Abstract
Currently, humanoid service robots or social robots have been used in many places, such as hospitals, shopping malls, and hotels, etc. The robots are mainly divided into two forms: one is a form in which the head of the robot is separated from the interactive interface, and the other has only one integrated head and interactive user interface. Which of these two forms of robots is more efficient for users’ operations, and which one gives people better perceptions, is worthy of our in-depth exploration. The purpose of this study was to adopt the method of combining eye tracking and evaluation scale to help investigate the influence of different display forms on the user’s operation efficiency and perceptions pertinent to social robots. The generated results are as follows: (1) Both the appearance of the robot and the level of abstraction of the robot’s face affect participants’ perceptions of them to some extent. (2) The robot with abstract face was considered more humanlike and was much liked than the robot with concrete face. (3) It is generally believed that the separate form of the robot head and the user interface make the robot look more like a human and have a better impression. (4) Robots with separated head and operating interface were considered to have higher operability.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaltonen, I., Arvola, A., Heikkil., P., Lammi, H.: Hello pepper, may I tickle you? Children's and adults’ responses to an entertainment robot at a shopping mall. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 53–54 (2017)
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K.: A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3–4), 143–166 (2003)
Hegel, F., Lohse, M., Wrede, B.: Effects of visual appearance on the attribution of applications in social robotics. In: RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 64–71 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN.2009.5326340
DiSalvo, C.F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S.: All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 321–326 (2002)
McGinn, C.: Why do robots need a head? the role of social interfaces on service robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1–15 (2019)
Mathur, M.B., Reichling, D.B.: Navigating a social world with robot partners: a quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition 146, 22–32 (2016)
Zhang, T., Kaber, D.B., Zhu, B., Swangnetr, M., Mosaly, P., Hodge, L.: Service robot feature design effects on user perceptions and emotional responses. Intel. Serv. Robot. 3(2), 73–88 (2010)
Hoffman, G., et al.: Robot presence and human honesty: experimental evidence. In: 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 181–188 (2015)
Tasaki, R., Kitazaki, M., Miura, J., Terashima, K.: Prototype design of medical round supporting robot “Terapio”. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 829–834. IEEE (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139274
Björling, E.A., Rose, E.: Participatory research principles in human-centered design: engaging teens in the co-design of a social robot. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 3(1), 8 (2019)
Kalegina, A., Schroeder, G., Allchin, A., Berlin, K., Cakmak, M.: Characterizing the design space of rendered robot faces. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 96–104 (2018)
Wittig, S., Rätsch, M., Kloos, U.: Parameterized facial animation for socially interactive robots. In: Diefenbach, S., Henze, N., Pielot, M. (eds.) Mensch und Computer 2015 – Proceedings, pp. 355–358. De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin (2015)
Bartneck, C., Kuli, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 71–81 (2009)
Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)
Cobos Commercial Robot Co., Ltd. (n.d.). Wang Bao 5-BENEBOT 5-A new generation of tool-based business service robots. http://www.ecovacs-c.com/product-series/interactive-service-robot/102.html
Lee, J., Ahn, J.H.: Attention to banner ads and their effectiveness: an eye-tracking approach. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 17(1), 119–137 (2012)
Broadbent, E., et al.: Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PloS one, 8(8), e72589 (2013)
Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19(2), 98–100 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jia, XY., Chen, CH. (2022). Effects of Social Robot’s Face and Interface Design on Operation Efficiency and User Perceptions. In: Kurosu, M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction. Technological Innovation. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13303. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05409-9_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05409-9_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05408-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05409-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)