Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Social Robotics
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics 7/2021

20.02.2021

Qualitative Research in HRI: A Review and Taxonomy

verfasst von: Louise Veling, Conor McGinn

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 7/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The field of human–robot interaction (HRI) is young and highly inter-disciplinary, and the approaches, standards and methods proper to it are still in the process of negotiation. This paper reviews the use of qualitative methods and approaches in the HRI literature in order to contribute to the development of a foundation of approaches and methodologies for these new research areas. In total, 73 papers that use qualitative methods were systematically reviewed. The review reveals that there is widespread use of qualitative methods in HRI, but very different approaches to reporting on it, and high variance in the rigour with which the approaches are applied. We also identify the key qualitative methods used. A major contribution of this paper is a taxonomy categorizing qualitative research in HRI in two dimensions: by ’study type’ and based on the specific qualitative method used.
Vorheriger Artikel Moral Uncanny Valley: A Robot’s Appearance Moderates How its Decisions are Judged
Nächster Artikel Field Testing of Ro-Tri, a Robot-Mediated Triadic Interaction for Older Adults

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
‘Observation’ as a method is often used interchangeably with ‘ethnography’. However, ‘ethnography’ refers to the descriptive output of a study of people and their social lives. This may involve a suite of methods, as well as qualitative observation.
 
Literatur
1.
Steinfeld A, Fong T, Kaber D, Lewis M, Scholtz J, Schultz A, Goodrich M (2006) Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction, pp 33–40
2.
Yanco HA, Drury JL (2002) A taxonomy for human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on human–robot interaction, sn, pp 111–119
3.
Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H et al (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103CrossRef
4.
Dautenhahn K (2007) Methodology & themes of human-robot interaction: a growing research field. Int J Adv Robot Syst 4(1):15CrossRef
5.
Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, De Witte L (2012) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13(2):114–120CrossRef
6.
Kachouie R, Sedighadeli S, Khosla R, Chu M-T (2014) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. Int J Human–Comput Interact 30(5):369–393CrossRef
7.
Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81CrossRef
8.
Bethel CL, Murphy RR (2010) Review of human studies methods in hri and recommendations. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):347–359CrossRef
9.
Shah SK, Corley KG (2006) Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. J Manag Stud 43(8):1821–1835CrossRef
10.
Lindblom J, Andreasson R (2016) Current challenges for ux evaluation of human–robot interaction. In: Advances in ergonomics of manufacturing: managing the enterprise of the future. Springer, pp 267–277
11.
Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc, London
12.
Rehm M, Krummheuer AL, Rodil K, Nguyen M, Thorlacius B (2016) From social practices to social robots–user-driven robot development in elder care. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 692–701
13.
Frennert S, Östlund B (2014) Seven matters of concern of social robots and older people. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):299–310CrossRef
14.
Petrie H, Darzentas J (2017) Older people and robotic technologies in the home: perspectives from recent research literature. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments. ACM, pp 29–36
15.
Mordoch E, Osterreicher A, Guse L, Roger K, Thompson G (2013) Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Maturitas 74(1):14–20CrossRef
16.
Kjeldskov J, Graham C (2003) A review of mobile HCI research methods. In: International conference on mobile human–computer interaction. Springer, pp 317–335
17.
Davy D, Valecillos C (2009) Summary of a literature review of qualitative research in technical communication from 2003 to 2007. In: 2009 IEEE international professional communication conference. IEEE, pp 1–7
18.
Coradeschi S, Kristoffersson A, Loutfi A, Von Rump S, Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Gonzalez J (2011) Towards a methodology for longitudinal evaluation of social robotic telepresence for elderly. In: Human robot interaction
19.
Virnes M (2008) Robotics in special needs education. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children, pp 29–32
20.
Kraft K (2016) Robots against infectious diseases. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 627–628
21.
Beer JM, Fisk AD, Rogers WA (2014) Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J Human–Robot Interact 3(2):74–99CrossRef
22.
Bellotto N, Hanheide M, Van de Weghe N (2013) Qualitative design and implementation of human–robot spatial interactions. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 331–340
23.
Fabbri C, Sattar J (2016) Smarttalk: a learning-based framework for natural human–robot interaction. In: 2016 13th conference on computer and robot vision (CRV). IEEE, pp 376–382
24.
Frauenberger C, Makhaeva J, Spiel K (2017) Blending methods: developing participatory design sessions for autistic children. In: Proceedings of the 2017 conference on interaction design and children, pp 39–49
25.
Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2004) Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human–Comput Interact 19(1):25–59CrossRef
26.
Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 258–265
27.
Sung J, Christensen HI, Grinter RE ((2009)) Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. ACM, pp 45–52
28.
Fink J, Bauwens V, Kaplan F, Dillenbourg P (2013) Living with a vacuum cleaning robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(3):389–408CrossRef
29.
Sabelli AM, Kanda T, Hagita N (2011) A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study. In: 2011 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 37–44
30.
Chang W-L, Šabanovic S (2013) Potential use of robots in Taiwanese nursing homes. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 99–100
31.
Welfare KS, Hallowell MR, Shah JA, Riek LD (2019) Consider the human work experience when integrating robotics in the workplace. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 75–84
32.
Alami A, Dittrich Y, Wasowski A (2018) Influencers of quality assurance in an open source community. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 11th international workshop on cooperative and human aspects of software engineering (CHASE). IEEE, pp 61–68
33.
Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2013) What older people expect of robots: a mixed methods approach. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 19–29
34.
Cheon E, Su NM (2018) Futuristic autobiographies: weaving participant narratives to elicit values around robots. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 388–397
35.
Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 287–294
36.
Robert D, Breazeal C (2012) Blended reality characters. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 359–366
37.
Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 129–136
38.
Forlizzi J (2008) The product ecology: understanding social product use and supporting design culture. Int J Des 2(1):11–20
39.
Sung J, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2010) Domestic robot ecology. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):417–429CrossRef
40.
Nielsen S, Bonnerup E, Hansen AK, Nilsson J, Nellemann LJ, Hansen KD, Hammcrshoi D (2018) Subjective experience of interacting with a social robot at a Danish airport. In: 2018 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 1163–1170
41.
DiSalvo C, Louw M, Holstius D, Nourbakhsh I, Akin A (2012) Toward a public rhetoric through participatory design: critical engagements and creative expression in the neighborhood networks project. Des Issues 28(3):48–61CrossRef
42.
Neven L (2010) but obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociol Health Illn 32(2):335–347CrossRef
43.
Alenljung B, Andreasson R, Billing EA, Lindblom J, Lowe R (2017) User experience of conveying emotions by touch. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 1240–1247
44.
Hebesberger D, Dondrup C, Koertner T, Gisinger C, Pripfl J (2016) Lessons learned from the deployment of a long-term autonomous robot as companion in physical therapy for older adults with dementia: a mixed methods study. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 27–34
45.
Huang L (2017) Qualitative analysis of the application of self-determination theory in robotics tournaments. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 135–136
46.
Lohan KS, Pitsch K, Rohlfing KJ, Fischer K, Saunders J, Lehmann H, Nehaniv C, Wrede B (2011) Contingency allows the robot to spot the tutor and to learn from interaction. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on development and learning (ICDL), vol 2. IEEE, pp 1–8
47.
Girotto V, Lozano C, Muldner K, Burleson W, Walker E (2016) Lessons learned from in-school use of rtag: a robo-tangible learning environment. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 919–930
48.
Ogawa K, Chikaraishi T, Yoshikawa Y, Nishiguchi S, Hirata O, Ishiguro H (2014) Designing robot behavior in conversations based on contemporary colloquial theatre theory. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 168–173
49.
Pino M, Boulay M, Jouen F, Rigaud AS (2015) “are we ready for robots that care for us?” attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Frontiers Aging Neurosci 7:141CrossRef
50.
Worthy P, Boden M, Karimi A, Weigel J, Matthews B, Hensby K, Heath S, Pounds P, Taufatofua J, Smith M et al (2015) Children’s expectations and strategies in interacting with a wizard of oz robot. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Australian special interest group for computer human interaction. ACM, pp 608–612
51.
Wiles J, Worthy P, Hensby K, Boden M, Heath S, Pounds P, Rybak N, Smith M, Taufaofua J, Weigel J (2016) Social cardboard: pretotyping a social ethnodroid in the wild. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 531–532
52.
Rose EJ, Björling EA (2017) Designing for engagement: using participatory design to develop a social robot to measure teen stress. In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM international conference on the design of communication. ACM, p 7
53.
Threatt AL, Merino J, Brooks JO, Healy S, Truesdail C, Manganelli J, Walker I, Green KE (2017) The design, prototyping, and formative evaluation of an assistive robotic table (art) for stroke patients. HERD Health Environ Res Des J 10(3):152–169CrossRef
54.
Paauwe RA, Keyson DV, Hoorn JF, Konijn EA (2015) Minimal requirements of realism in social robots: designing for patients with acquired brain injury. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2139–2144
55.
Azenkot S, Feng C, Cakmak M (2016) Enabling building service robots to guide blind people a participatory design approach. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 3–10
56.
Förster F, Weiss A, Tscheligi M (2011) Anthropomorphic design for an interactive urban robot-the right design approach? In: 2011 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 137–138
57.
Hirsch L, Björsell A, Laaksoharju M, Obaid M (2017) Investigating design implications towards a social robot as a memory trainer. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on human agent interaction. ACM, pp 5–10
58.
Lee HR, Šabanović S, Chang W-L, Hakken D, Nagata S, Piatt J, Bennett C (2017) Steps toward participatory design of social robots: mutual learning with older adults with depression. In: 2017 12th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 244–253
59.
Joshi S, Šabanović S (2019) Robots for inter-generational interactions: implications for nonfamilial community settings. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 478–486
60.
Silvera-Tawil D, Bradford D, Roberts-Yates C (2018) Talk to me: The role of human–robot interaction in improving verbal communication skills in students with autism or intellectual disability. In: 2018 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 1–6
61.
Winkle K, Caleb-Solly P, Turton A, Bremner P (2018) Social robots for engagement in rehabilitative therapies: Design implications from a study with therapists. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 289–297
62.
Caleb-Solly P, Dogramadzi S, Ellender D, Fear T, Heuvel Hvd (2014) A mixed-method approach to evoke creative and holistic thinking about robots in a home environment. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 374–381
63.
Bodker S, Pekkola S (2010) A short review to the past and present of participatory design. Scand J Inf Syst 22(1):45–48
64.
Luria M, Forlizzi J, Hodgins J (2018) The effects of eye design on the perception of social robots. In: 2018 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, pp 1032–1037
65.
Dziergwa M, Frontkiewicz M, Kaczmarek P, Kedzierski J, Zagdańska M (2013) Study of a social robot’s appearance using interviews and a mobile eye-tracking device. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 170–179
66.
Fischer K, Lohan K, Saunders J, Nehaniv C, Wrede B, Rohlfing K (2013) The impact of the contingency of robot feedback on HRI. In: 2013 international conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS). IEEE, pp 210–217
67.
Lee MK, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S, Rybski P, Antanitis J, Savetsila S (2012) Personalization in HRI: a longitudinal field experiment. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 319–326
68.
Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):329–341CrossRef
69.
Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Dickerson P (2009) From isolation to communication: a case study evaluation of robot assisted play for children with autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot. In: 2009 second international conferences on advances in computer–human interactions. IEEE, pp 205–211
70.
Straub I, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2010) Incorporated identity in interaction with a teleoperated android robot: a case study. In: 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 119–124
71.
Cha E, Forlizzi J, Srinivasa SS (2015) Robots in the home: qualitative and quantitative insights into kitchen organization. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 319–326
72.
Chang W-L, Šabanović S (2015) Studying socially assistive robots in their organizational context: Studies with paro in a nursing home. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction extended abstracts. ACM, pp 227–228
73.
Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2017) Case report: Implications of doing research on socially assistive robots in real homes. Int J Soc Robot 9(3):401–415CrossRef
74.
Khaksar SMS, Khosla R, Chu M-T (2015) Socially assistive robots in service innovation context to improve aged-care quality: a grounded theory approach. In: 2015 IEEE 7th international conference on cybernetics and intelligent systems (CIS) and IEEE conference on robotics, automation and mechatronics (RAM). IEEE, pp 161–166
75.
Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2012) Modelling empathic behaviour in a robotic game companion for children: an ethnographic study in real-world settings. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 367–374
76.
Robinson H, Broadbent E, MacDonald B (2016) Group sessions with p aro in a nursing home: structure, observations and interviews. Australas J Ageing 35(2):106–112CrossRef
77.
Wasén K (2005) Person-friendly robot interaction: social, psychological and technological impacts in health care work. In: ROMAN 2005. IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2005. IEEE, pp 643–648
78.
Forlizzi J, Saensuksopa T, Salaets N, Shomin M, Mericli T, Hoffman G (2016) Let’s be honest: a controlled field study of ethical behavior in the presence of a robot. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 769–774
79.
Melkas H, Hennala L, Pekkarinen S, Kyrki V (2016) Human impact assessment of robot implementation in finnish elderly care. In: International conference on serviceology, pp 202–206
80.
Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Dickerson P (2012) Embodiment and cognitive learning—can a humanoid robot help children with autism to learn about tactile social behaviour? In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 66–75
81.
Kim ES, Paul R, Shic F, Scassellati B (2012) Bridging the research gap: making HRI useful to individuals with autism. J Human–Robot Interact 1(1):26–54CrossRef
82.
von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Becker-Asano C, Ishiguro H (2011) An android in the field. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 283–284
83.
Firestone JW, Quiñones R, Duncan BA (2019) Learning from users: an elicitation study and taxonomy for communicating small unmanned aerial system states through gestures. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 163–171
84.
Hutson S, Lim SL, Bentley PJ, Bianchi-Berthouze N, Bowling A (2011) Investigating the suitability of social robots for the wellbeing of the elderly. In: International conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction. Springer, pp 578–587
85.
Wu Y-H, Wrobel J, Cristancho-Lacroix V, Kamali L, Chetouani M, Duhaut D, Le Pévédic B, Jost C, Dupourque V, Ghrissi M et al (2013) Designing an assistive robot for older adults: the robadom project. IRBM 34(2):119–123CrossRef
86.
H. Lehmann, M. L. Walters, A. Dumitriu, A. May, K. L. Koay, J. Saez-Pons, D. S. Syrdal, L. Wood, J. Saunders, N. Burke, et al. (2013) Artists as HRI pioneers: a creative approach to developing novel interactions for living with robots. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 402–411
87.
Kory Westlund J, Gordon G, Spaulding S, Lee JJ, Plummer L, Martinez M, Das M, Breazeal C (2016) Lessons from teachers on performing hri studies with young children in schools. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 383–390
88.
Wu Y-H, Wrobel J, Cornuet M, Kerhervé H, Damnée S, Rigaud A-S (2014) Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a 1-month period in the living lab setting. Clin Intervent Aging 9:801CrossRef
89.
Hyun E, Yoon H, Son S (2010) Relationships between user experiences and children’s perceptions of the education robot. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 199–200
90.
Elprama SA, Jewell CI, Jacobs A, El Makrini I, Vanderborght B (2017) Attitudes of factory workers towards industrial and collaborative robots. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 113–114
91.
Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation tools, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles
92.
Suzuki D, Umemuro H (2012) Dimensions of people’s attitudes toward robots. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, pp 249–250
93.
Bedaf S, Gelderblom GJ, de Witte L, Syrdal D, Lehmann H, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K, Hewson D (2013) Selecting services for a service robot: evaluating the problematic activities threatening the independence of elderly persons. In: 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR). IEEE, pp 1–6
94.
Kim R, Kwak SS, Lim Y-K, Kim M-S (2009) Focus group interview for designing a growing robot. In: 2009 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 305–306
95.
Stadler S, Weiss A, Mirnig N, Tscheligi M (2013) Anthropomorphism in the factory: a paradigm change? In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 231–232
96.
Weiss A, Wurhofer D, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) Autonomous vs. tele-operated: how people perceive human-robot collaboration with hrp-2. In: 2009 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 257–258
97.
Krupp MM, Rueben M, Grimm CM, Smart WD (2017) Privacy and telepresence robotics: what do non-scientists think?. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 175–176
98.
Wu Y-H, Fassert C, Rigaud A-S (2012) Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 54(1):121–126CrossRef
99.
Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML, Otero NR (2010) Exploring human mental models of robots through explicitation interviews. In: 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 638–645
100.
Joosse M, Lohse M, Evers V (2015) Crowdsourcing culture in HRI: lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative data collections. In: 3rd international workshop on culture aware robotics at ICSR, vol 15
101.
Haynes A, Simons MF, Helps T, Nakamura Y, Rossiter J (2019) A wearable skin-stretching tactile interface for human–robot and human–human communication. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 4(2):1641–1646CrossRef
102.
Paetzel M, Hupont I, Varni G, Chetouani M, Peters C, Castellano G (2017) Exploring the link between self-assessed mimicry and embodiment in HRI. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 245–246
103.
Feingold Polak R, Elishay A, Shachar Y, Stein M, Edan Y, Levy Tzedek S (2018) Differences between young and old users when interacting with a humanoid robot: a qualitative usability study. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 107–108
Metadaten
Titel
Qualitative Research in HRI: A Review and Taxonomy
verfasst von
Louise Veling
Conor McGinn
Publikationsdatum
20.02.2021
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 7/2021
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00723-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2021

International Journal of Social Robotics 7/2021 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Emotional Expressions of Real Humanoid Robots and Their Influence on Human Decision-Making in a Finite Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Game

OriginalPaper

Adaptive Control of Robot Series Elastic Drive Joint Based on Optimized Radial Basis Function Neural Network

OriginalPaper

Likert or Not? How Using Likert Rather Than Biposlar Ratings Reveal Individual Difference Scores Using the Godspeed Scales

OriginalPaper

Use of a Social Robot in the Implementation of a Narrative Intervention for Young People with Cystic Fibrosis: A Feasibility Study

OriginalPaper

Tactile Interaction with a Humanoid Robot: Effects on Physiology and Subjective Impressions

OriginalPaper

It was a Pleasure Meeting You

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise