Jenay M. Beer
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Autonomy is a critical construct related to human-robot interaction (HRI) and varies widely across robot platforms. Levels of robot autonomy (LORA), ranging from teleoperation to fully autonomous systems, influence the way in which humans and robots interact with one another. Thus, there is a need to understand HRI by identifying variables that influence---and are influenced by---robot autonomy. Our overarching goal is to develop a framework for LORA in HRI. To reach this goal, our framework draws links between HRI and human-automation interaction, a field with a long history of studying and understanding human-related variables. The construct of autonomy is reviewed and redefined within the context of HRI. Additionally, this framework proposes a process for determining a robot's autonomy level by categorizing autonomy along a 10-point taxonomy. The framework is intended to be treated as a guideline for determining autonomy, categorizing the LORA along a qualitative taxonomy and considering HRI variables (e.g., acceptance, situation awareness, reliability) that may be influenced by the LORA.
- Alami, R., Chatila, R., Fleury, S., Ghallab, M., & Ingrand, F. (1998). An architecture for autonomy. International Journal of Robotics Research, 17(4), 315--337.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Arkin, R. C. (1998). Behavior Based Robotics. Boston: MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baker, M., & Yanco, H. A. (2004). Autonomy mode suggestions for improving human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 3, 2948--2953.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Beer, J. M., Fisk. A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2012). Toward a psychological framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. Technical Report HFA-TR-1204, Georgia Institute of Technology. https://smartech.gatech.edu.Google Scholar
- Bekey, G. A. (2005). Autonomous robots: From biological inspiration to implementation and control. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Breazeal, C. (2003). Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 59, 119--115. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Breazeal, C. (2005). Socially intelligent robots. Interactions, 12(2), 19--22. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Broadbent, E., Stafford, R. & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319--330.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brooks, R. A. (2002). It's 2001 already. Flesh and machines: How robots will change us (63--98). New York, NY: Vintage Books, Random House Inc.Google Scholar
- Bruemmer, D. J., Few, D. A., Boring, R. L., Marble, J. L., Walton, M. C., & Nielsen, C. W. (2005). Shared understanding for collaborative control. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 35(4), 494--504. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlson, J., Murphy, R. R., & Nelson, A. (2004). Follow-up analysis of mobile robot failures. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 5, 4987--4994. New Orleans, Louisiana.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Casper, J., & Murphy, R. (2003). Human-robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 33(3), 367--385. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cohen, M. S., Parasuraman, R., & Freeman, J. T. (1998). Trust in decision aids: A model and its training implications. In Proceedings of the International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, 1--37. Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
- Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319--340. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Desai, M., Kaniarasu, P., Medvedev, M., Steinfeld, A., & Yanco (2013). Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 251--258. Tokyo, Japan. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Desai, M., Medvedev, M., Vazquez, M., McSheehy, S., Gadea-Omelchenko, S., Bruggeman, C., Steinfeld, A., & Yanco, H. (2012). Effects of changing reliability on trust of robot systems. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 73--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Desai, M., Stubbs, K., Steinfeld, A., & Yanco, H. (2009). Creating trustworthy robots: Lessons and inspirations from automated systems. In Proceedings of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB) Convention, New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction.Google Scholar
- Desai, M., & Yanco, H. A. (2005). Blending human and robot inputs for sliding scale autonomy. The IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 537--542. Nashville, Tennessee.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1996). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations---An empirical- analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422--1433. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A. Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Computer Studies, 58, 697--718. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Endsley, M. R. (2006). Situation awareness. In G. Savendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed.), pp. 528--542. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Endsley, M. R., Bolte, B., & Jones, D. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to human-centered design. London: Taylor & Francis. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Endsley, M. R., & Kaber, D. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462--492.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381--394.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
- Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2009). Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5615, 39--48. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Feil-Seifer, D., Skinner, K., & Mataric, M. J. (2007). Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 423--439.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Few, D., Smart, W. D., Bruemmer, D., & Neilsen, C. (2008). "Seamless autonomy": Removing autonomy level stratifications. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human System Interactions, 446--451. Kraków, Poland.Google Scholar
- Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 143--166.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Franklin, S., & Graesser, A. (1996). Is it an agent, or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Intelligent Agents, 21--35. Budapest Hungary. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goodrich, M. A., & Olsen, D. R. (2003). Seven principles of efficient human robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1--5, 3943--3948.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Goodrich, M. A., & Schultz, A. C. (2007). Human-robot interaction: A survey. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203--275. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gorman, J. C., Cook, N. J., & Winner, J. L. (2006). Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. Ergonomics, 49(12--13), 1312--1325.Google Scholar
- Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aimansmith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 203--214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Psychological Benchmarks of Human-Robot Interaction: Special issue of Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483--500.Google Scholar
- Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., & Schaefer, K. E. (2011). Can you trust your robot? Ergonomics in Design, 19(3), 24--29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hearst, M. A. (1999). Mixed-initiative interaction: Trends and controversies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(5), 14--23.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huang, H.-M, (2004). Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework volume I: Terminology version 1.1. In Proceedings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISTSP), Gaithersburg, MD.Google Scholar
- Huang, H.-M, Messina, E. R., Wade, R. L., English, R. W, Novak, B., & Albus, J. S. (2004). Autonomy measures for robots. In Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress (IMECE), 1--7. Anaheim, California.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huang, H.-M, Pavek, K, Albus, J., & Messina, E. (2005). Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework: An update. In Proceedings of the SPIE Defense and Security Symposium, 5804, 439--448. Orlando, Florida.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huang, H.-M, Pavek, K., Novak, B., Albus, J. S., & Messina, E. (2005). A framework for autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS). In Proceedings of the AUVSI's Unmanned Systems North America, 849--863. Baltimore, Maryland.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huang, H.-M, Pavek, K., Ragon, M., Jones, J., Messina, E., & Albus, J. (2007). Characterizing unmanned system autonomy: Contextual autonomous capability and level of autonomy analyses. In Proceedings of the 2007 SPIE Defense and Security Symposium. Orlando, Florida..Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Feltovich, P. J., Jonker, C., Sierhuis, M., & van Riemsdijk, B. (2010). Toward Coactivity. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 101--102. Osaka, Japan. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaber, D. B., Onal, E., & Endsley, M. R. (2000). Design of automation for telerobots and the effect on performance, operator situation awareness, and subjective workload. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10(4), 409--430.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaber, D. B., Wright, M. C., & Sheik-Nainar, M. A. (2006). Investigation of multi-modal interface features for adaptive automation of a human-robot system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 527--540. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kant, I. (1967). Kant: Philosophical Correspondence, 1795--99. (A. Zweig, Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Khan, Z. (1998). Attitude towards intelligent service robots. Numerical Analysis and Computer Science. Technical Report (TRITA-NA-P9821). Stockholm Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Kim, T., & Hinds, P. (2006). Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 80--85. Hatfield, United Kingdom.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50--80.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, M. K. & Takayama, L. (2011). "Now I have a body": Uses and social norms of mobile remote presence in the workplace. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (SIGCHI), 33--42. Vancouver, British Columbia. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lewis, M., Wang, H., Chien, S. Y., Velagapudi, P., Scerri, P., & Sycara, K. (2010). Choosing autonomy modes for multi-robot search. Human Factors, 52(2), 225--233.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics, 8(4), 277--301.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Milgram, P., Rastogi, A., & Grodski, J. J. (1995). Telerobotic control using augmented reality. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, 21--29. Tokyo, Japan.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Murphy, R. (2000). Introduction to AI Robotics (pp. 1--40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Murphy, R. & Schreckenghost, D. (2013). Survey of metrics for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 197--198. Tokyo, Japan. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mutlu, B. & Forlizzi, J. (2008). Robots in organizations: Workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 239--248. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81--103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6), 669--678. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., & Reeves, B. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(2), 223--239. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nass, C., Steuer, J., Henriksen, L., & Dryer, D. C. (1994). Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: Performance assessments of computers subsequent to 'self-' or 'other-' evaluations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(3), 543--559. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Olsen, D. R., & Goodrich, M. A. (2003). Metrics for evaluating human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of NIST Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop. Gaithersburg, Maryland.Google Scholar
- Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230--253.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Parasuraman, R., & Wickens, C. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors, 50(3), 511--520.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286--297. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140--160.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of a Child. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Prakash, A., Beer, J. M., Deyle, T., Smarr, C.-A., Che, T. L., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, D. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2013). Older adults' medication management in the home: How can robots help? In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 283--290. Tokyo, Japan. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rosen, C. A. & Nilsson, N. J (1966). Application Of Intelligent Automata to Reconnaissance. Technical Report. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Riley, J. M., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). The hunt for situation awareness: Human-robot interaction in search and rescue. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, 693--697. New Orleans, Louisiana.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scholtz, J. (2002a). Theory and evaluation of human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa Village, Hawaii. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scholtz, J. (2002b). Human-robot interactions: Creating synergistic cyber forces. In Proceedings from the NRL Workshop on Multi-Robot Systems: From Swarms to Intelligent Automata. 177--184. Washington, DC.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scholtz, J., Antonishek, B., & Young, J. (2004). Evaluation of a human-robot interface: Development of a situational awareness methodology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on System Sciences, 1--9. Waikoloa Village, Hawaii. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sheridan, T. B., & Verplank, W. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Man-Machine Systems Laboratory Report. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1978). Reflection on behaviorism and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Steinfeld, A., Fong, T., Kaber, D., Lewis, M., Scholtz, J., Schultz, A., & Goodrich, M. (2006). Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of Human-Robot Interaction Conference, 33--40. Salt Lake City, Utah. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stubbs, K., Hinds, P., & Wettergreen, D. (2007). Autonomy and common ground in human-robot interaction: A field study. IEEE Intelligent Systems: Special Issue on Interacting with Autonomy, 22(2), 42--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Takayama, L., Marder-Eppstein, E., Harris, H., & Beer, J. M. (2011). Assisted driving of a mobile remote presence system: System design and controlled user evaluation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1883-1889. Shanghai, CN.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tarn, T.-J., Zi, N., Guo, C., & Bejczy, A. K. (1995). Function-based control sharing for robotics systems. In Proceedings on IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3, 1--6. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1--2), 9--24. &2_2 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tiwari, P., Warren, J., Day, K. J., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Some non-technology implications for wider application of robots to assist older people. In Proceedings of the Conference and Exhibition of Health Informatics. New Zealand.Google Scholar
- Tsui, K. M., Desai, M., Yanco, H., & Uhlik, C. (2011). Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 11--18. Lausanne, Switzerland. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tsang, P. S. & Vidulich, M. A. (2006). Mental workload and situation awareness. In G. Savendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 243--268). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Urdiales, C., Poncela, A., Sanchez-Tato, I., Galluppi, F., Olivetti, M., & Sandoval, F. (2007). Efficiency based reactive shared control for collaborative human/robot navigation. In Proceedings from the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 3586--3591. San Diego, California.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wellman, H. (1992). The Child's Theory of Mind. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 115--152.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yanco, H. & Drury, J. (2004). Classifying human-robot interaction: An updated taxonomy. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 3, 2841--2846. Hague, Netherlands.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Young, J., Hawkins, R., Sharlin, E., and Igarashi, T. (2009). Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 95--108.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
A Taxonomy of Robot Autonomy for Human-Robot Interaction
HRI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionRobot autonomy is an influential and ubiquitous factor in human-robot interaction (HRI), but it is rarely discussed beyond a one-dimensional measure of the degree to which a robot operates without human intervention. As robots become more sophisticated, ...
Autonomy and Common Ground in Human-Robot Interaction: A Field Study
In a two-year study of a collaborative human-robot system, researchers observed a science team in Pittsburgh and a robot in Chile.The system was part of a project intended to inform planetary exploration while studying a terrestrial desert. Over two ...
Dynamic robot autonomy: investigating the effects of robot decision-making in a human-robot team task
ICMI-MLMI '09: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on Multimodal interfacesRobot autonomy is of high relevance for HRI, in particular for interactions of humans and robots in mixed human-robot teams. In this paper, we investigate empirically the extent to which autonomy based on independent decision making and acting by the ...
Comments