Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Human-Like Movements of Industrial Robots Positively Impact Observer Perception

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of industrial robots and collaborative robots on manufacturing shopfloors has been rapidly increasing over the past decades. However, research on industrial robot perception and attributions toward them is scarce as related work has predominantly explored the effect of robot appearance, movement patterns, or human-likeness of humanoid robots. The current research specifically examines attributions and perceptions of industrial robots—specifically, articulated collaborative robots—and how the type of movements of such robots impact human perception and preference. We developed and empirically tested a novel model of robot movement behavior and demonstrate how altering the movement behavior of a robotic arm leads to differing attributions of the robot’s human-likeness. These findings have important implications for emerging research on the impact of robot movement on worker perception, preferences, and behavior in industrial settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data and stimuli of this study are available in a public OSF data repository, https://osf.io/qu4bv/?view_only=a1e79435c3194bcf834146350d97db5a.

Notes

  1. See https://www.universal-robots.com/products/ur10-robot/.

  2. See https://osf.io/qu4bv/?view_only=a1e79435c3194bcf834146350d97db5a.

References

  1. IFR: Executive Summary WR 2021—Service Robots (2021). https://ifr.org/img/worldrobotics/Executive_Summary_WR_Service_Robots_2021.pdf

  2. IFR: Executive Summary WR 2021 Industrial Robots (2021). https://ifr.org/img/worldrobotics/Executive_Summary_WR_Industrial_Robots_2021.pdf

  3. Eimontaite I, Jaksic C, Fletcher S, Johnson T, Oostveen A-M (2020) Will operators work in close proximity to industrial robots? A study of acceptance using psychological and physiological responses. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3718020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Weiss A, Wortmeier AK, Kubicek B (2021) Cobots in Industry 4.0: a roadmap for future practice studies on human–robot collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3092684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lotz V, Himmel S, Ziefle M (2019) You’re my mate-acceptance factors for human–robot collaboration in industry. In: International conference on competitive manufacturing. Stellenbosch, South Africa (February)

  6. Kuz S, Mayer MP, Müller S, Schlick CM (2013) Using anthropomorphism to improve the human–machine interaction in industrial environments (Part I). In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 8026. LNCS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39182-8_9

  7. Elprama SA, Makrini IE, Vanderborght B, Jacobs A (2016) Acceptance of collaborative robots by factory workers: a pilot study on the importance of social cues of anthropomorphic robots. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN)

  8. Hostettler D (2022) Increasing the acceptance of industrial robots by adapting movement behavior to individual user differences, manuscript submitted for publication. In: CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503812

  9. Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2013) To Err is human(-like): effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. Int J Soc Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0196-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Admoni H, Scassellati B (2017) Social eye gaze in human–robot interaction: a review. J Hum Robot Interact 6(1):25. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.6.1.admoni

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Manzi F, Ishikawa M, Dio CD, Itakura S, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Massaro D, Marchetti A (2020) The understanding of congruent and incongruent referential gaze in 17-month-old infants: an eye-tracking study comparing human and robot. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69140-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuz S, Heinicke A, Schwichtenhoevel D, Mayer MP, Schlick CM (2012) The effect of anthropomorphic movements of assembly robots on human prediction. In: Advances in ergonomics in manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12322

  13. Brecher C, Müller S, Kuz S, Lohse W (2013) Towards anthropomorphic movements for industrial robots. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 8026. LNCS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39182-8_2

  14. Dragan AD, Lee KCT, Srinivasa SS (2013) Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In: ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483603

  15. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media

  16. Klowait N (2018) The quest for appropriate models of human-likeness: anthropomorphism in media equation research. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0746-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ruijten PAM, Bouten DHL, Rouschop DCJ, Ham J, Midden CJH (2014) Introducing a Rasch-type anthropomorphism scale. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559825

  18. Airenti G (2018) The development of anthropomorphism in interaction: intersubjectivity, imagination, and theory of mind. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mohammad Y, Nishida T (2014) Human-like motion of a humanoid in a shadowing task. In: 2014 International conference on collaboration technologies and systems, CTS 2014 . https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2014.6867553

  20. Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

  21. Waytz A, Gray K, Epley N, Wegner DM (2010) Causes and consequences of mind perception. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006

  22. Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Koda T, Maes P (1996) Agents with faces: the effect of personification. In: Robot and human communication—proceedings of the IEEE international workshop. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.1996.568812

  24. Powers A, Kiesler S (2006) The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: HRI 2006: proceedings of the 2006 ACM conference on human–robot interaction, vol 2006

  25. Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction in a collaborative task. Hum Comput Interact 19(1):151–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901 &2_7

  26. Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2008) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’09. https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514158

  27. Stern DN (2010) Forms of vitality: exploring dynamic experience in psychology, the arts, psychotherapy, and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199586066.001.0001

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Di Cesare G, De Stefani E, Gentilucci M, De Marco D (2017) Vitality forms expressed by others modulate our own motor response: a kinematic study. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kupferberg A, Glasauer S, Huber M, Rickert M, Knoll A, Brandt T (2011) Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0314-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cesare G, Di Dio C, Rochat M, Sinigaglia C, Bruschweiler-Stern N, Stern D, Rizzolatti G (2013) The neural correlates of ‘vitality form’ recognition: an fMRI study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3

  32. Manzi F, Peretti G, Dio CD, Cangelosi A, Itakura S, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Massaro D, Marchetti A (2020) A robot is not worth another: exploring children’s mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Robert LP, Alahmad R, Esterwood C, Zhang Q (2020) A review of personality in human–robot interactions foundations and trends® in information systems. Found Trends® Inf Syst

  34. Onnasch L, Hildebrandt CL (2021) Impact of anthropomorphic robot design on trust and attention in industrial human–robot interaction. J Hum Robot Interact. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics Autom Mag 19(2):98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Marchetti A, Manzi F, Itakura S, Massaro D (2018) Theory of mind and humanoid robots from a lifespan perspective. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/J Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Broadbent E, Kumar V, Li X, Sollers J, Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Wegner DM (2013) Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Phillips E, Zhao X, Ullman D, Malle BF (2018) What is human-like?: decomposing robots’ human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) database. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171268

  39. Pelachaud C (2009) Studies on gesture expressivity for a virtual agent. Speech Commun 51(7):630–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2008.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Castro-González Á, Admoni H, Scassellati B (2016) Effects of form and motion on judgments of social robots’ animacy, likability, trustworthiness and unpleasantness. Int J Hum Comput Stud. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mainprice J, Sisbot E.A, Sim T (2010) Planning safe and legible hand-over motions for human–robot interaction. In: IARP, workshop on technical challenges for dependable robots in human environments

  42. Dehais F, Sisbot EA, Alami R, Causse M (2011) Physiological and subjective evaluation of a human–robot object hand-over task. Appl Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bestick A, Pandya R, Bajcsy R, Dragan AD (2018) Learning human ergonomic preferences for handovers. In: Proceedings—IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2018.8461216

  44. Bortot D, Born M, Bengler K (2013) Directly or on detours? How should industrial robots approximate humans? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483515

  45. Złotowski J, Sumioka H, Nishio S, Glas DF, Bartneck C, Ishiguro H (2016) Appearance of a robot affects the impact of its behaviour on perceived trustworthiness and empathy. Paladyn. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2016-0005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zanatto D, Patacchiola M, Goslin J, Cangelosi A (2016) Priming anthropomorphism: can the credibility of humanlike robots be transferred to non-humanlike robots? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, vol 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451847

  47. Wang X, Krumhuber EG (2018) Mind perception of robots varies with their economic versus social function. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sarsam SM, Al-Samarraie H (2018) Towards incorporating personality into the design of an interface: a method for facilitating users’ interaction with the display. User Model User Adapt Interact 28(1):75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9201-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ullrich D (2017) Robot personality insights. Designing suitable robot personalities for different domains. i-com 16(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2017-0003

  51. Craenen BGW, Deshmukh A, Foster ME, Vinciarelli A (2018) Shaping gestures to shape personality: big-five traits, godspeed scores and the similarity-attraction effect. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. AAMAS’18. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, pp 2221–2223

  52. Abatecola G, Mandarelli G, Poggesi S (2013) The personality factor: how top management teams make decisions. A literature review. J Manag Gov 17:1073–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rossi A, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2018) The impact of peoples’ personal dispositions and personalities on their trust of robots in an emergency scenario. Paladyn J Behav Robotics 9(1):137–154. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2018-0010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rossi S, Conti D, Garramone F, Santangelo G, Staffa M, Varrasi S, Di Nuovo A (2020) The role of personality factors and empathy in the acceptance and performance of a social robot for psychometric evaluations. Robotics 9(2):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/ROBOTICS9020039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Andriella A, Siqueira H, Fu D, Magg S, Barros P, Wermter S, Torras C, Alenyà G (2020) Do I Have a Personality? Endowing care robots with context-dependent personality traits. Int J Soc Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00690-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Bishop L, Van Maris A, Dogramadzi S, Zook N (2019) Social robots: the influence of human and robot characteristics on acceptance. Paladyn. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Abel M, Kuz S, Patel HJ, Petruck H, Schlick CM, Pellicano A, Binkofski FC (2020) Gender effects in observation of robotic and humanoid actions. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Szczepanowski R, Cichoń E, Arent K, Sobecki J, Styrkowiec P, Florkowski M, Gakis M (2020) Education biases perception of social robots. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2020.100521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Dinet J, Vivian R (2014) Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Travail Humain. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.772.0105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ivanov S, Webster C, Seyyedi P (2018) Consumers’ attitudes towards the introduction of robots in accommodation establishments. Tourism 63:302–317

    Google Scholar 

  61. Müller SL, Richert A (2018) The big-five personality dimensions and attitudes to-wards robots: a cross sectional study. In: Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments conference. PETRA’18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 405–408. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197768.3203178

  62. Kuz S, Faber M, Bützler J, Mayer M, Schlick C (2014) Anthropomorphic design of human–robot interaction in assembly cells

  63. Walters M, Koay K, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2007) Robot to human approaches: preliminary results on comfortable distances and preferences, p 103

  64. Riggio RE, Friedman HS (1986) Impression formation. The role of expressive behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(2):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Neff M, Wang Y, Abbott R, Walker M (2010) Evaluating the effect of gesture and language on personality perception in conversational agents. In: Intelligent virtual agents, 10th international conference

  66. Windhouwer D (2012) The effects of the task context on the perceived personality of a Nao robot

  67. Charness G, Gneezy U, Kuhn MA (2012) Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J Econ Behav Organ 81(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Prati E, Peruzzini M, Pellicciari M, Raffaeli R (2021) How to include user experience in the design of human–robot interaction. Robotics Comput Integr Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Weiss A, Wortmeier AK, Kubicek B (2021) Cobots in industry 4.0: a roadmap for future practice studies on human–robot collaboration. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3092684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. The Manufacturing Institute, APICS Supply Chain Council, and Deloitte (2015): Minding the manufacturing gender gap—how manufacturers can get their fair share of talented women, retrieved Aug 08, 2022. Technical report, Deloitte (2015)

  71. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3):425–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robotics 2(4):361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Weiss A, Wien TU, Bernhaupt R, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) The USUS evaluation framework for human–robot interaction SmartWebGrid view project the USUS evaluation framework for human–robot interaction. In: Artificial intelligence and simulation of behaviour, pp 158–165

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, University of St. Gallen, Rosenbergstrasse 30, 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Damian Hostettler & Simon Mayer

  2. Institute of Behavioral Science and Technology, University of St. Gallen, Torstrasse 25, 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Christian Hildebrand

Authors
  1. Damian Hostettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Hildebrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Damian Hostettler, Simon Mayer or Christian Hildebrand.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

The Ethics Committee of the University of St. Gallen has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Repeated Measures ANOVAs

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Table 8 Repeated measures ANOVAs for movement parameter part approach
Full size table
Table 9 Repeated measures ANOVAs for movement parameter smoothness
Full size table
Table 10 Repeated measures ANOVAs for movement parameter rotation
Full size table
Table 11 Repeated measures ANOVAs for movement parameter movement range
Full size table
Table 12 Repeated measures ANOVAs for movement parameter approach direction
Full size table

1.2 Paired Samples T-Tests

See Tables 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

Table 13 Paired samples T-tests for movement parameter speed
Full size table
Table 14 Paired samples T-tests for movement parameter part approach
Full size table
Table 15 Paired samples T-tests for movement parameter smoothness
Full size table
Table 16 Paired samples T-tests for movement parameter rotation
Full size table
Table 17 Paired samples T-tests for movement parameter movement range
Full size table
Table 18 Paired samples T-tests for movement parameter approach direction
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hostettler, D., Mayer, S. & Hildebrand, C. Human-Like Movements of Industrial Robots Positively Impact Observer Perception. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 1399–1417 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00954-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00954-2

Keywords