Spiral response-cascade hypothesis: intrapersonal responding-cascade in gaze interaction

ABSTRACT

A spiral response-cascade hypothesis is proposed to model the mechanism that enables human communication to emerge or be maintained among agents. In this hypothesis, we propose the existence of three cascades each of which indicates intrapersonal or interpersonal mutual facilitation in the formation of someone's feelings about one's communication partners and the exhibition of behaviors in communicating with them, i.e., responding. In this paper, we discuss our examination of an important part of the hypothesis, i.e., what we call an intrapersonal responding cascade, through an experiment where the gaze interactions between a participant and a communication robot were controlled not only by controlling the robot's gaze but also by signaling participants when to shift their gaze. We report that the participants' experiences in responding to the robot enable them to regard the robot as a communicative being, which partially supports the hypothesis of the intrapersonal responding cascade.

REFERENCES

• 1: A. Arita, K. Hiraki, T. Kanda, and H. Ishiguro. Can we talk to robots? ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons. Cognition, 95:B49--B57, 2005.
• 2: J. N. Bailenson and N. Yee. Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science, 16:814--819, 2005.
• 3: A. Damasio. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, And the Human Brain. Grosset/Putnam, 1994.
• 4: J. Driver, G. Davis, P. Ricciardelli, P. Kidd, E. Maxwell, and S. Baron-Cohen. Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6:509--540, 1999.
• 5: T. Farroni, E. M. Mansfield, C. Lai, and M. H. Johnson. Infants perceiving and acting on the eyes: Tests of an evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85:199--212, 2003.
• 6: G. Gergely and G. Csibra. Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(7):287--292, 2003.
• 7: J. Goetz, S. Kiseler, and A. Powers. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003.
• 8: P. Haggard, S. Clark, and J. Kalogeras. Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 5(4):382--385, 2002.
• 9: H. Ishiguro and M. Asada. Humanoid and android science. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 74--76, 2006.
• 10: S. Johnson, V. Slaughter, and S. Carey. Whose gaze will infants follow? the elicitation of gaze following in 12-month-olds. Developmental Science, 1(2):233--238, 1998.
• 11: K. Kamewari, M. Kato, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and K. Hiraki. Six-and-a-half-month-old children positively attribute goals to human action and to humanoid-robot motion. Cognitive Development, 20:303--320, 2005.
• 12: T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, M. Imai, and T. Ono. Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. Proceedings of IEEE, 92(11):1839--1850, 2004.
• 13: T. Kanda, T. Miyashita, T. Osada, Y. Haikawa, and H. Ishiguro. Analysis of humanoid appearances in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005.
• 14: A. N. Melzoff. Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5):838--850, 1995.
• 15: B. Robins, P. Dickerson, P. Stribling, and K. Dautenhahn. Robot-mediated joint attention in children with autism. Interaction Studies, 5(2):161--198, 2004.
• 16: W. Sato and S. Yoshikawa. Spontaneous facial mimicry in response to dynamic facial expressions. In Proceedings of 2005 4th IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning, pages 13--18, 2005.
• 17: J. Seyama and R. S. Nagayama. Eye direction afftereffect. Psychological Research, 70:59--67, 2006.
• 18: M. Shimada, T. Minato, S. Itakura, and H. Ishiguro. Evaluation of android using unconscious recognition. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2006.
• 19: S. Shimojo, C. Simion, E. Shimojo, and C. Scheier. Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature NeuroScience, 6:1317--1322, 2003.
• 20: Fumitaka Yamaoka , Takayuki Kanda , Hiroshi Ishiguro , Norihiro Hagita, How contingent should a communication robot be?, Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, March 02-03, 2006, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA [doi>10.1145/1121241.1121294]
• 21: Y. Yoshikawa, K. Shinozawa, and H. Ishiguro. Social reflex hypothesis on blinking interaction. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 725--730, 2007.
• 22: Y. Yoshikawa, K. Shinozawa, H. Ishiguro, N. Hagita, and T. Miyamoto. Responsive robot gaze to interaction partner. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems II, 2006.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Psychology

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
cascade effect, feelings about communication, psychological experiment with robots, responsive behavior