The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

paul
the role of human perception in human robot interaction l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction

play fullscreen
1 / 19
Download Presentation
The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction
413 Views
Download Presentation

The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Role of Human Perception in Human-Robot Interaction Social Robotics Reading Group 3 November 2003

  2. Agenda • “All Robots Are Not Created Equal: The Design and Perception of Humanoid Robot Heads” • Carl DiSalvo, Francine Gemperle, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler • “Matching Robot Appearance and Behavior to Tasks to Improve Human-Robot Cooperation” • Jennifer Goetz, Sara Kiesler, Aaron Powers • Discussion

  3. Paper 1, “All Robots Are Not Created Equal”: overview • Assumption: A human-like head is desirable for human-robot interaction • Valid? See paper #2! • Question: What makes a “humanoid” robotic head more (or less) human-like? • Study: Survey

  4. Method • Images of 48 robots from 3 categories • Research (e.g. Pearl) • Consumer Products (e.g. ASIMO) • Fiction (e.g. Transformer) • Images rated on a scale of 1 (“Not very human-like”) to 5 (“Very human-like”) • 20 participants per survey

  5. Analysis: Presence of features • Presence (or lack) of features is important • Nose, Eyelids, Mouth • Increase perception of humanness the most • More features == more human-like

  6. Analysis: Dimensions

  7. Analysis: Comparison to human head • Prototypical human head: average of • Mona Lisa • George Bush • Michelangelo’s David • Britney Spears • Most “human-like” robots: very similar dimensions • Less “human-like”: diverged

  8. Conclusion: Design Suggestions

  9. How human-like is too human-like? • The Uncanny Valley • “As a robot increases in humanness there is a point where the robot is not 100% similar to humans but the balance between humanness and machine-like is uncomfortable.”

  10. Paper 2, “Matching Robot Appearance and Behavior”: overview • Question: How should service robots look and behave, so that people comply? • Example: getting elderly to exercise • Three studies: • 1. Preferences for humanlike robots in jobs • 2. Compliance with a playful or serious robot • 3. Study 2 plus entertaining vs. serious task (Findings just presented at RO-MAN)

  11. Study 1: Preferences for robots in jobs • Three stages of humanlikeness • Human • “Midstage” • Machine • Male vs. female; youth vs. adult (heads only) • Survey: which robot would be suitable for which jobs? • Robots presented in pairs (“which would be more suitable for <x>?”)

  12. Study 1: results • Humanlike preferred over machinelike: • Actress, drawing instructor (Artistic) • Retail clerk, sales representative (Enterprise) • Office clerk, hospital message carrier (Conventional) • Aerobics instructor, museum tour guide (Social)

  13. Study 1: results (continued) • Machinelike preferred over humanlike: • Lab assistant, customs inspector (Investigative) • Soldier, security guard (Realistic)

  14. Study 2: Compliance with a serious or playful robot,Background • Positivity hypothesis • More attractive, extroverted, cheerful robot will have greater compliance • Matching hypothesis • Appearance and behavior should match the seriousness of the situation

  15. Study 2: Method • Pearl leads participant in exercise • Playful: “Close your eyes… Relax… Breathe in… Don’t forget to breathe out. I don’t want you to pass out!” • Serious: “Close your eyes… Relax… Breathe in… Breathe out... Are you feeling relaxed?” • Asked to exercise on own (“as long as you can”)

  16. Study 2: Results • Compliance: how long the participant exercised • Playful robot: average of 25 seconds • Serious robot: average of 53 seconds • Consistent with matching hypothesis • Manipulation check: • Serious robot: more conscientious, smarter • Playful robot: more playful and witty (and obnoxious)

  17. Study 3: Fun vs. Serious Task, overview • 2x2 design • Playful vs. Serious robot • Fun vs. Serious task • Tasks: • Serious: Exercise task from study 2 • Slight change: “as many exercises as you can” • Fun: Jellybean task • Create “recipes” using gourmet jellybeans • “As many combinations as you can”

  18. Study 3: Results

  19. Conclusions • Match appearance and behavior to task • More humanlike appearance seems better for human-robot social interaction • Behavior needs to match task • What thresholds are appropriate? • How human in appearance? • How playful/serious?