Ross Mead
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Human preferences of distance (proxemics) to a robot significantly impact the performance of the robot's automated speech and gesture recognition during face-to-face, social human-robot interactions. This work investigated how people respond to a sociable robot based on its performance at different locations. We performed an experiment in which the robot's ability to understand social signals was artificially attenuated by distance. Participants (N = 180) instructed the robot using speech and pointing gestures, provided proxemic preferences before and after the interaction, and responded to a questionnaire. Our analysis of questionnaire responses revealed that robot performance factors---rather than human-robot proxemics---are significant predictors of user evaluations of robot competence, anthropomorphism, engagement, likability, and technology adoption. Our behavioral analysis suggests that human proxemic preferences change over time as users interact with and come to understand the needs of the robot, and those changes improve robot performance.
- Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance, and affliciation. Sociometry, 28, 289--304.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Breazeal, C. (2003). Social interactions in hri: The robot view. IEEE Transactions on Man, Cybernetics, and Systems, 34(2), 181--186. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Breazeal, C. (2004). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ) 80129-3 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eresha, G., Haring, M., Endrass, B., Andre, E., & Obaid, M. (2013). Investigating the influence of culture on proxemic behaviors for humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 430--435). Gyeongju, Korea.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M. (2005). Defining socially assistive robotics. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (pp. 465--468). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. New York, NY: Doubleday Company.Google Scholar
- Hall, E. (1963). A system for notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65, 1003--1026.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. Chicago, IL: Doubleday Company.Google Scholar
- Henkel, Z., Murphy, R., & Bethel, C. (2012). Towards a computational method of scaling a robots behavior via proxemics. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 145--146). Boston, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hiroi, Y., & Ito, A. (2011). Influence of the size factor of a mobile robot moving toward a human on subjective acceptable distance. Mobile Robots---Current Trends, 177--190.Google Scholar
- Kahn, P. (2011). Technological nature: Adaptation and the future of human life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mead, R., Atrash, A., & Matarić, M. J. (2012). Representations of proxemic behavior for human-machine interaction. In Technical Report of the NordiCHI 2012 Workshop on Proxemics in Human-Computer Interaction. Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
- Mead, R., Atrash, A., & Matarić, M. J. (2013). Automated proxemic feature extraction and behavior recognition: Applications in human-robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 367--378.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mead, R., & Matarić, M. J. (2015). Robots have needs too: People adapt their proxemic behavior to improve autonomous robot recognition of human social signals. In Proceedings of the 4th AISB International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction. Canterbury, UK.Google Scholar
- Mead, R., & Matarić, M. J. (2016). Perceptual models of human-robot proxemics. Experimental Robotics, 109, 261--276.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011). Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 331--338). Lausanne, Switzerland. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Murata, A. (1999). Basic characteristics of human's distance estimation. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Vol. 2, pp. 38--43). Tokyo, Japan.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nelder, J., & Wedderburn, R. (1972). Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 135(3), 370--384.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rae, I., Takayama, L., & Mutlu, B. (2005). The influence of height in robot-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 1--8). Tokyo, Japan. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Satake, S., Kanda, T., Glas, D. F., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). How to approach humans? Strategies for social robots to initiate interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 109--116). La Jolla, CA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Short, E., Hart, J., Vu, M., & Scassellati, B. (2010). No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 219--226). Osaka, Japan. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stevens, S. (2007). On the psychological law. Psychological Review, 64, 153--181.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Takayama, L., & Pantofaru, C. (2009). Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 5495--5502). St. Louis, MO. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Torta, E., Cuijpers, R. H., & Juola, J. F. (2013). Design of a parametric model of personal space for robotic social navigation. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 357--365.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Torta, E., Cuijpers, R. H., Juola, J. F., & van der Pol, D. (2011). Design of robust robotic proxemic behaviour. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 21--30). Amsterdam, Netherlands. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Walters, M. (2008). The design space for robot appearance and behaviour for social robot companions. Hertfordshire, UK: University of Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
- Walters, M., Dautenhahn, K., Boekhorst, R., Koay, K., Syrdal, D., & Nehaniv, C. (2009). An empirical framework for human-robot proxemics. In Proceedings of the 1st AISB International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 144--149). Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
- Walters, M., Syrdal, D., Koay, K., Dautenhahn, K., & te Boekhorst, R. (2008). Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 707--712). Munich, Germany.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Robots have needs too: how and why people adapt their proxemic behavior to improve robot social signal understanding
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction
HRI '11: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interactionTo seamlessly integrate into the human physical and social environment, robots must display appropriate proxemic behavior - that is, follow societal norms in establishing their physical and psychological distancing with people. Social-scientific ...
Autonomous human---robot proxemics: socially aware navigation based on interaction potential
To enable situated human---robot interaction (HRI), an autonomous robot must both understand and control proxemics--the social use of space--to employ natural communication mechanisms analogous to those used by humans. This work presents a computational ...
Autonomous Human-Robot Proxemics: A Robot-Centered Approach
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction
Comments