How contingent should a communication robot be?

ABSTRACT

The purpose of our research is to develop lifelike behavior in a communication robot, which is expected to potentially make human-robot interaction more natural. Our earlier research demonstrated the importance of a robot's contingency for lifelikeness [1]. On the other hand, perfect contingency seems to give us a non-lifelike impression. In order to explore the appropriate contingency for communication robots, we developed a robot system that allows us to adjust its contingency to an interacting person in a simple mimic interaction. As a result of an experiment, we identified the relationships between the degree of contingency and the subjective impressions of lifelikeness, autonomy, and preference. However, the experimental result also seems to suggest the importance of the complexity of interaction for investigating the appropriate contingency of communication robots.

REFERENCES

• 1: Yamaoka, F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N., Lifelike behavior of communication robots based on developmental psychology findings, IEEE International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids2005), pp. 406--411, 2005.
• 2: Nakadai, K., Hidai, K., Mizoguchi, H., Okuno, H. G., and Kitano, H., Real-Time Auditory and Visual Multiple-Object Tracking for Robots. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'01), pp.1425--1432, 2001.
• 3: Cynthia Breazeal , Brian Scassellati, A Context-Dependent Attention System for a Social Robot, Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p.1146-1153, July 31-August 06, 1999
• 4: Breazeal, C., Kidd, C. D., Thomaz, A. L., Hoffman, G., and Berlin, M. Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS2005), pp. 383--388, 2005.
• 5: Yamamoto, M., and Watanabe, T., Timing control effects of utterance to communicative actions on embodied interaction with a robot, IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (ROMAN2004), pp. 467--472, 2004.
• 6: David H. Rakison and Diane Poulin-Dubois, Developmental Origin of the Animate-Inanimate Distinction, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127, No. 2, pp. 209--228, 2001.
• 7: Arita, A., Hiraki, K., Kanda. T., and Ishiguro, H., Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons. Cognition, Vol. 95, pp. B49--B57, 2005.
• 8: Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Imai, M., Ono, T., Development and Evaluation of Interactive Humanoid Robots, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol.92, No.11, pp. 1839--1850, 2004.
• 9: Bradley, R. A. and Terry, M. E., Rank analysis of incomplete block designs, Biometrilia, Vol. 39, pp. 324--345, 1952.
• 10: Hirai, M., and Hiraki, K., An event-related potential study of biological motion perception in human infants, Cognitive BrainResearch,22(2),301--304,2005.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation)

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.9 Robotics

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors, Verification

Keywords:
communication robot, contingency, human-robot interaction, lifelike behavior