’12, Berlin/Heidelberg (Springer, 2012), pp. 199–208. ISBN:978-3-642-34102-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_20
M.E. Foster, M. Giuliani, A. Isard, Task-based evaluation of context-sensitive referring expressions in human – robot dialogue. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 29(8), 1018–1034 (2014)
J. Fox, S.J. Ahn, J.H. Janssen, L. Yeykelis, K.Y. Segovia, J.N. Bailenson, Avatars versus agents: a meta-analysis quantifying the effect of agency on social influence. Hum. Comput. Interact. 30(5), 401–432 (2015)
K. Gold, M. Doniec, B. Scassellati, Learning grounded semantics with word trees: prepositions and pronouns, in IEEE 6th International Conference on Development and Learning. ICDL 2007 (IEEE, 2007), pp. 25–30
A. Hornung, S. Böttcher, J. Schlagenhauf, C. Dornhege, A. Hertle, M. Bennewitz, Mobile manipulation in cluttered environments with humanoids: integrated perception, task planning, and action execution, in 2014 14th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) (IEEE, 2014), pp. 773–778
C. Jung, L. Strother, D. Feil-Seifer, J. Hustler, Atypical asymmetry for processing human and robot faces in autism revealed by fNIRS. PLoS One 11(7), 1–13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158804
C.D.F.B. Katrin Solveig Lohan, H. Lehmann, H. Kose, Enriching the human robot interaction loop with natural, semantic and symbolic gestures, in Humanoid Robotics: A Reference (Springer, London, 2018)
A. Kerepesi, E. Kubinyi, G. Jonsson, M. Magnusson, Á. Miklósi, Behavioural comparison of human-animal (dog) and human-robot (aibo) interactions. Behav. Process. 73(1), 92–99 (2006). ISSN:0376-6357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.04.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635706001033
S. Kiesler, A. Powers, S. Fussel, C. Torrey, Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc. Cogn. 26, 169–181 (2008). ISSN:0278-016X. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169
H. Kose-Bagci, E. Ferrari, K. Dautenhahn, D.S. Syrdal, C.L. Nehaniv, Effects of embodiment and gestures on social interaction in drumming games with a humanoid robot. Adv. Robot. 23(14), 1951–1996 (2009)
M.V. Liarokapis, P.K. Artemiadis, K.J. Kyriakopoulos, Quantifying anthropomorphism of robot hands, pp. 2041–2046 (2013). ISBN:9781467356411. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630850
J. Lindblom, Embodied Social Cognition. Cognitive Systems Monographs (Springer, Cham, 2015). ISBN:9783319203157. https://books.google.com/books?id=RLEYCgAAQBAJ
J. Lindblom, T. Ziemke, Social situatedness of natural and artificial intelligence: vygotsky and beyond. Adapt. Behav. 11(2), 79–96 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/10597123030112002
H. Lucas, J. Poston, N. Yocum, Z. Carlson, D. Feil-Seifer, Too big to be mistreated? Examining the role of robot size on perceptions of mistreatment, in IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, Aug 2016, pp. 1071–1076. ISBN:978-1-5090-3928-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745241
H. Maturana, F.J. Varela, Autopoiesis and Cognition – The Realization of the Living, 1980. ISBN:978-90-277-1015-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4
C.I. Mavrogiannis, M.V. Liarokapis, K.J. Kyriakopoulos, Quantifying anthropomorphism of robot arms, in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Sept 2015, pp. 4084–4089. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2015.7353954
M. Mori, Bukimi no tani (The Uncanny Valley). Energy 7, 33–35 (1970)
J. Morkes, H.K. Kernal, C. Nass, Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: a direct test of SRCT theory. Hum. Comput. Interact. 14(4), 395–435 (1999). ISSN:0737-0024. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1404_2
T. Nomura, Empathy as signaling feedback between (humanoid) robots and humans, in Humanoid Robotics: A Reference (Springer, London, 2018)
S. Penny, Art and robotics: sixty years of situated machines. AI Soc. 28(2), 147–156 (2013)
R. Perrone, F. Nessi, E. De Momi, F. Boriero, M. Capiluppi, P. Fiorini, G. Ferrigno, Ontology-based modular architecture for surgical autonomous robots, in The Hamlyn Symposium on Medical Robotics, 2014, p. 85
R. Pfeifer, C. Scheier, Understanding Intelligence (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1999)
K. Pitsch, Limits and opportunities for mathematizing communicational conduct for social robotics in the real world? Toward enabling a robot to make use of the human’s competences. AI Soc. 31(4), 587–593 (2016). ISSN:1435-5655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0629-0
A. Prakash, W.A. Rogers, Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(2), 309–331 (2015). ISSN:1875-4805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-4
I. Rae, L. Takayama, B. Mutlu, In-body experiences: embodiment, control, and trust in robot-mediated communication, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM, 2013), pp. 1921–1930
G. Rickheit, I. Wachsmuth, Collaborative Research Centre “Situated Artificial Communicators” at the University of Bielefeld (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1996), pp. 165–170. ISBN 978-94-009-1716-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1716-3_2
A. Riegler, When is a cognitive system embodied? Cogn. Syst. Res. special issue on “Situ- ated and Embodied Cognition” 3, 339–348 (2002). http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/24
A.M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, N.C. Krämer, How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Comput. Hum. Behav. 36, 422–439 (2014)
A.D. Santis, B. Siciliano, A.D. Luca, A. Bicchi, An atlas of physical human-robot interaction. Mech. Mach. Theory 43(3), 253–270 (2008). ISSN:0094-114X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2007.03.003; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094114X07000547
A.P. Saygin, T. Chaminade, H. Ishiguro, J. Driver, C. Frith, The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7(4), 413 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr025
D.P.A.C. Schultz, W. Adams, E. Marsh, M. Bugajska, Building a multimodal human-robot interface. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16(1), 16–21 (2001)
J. Seyama, R.S. Nagayama, The uncanny valley: effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence 16(4), 337–351 (2007). ISSN:1054-7460. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.16.4.337
N. Sharkey, T. Ziemke, Life, Mind, and Robots (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2000). ISBN: 978-3-540-67305-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/10719871_22
M.J. Spivey, K. McRae, M.H. Fischer, A. Cangelosi, L.W. Barsalou, G. Pezzulo, The mechanics of embodiment: a dialog on embodiment and computational modeling. Front. Psychol. 2, 5 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00005. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110580/
M. Stapleton, Steps to a “properly embodied” cognitive science. Cogn. Syst. Res. 22–23, 1–11 (2013). ISSN: 1389-0417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2012.05.001
L.A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-machine Communication (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987). ISBN:0-521-33137-4
J. von Uexküll, The Theory of Meaning, 2009, pp. 25–79. ISBN:0037-1998. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25
J. Wainer, D. Feil-Seifer, D.A. Shell, M. Matarić, The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction, in IEEE Proceedings of the International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Hatfield, Sept 2006, pp. 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314404
J. Wainer, D. Feil-Seifer, D.A. Shell, M. Matarić, Embodiment and human-robot interaction: a task-based perspective, in IEEE Proceedings of the International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Jeju Island, Aug 2007, pp. 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415207
M. Wilson, Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9(4), 625–636 (2002). ISSN:1531-5320. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
K. Zivin, A. Sen, M.A. Plegue, M.L. Maciejewski, M.L. Segar, M. AuYoung, E.M. Miller, C.A. Janney, D.M. Zulman, C.R. Richardson, Comparative effectiveness of wellness programs: impact of incentives on healthcare costs for obese enrollees. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52(3), 347–352 (2016)
J. Złotowski, E. Strasser, C. Bartneck, Dimensions of anthropomorphism: from humanness to humanlikeness, in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, HRI’14, New York (ACM, 2014), pp. 66–73. ISBN:978-1-4503-2658-2. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2559636.2559679
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of this work by Office of Naval Research (ONR) award #N00014-16-1-2312 and the UNR Provost’s Office (New Scholarly Endevour).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Miller, B., Feil-Seifer, D. (2017). Embodiment, Situatedness, and Morphology for Humanoid Robots Interacting with People. In: Goswami, A., Vadakkepat, P. (eds) Humanoid Robotics: A Reference. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7194-9_130-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7194-9_130-1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7194-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7194-9
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering