Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Secret Life of Robots: Perspectives and Challenges for Robot’s Behaviours During Non-interactive Tasks

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

Abstract

Some applications of service robots within domestic and working environments are envisaged to be a significant part of our lives in the not too distant future. They are developed to autonomously accomplish different tasks either on behalf of or in collaboration with a human being. Robots can perceive and interpret data from the external environment, so they also collect personal information and habits; they can plan, navigate, and manipulate objects, eventually intruding in our personal space and disturbing us in the current activities. Indeed, such capabilities need to be socially enhanced to ensure their effective deployment and to favour a significant social impact. The modelling and evaluation of a service robot’s behaviour, while not interacting with a human, have only been marginally considered in the last few years. But these can be expected to play a key role in developing socially acceptable robotic applications that can be used widely. To explore this research direction, we present research objectives related to the effective development of socially-aware service robots that are not involved in tasks that require explicit interaction with a person. Such discussion aims at highlighting some of the future challenges that will be posed for the social robotics community in the next years.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.ros.org.

  2. https://developer.amazon.com/alexa.

References

  1. Abich J, Barber DJ (2017) The impact of human–robot multimodal communication on mental workload, usability preference, and expectations of robot behavior. J Multimodal User Interfaces 11(2):211–225

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alonso V, de la Puente P (2018) System transparency in shared autonomy: a mini review. Front Neurorobot 12:83

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson DJ, Clancey WJ, Clark MH (2014) Shared awareness, autonomy and trust in human–robot teamwork. In: AAAI spring symposium on artificial intelligence and human–computer interaction

  4. Bacciu D, Gallicchio C, Micheli A, Di Rocco M, Saffiotti A (2014) Learning context-aware mobile robot navigation in home environments. In: 5th international conference on information, intelligence, systems and applications, pp 57–62

  5. Bajcsy A, Herbert SL, Fridovich-Keil D, Fisac JF, Deglurkar S, Dragan AD, Tomlin CJ (2019) A scalable framework for real-time multi-robot, multi-human collision avoidance. In: 2019 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 936–943 (2019)

  6. Banerjee S, Silva A, Chernova S (2018) Robot classification of human interruptibility and a study of its effects. ACM Trans Hum Robot Interact 7(2):14:1–14:35

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baraka K, Paiva A, Veloso M (2016) Expressive lights for revealing mobile service robot state. In: Robot 2015: second Iberian robotics conference. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 107–119

  8. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2012) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York

  9. Belanche Daniel, Casaló LV, Flavián C, Schepers J (2019) Service robot implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda. Serv Ind J 40(3–4):203–225

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bera A, Randhavane T, Prinja R, Manocha D (2017) Sociosense: robot navigation amongst pedestrians with social and psychological constraints. In: 2017 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 7018–7025

  11. Booth S, Tompkin J, Pfister H, Waldo J, Gajos K, Nagpal R (2017) Piggybacking robots: human–robot overtrust in university dormitory security. ACM, pp 426–434

  12. Bortot D, Born M, Bengler K (2013) Directly or on detours? How should industrial robots approximate humans? In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 89–90

  13. Broz F, Nourbakhsh I, Simmons R (2013) Planning for human–robot interaction in socially situated tasks. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):193–214

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bruno B, Recchiuto CT, Papadopoulos I, Saffiotti A, Koulouglioti C, Menicatti R, Mastrogiovanni F, Zaccaria R, Sgorbissa A (2019) Knowledge representation for culturally competent personal robots: requirements, design principles, implementation, and assessment. Int J Soc Robot 11(3):515–538

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bruno B, Mastrogiovanni F, Pecora F, Sgorbissa A, Saffiotti A (2017) A framework for culture-aware robots based on fuzzy logic. In: IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp 1–6

  16. Carlucci FM, Nardi L, Iocchi L, Nardi D (2015) Explicit representation of social norms for social robots. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 4191–4196

  17. Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Rasconi R, Pecora F, Scopelliti M, Tiberio L (2011) Monitoring elderly people with the robocare domestic environment: interaction synthesis and user evaluation. Comput Intell 27(1):60–82

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Chakraborti T, Kulkarni A, Sreedharan S, Smith DE, Kambhampati S (2019) Explicability? legibility? predictability? transparency? privacy? security? the emerging landscape of interpretable agent behavior. In: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international conference on automated planning and scheduling, ICAPS 2018, Berkeley, CA, USA, July 11–15, pp 86–96

  19. Chen W, Zhang T, Zou Y (2018) Mobile robot path planning based on social interaction space in social environment. Int J Adv Robot Syst 15(3):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chiang TC, Bruno B, Menicatti R, Recchiuto CT, Sgorbissa A (2019) Culture as a sensor? A novel perspective on human activity recognition. Int J Social Robot 11:797–814

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chibani A, Amirat Y, Mohammed S, Matson E, Hagita N, Barreto M (2013) Ubiquitous robotics: recent challenges and future trends. Robot Auton Syst 61(11):1162–1172

    Google Scholar 

  22. Choi JK, Ji YG (2015) Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 31(10):692–702

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cirillo M, Karlsson L, Saffiotti A (2010) Human-aware task planning: an application to mobile robots. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 1(2):15:1–15:26

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cohn N (2016) A multimodal parallel architecture: a cognitive framework for multimodal interactions. Cognition 146:304–323

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cresswell K, Cunningham-Burley S, Sheikh A (2018) Healthcare robotics: a qualitative exploration of key challenges and future directions. J Med Internet Res 20:e10410

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cristani M, Paggetti G, Vinciarelli A, Bazzani L, Menegaz G, Murino V (2011) Towards computational proxemics: inferring social relations from interpersonal distances. In: IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust, pp 290–297

  27. Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dautenhahn K, Ogden B, Quick T (2002) From embodied to socially embedded agents—implications for interaction-aware robots. Cognit Syst Res 3(3):397–428

    Google Scholar 

  29. de Graaf MM, Ben Allouch S, van Dijk JA (2016) Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interact Stud 17(3):461–490

    Google Scholar 

  30. de Graaf MMA, Allouch SB, van Dijk JAGM (2019) Why would i use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Hum-Comput Interact 34(2):115–173

    Google Scholar 

  31. de Lima ES, Feijó B (2019) Artificial intelligence in human–robot interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 187–199

    Google Scholar 

  32. de Graaf M, Ben Allouch S, van Dijk J (2017) Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’17. ACM, pp 224–233

  33. Devin S, Alami R (2016) An implemented theory of mind to improve human–robot shared plans execution. In: 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 319–326

  34. Devin S, Clodic A, Alami R (2017) About decisions during human–robot shared plan achievement: who should act and how? In: Social robotics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 453–463

  35. Di Napoli C, Rossi S (2019) A layered architecture for socially assistive robotics as a service. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, SMC, pp 352–357

  36. Diego G, Arras TKO (2011) Please do not disturb! minimum interference coverage for social robots. In: 2011 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 1968–1973

  37. Dragan AD, Bauman S, Forlizzi J, Srinivasa SS (2015) Effects of robot motion on human–robot collaboration. In: 2015 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 51–58

  38. Dragone M, Saunders J, Dautenhahn K (2015) On the integration of adaptive and interactive robotic smart spaces. Paladyn J Behav Robot 6:165–179

    Google Scholar 

  39. Drijvers L, Özyürek A (2017) Visual context enhanced: the joint contribution of iconic gestures and visible speech to degraded speech comprehension. J Speech Lang Hear Res 60(1):212–222

    Google Scholar 

  40. Duarte NF, Raković M, Tasevski J, Coco MI, Billard A, Santos-Victor J (2018) Action anticipation: reading the intentions of humans and robots. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 3(4):4132–4139

    Google Scholar 

  41. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):177–190

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Ercolano G, Raggioli L, Leone E, Ruocco M, Savino E, Rossi S (2018) Seeking and approaching users in domestic environments: testing a reactive approach on two commercial robots. In: IEEE RO-MAN, pp 808–813

  43. Ercolano G, Riccio D, Rossi S (2017) Two deep approaches for adl recognition: A multi-scale lstm and a cnn-lstm with a 3d matrix skeleton representation. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 877–882

  44. Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S (2011) Effects of anticipated human–robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism. In: 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 61–67

  45. Feil Seifer D, Skinner K, Mataric MJ (2007) Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact Stud 8(3):423–439

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fischer K, Yang S, Mok BK, Maheshwari R, Sirkin D, Ju W (2015) Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: a robotic trash can in the field. In: AAAI spring symposia

  47. Foster ME, Gaschler A, Giuliani M (2017) Automatically classifying user engagement for dynamic multi-party human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 9(5):659–674

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gielniak MJ, Thomaz AL (2011) Generating anticipation in robot motion. In: 2011 RO-MAN, pp 449–454

  49. Goodrich MA, Olsen DRJ (2003) Metrics for evaluating human–robot interactions. In: Proceedings of PERMIS, vol 2003, p 4

  50. Grzyb B, Vigliocco G (2020) Beyond robotic speech: mutual benefits to cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence from the joint study of multimodal communication. preprint psyarxiv

  51. Guo F, Li M, Qu Q, Duffy VG (2019) The effect of a humanoid robot’s emotional behaviors on users’ emotional responses: evidence from pupillometry and electroencephalography measures. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 35(20):1947–1959

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, de Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Human Factors J Human Factors Ergon Soc 53(5):517–527

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hersh M (2015) Overcoming barriers and increasing independence—service robots for elderly and disabled people. Int J Adv Robot Syst 12(8):114

    Google Scholar 

  54. Holler J, Levinson SC (2019) Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends Cognit Sci 23(8):639–652

    Google Scholar 

  55. Huang C, Mutlu B (2016) Anticipatory robot control for efficient human–robot collaboration. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 83–90

  56. Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971

    Google Scholar 

  57. Karami AB, Sehaba K, Encelle B (2013) Adaptive and personalised robots—learning from users’ feedback. In: 2013 IEEE 25th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, pp 626–632

  58. Khambhaita H, Alami R (2017) Assessing the social criteria for human–robot collaborative navigation: a comparison of human-aware navigation planners. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 1140–1145

  59. Kidd CD, Breazeal C (2008) Robots at home: understanding long-term human–robot interaction. In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3230–3235

  60. Koay KL, Lakatos G, Syrdal DS, Gàcsi M, Bereczky B, Dautenhahn K, Miklósi A, Walters ML (2013) Hey! there is someone at your door. A hearing robot using visual communication signals of hearing dogs to communicate intent. In: 2013 IEEE symposium on artificial life (ALife), pp 90–97

  61. Koay KL, Syrdal D, Bormann R, Saunders J, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2017) Initial design, implementation and technical evaluation of a context-aware proxemics planner for a social robot. In: Social robotics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 12–22

  62. Koppula HS, Saxena A (2016) Anticipating human activities using object affordances for reactive robotic response. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 38(1):14–29

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kostavelis I, Vasileiadis M, Skartados E, Kargakos A, Giakoumis D, Bouganis CS, Tzovaras D (2019) Understanding of human behavior with a robotic agent through daily activity analysis. Int J Soc Robot 11(3):437–462

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kotseruba I, Tsotsos JK (2020) 40 years of cognitive architectures: core cognitive abilities and practical applications. Artif Intell Rev 53(1):17–94

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kriz S, Ferro TD, Damera P, Porter JR (2010) Fictional robots as a data source in HRI research: exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations. In: RO-MAN. IEEE, pp 458–463

  66. Kruse T, Pandey AK, Alami R, Kirsch A (2013) Human-aware robot navigation: a survey. Robot Auton Syst 61(12):1726–1743

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kruse T, Basili P, Glasauer S, Kirsch A (2012) Legible robot navigation in the proximity of moving humans. In: 2012 IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), pp 83–88

  68. Kuderer M, Kretzschmar H, Sprunk C, Burgard W (2012) Feature-based prediction of trajectories for socially compliant navigation. In: Robotics: science and systems VIII, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, July 9–13, 2012

  69. Kumar Pandey A, Gelin R, Alami R, Viry R, Buendia A, Meertens R, Chetouani M, Devillers L, Tahon M, Filliat D, Grenier Y, Maazaoui M, Kheddar A, Lerasle F, Fitte-Duval L (2014) Romeo2 project: humanoid robot assistant and companion for everyday life: I. Situation assessment for social intelligence. In: AIC: artificial intelligence and cognition, vol 1315, pp 140–147. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org), Torino, Italy

  70. Lakatos G, Gácsi M, Tajti F, Koay KL, Janiak M, Faragó T, Devecseri V, Kovács S, Tchoń K, Dautenhahn K, Korondi P, Miklósi Á (2013) Dog-inspired social behaviour in robots with different embodiments. In: IEEE 4th international conference on cognitive infocommunications, CogInfoCom 2013

  71. Le BH, Ma X, Deng Z (2012) Live speech driven head-and-eye motion generators. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 18(11):1902–1914

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lee MK, Kiesler S, Forlizzi J, Rybski P (2012) Ripple effects of an embedded social agent: a field study of a social robot in the workplace. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 695–704 (2012)

  73. Lehmann H, Saez-Pons J, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2015) In good company? perception of movement synchrony of a non-anthropomorphic robot. PLoS ONE 10(5):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lemaignan S, Ros R, Mösenlechner L, Alami R, Beetz M (2010) Oro, a knowledge management platform for cognitive architectures in robotics. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3548–3553

  75. Lichtenthäler C, Lorenz T, Karg M, Kirsch A (2012) Increasing perceived value between human and robots- measuring legibility in human aware navigation. In: 2012 IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), pp 89–94

  76. Lichtenthaler C, Lorenzy T, Kirsch A (2012) Influence of legibility on perceived safety in a virtual human–robot path crossing task. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 676–681

  77. Loth S, De Ruiter JP (2016) Editorial: Understanding social signals: how do we recognize the intentions of others? Front Psychol 7:281

    Google Scholar 

  78. Luber M, Spinello L, Silva J, Arras KO (2012) Socially-aware robot navigation: a learning approach. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 902–907

  79. Magnanimo V, Saveriano M, Rossi S, Lee D (2014) A Bayesian approach for task recognition and future human activity prediction. In: 2014 RO-MAN: the 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 726–731

  80. Martelaro N, Nneji VC, Ju W, Hinds P (2016) Tell me more designing hri to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 181–188

  81. Mastrogiovanni F, Scalmato A, Sgorbissa APA, Zaccaria PR (2011) Robots and intelligent environments: knowledge representation and distributed context assessment. Automatika 52(3):256–268

    Google Scholar 

  82. Mehdi SA, Berns K (2014) A survey of human location estimation in a home environment. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 135–140

  83. Mikawa M, Yoshikawa Y, Fujisawa M (2018) Expression of intention by rotational head movements for teleoperated mobile robot. In: 2018 IEEE 15th international workshop on advanced motion control (AMC), pp 249–254

  84. Milliez G, Warnier M, Clodic A, Alami R (2014) A framework for endowing an interactive robot with reasoning capabilities about perspective-taking and belief management. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 1103–1109. IEEE

  85. Mollaret C, Mekonnen A, Lerasle F, Ferrané I, Pinquier J, Boudet B, Rumeau P (2016) A multi-modal perception based assistive robotic system for the elderly. Comput Vis Image Underst 149:78–97. Special issue on Assistive Computer Vision and Robotics—Assistive Solutions for Mobility, Communication and HMI

  86. Naveed Uddin M (2019) Cognitive science and artificial intelligence: simulating the human mind and its complexity. Cognit Comput Syst 1(4):113–116

    Google Scholar 

  87. Nigam A, Riek LD (2015) Social context perception for mobile robots. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 3621–3627

  88. Nomura T, Kawakami K (2011) Relationships between robot’s self-disclosures and human’s anxiety toward robots. In: 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, vol 3, pp 66–69

  89. Papenmeier F, Uhrig M, Kirsch A (2019) Human understanding of robot motion: the role of velocity and orientation. Int J Soc Robot 11(1):75–88

    Google Scholar 

  90. Qureshi AH, Nakamura Y, Yoshikawa Y, Ishiguro H (2016) Robot gains social intelligence through multimodal deep reinforcement learning. In: 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids), pp 745–751

  91. Raggioli L, Rossi S (2019) A reinforcement-learning approach for adaptive and comfortable assistive robot monitoring behavior. In: 2019 28th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN)

  92. Rentschler AJ, Cooper RA, Blasch B, Boninger ML (2007) Intelligent walkers for the elderly: performance and safety testing of va-pamaid robotic walker. J Rehabil Res Dev 40(5):423–432

    Google Scholar 

  93. Rios-Martinez J, Spalanzani A, Laugier C (2015) From proxemics theory to socially-aware navigation: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 7(2):137–153

    Google Scholar 

  94. Rossi S, Ferland F, Tapus A (2017) User profiling and behavioral adaptation for HRI: a survey. Pattern Recognit Lett 99(Supplement C):3–12

    Google Scholar 

  95. Rossi A, Dautenhahn K, Koay K, Walters ML (2017) How the timing and magnitude of robot errors influence peoples’ trust of robots in an emergency scenario. In: Social robotics—ICSR, vol 10652. Springer, Cham

  96. Rossi S, Ercolano G, Raggioli L, Savino E, Ruocco M (2018) The disappearing robot: an analysis of disengagement and distraction during non-interactive tasks. In: 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 522–527

  97. Rossi A, Garcia F, Maya AC, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML, Pandey AK (2019) Investigating the effects of social interactive behaviours of a robot on people’s trust during a navigation task. In: Towards autonomous robotic systems. Springer, pp 349–361

  98. Rossi A, Holthaus P, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2018) Getting to know pepper: effects of people’s awareness of a robot’s capabilities on their trust in the robot. In: International conference on human-agent interaction (HAI)

  99. Rossi S, Staffa M, Giordano M, De Gregorio M, Rossi A, Tamburro A, Vellucci C (2015) Robot head movements and human effort in the evaluation of tracking performance. In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 791–796

  100. Roy N, Misra A, Cook D (2016) Ambient and smartphone sensor assisted adl recognition in multi-inhabitant smart environments. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 7(1):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  101. Rueben M, Aroyo AM, Lutz C, Schmölz J, Van Cleynenbreugel P, Corti A Agrawal S, Smart WD (2018) Themes and research directions in privacy-sensitive robotics. In: 2018 IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), pp 77–84

  102. Rueben M, Grimm C, Bernieri FJ, Smart WD (2017) A taxonomy of privacy constructs for privacy-sensitive robotics. arXiv:1701.00841

  103. Saerbeck M, Bartneck C (2010) Perception of affect elicited by robot motion. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 53–60

  104. 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 Robot 5(3):313–323

    Google Scholar 

  105. Sasabuchi K, Ikeuchi K, Inaba M (2018) Agreeing to interact: understanding interaction as human–robot goal conflicts. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’18, pp 21–28

  106. Schilke O, Reimann M, Cook KS (2013) Effect of relationship experience on trust recovery following a breach. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, pp 15236–15241

  107. Schulz T, Herstad J, Holone H (2018) Privacy at home: an inquiry into sensors and robots for the stay at home elderly. In: Zhou J, Salvendy G (eds) Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Applications in health, assistance, and entertainment. Springer, Cham, pp 377–394

    Google Scholar 

  108. Sciutti A, Mara M, Tagliasco V, Sandini G (2018) Humanizing human–robot interaction: on the importance of mutual understanding. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 37(1):22–29

    Google Scholar 

  109. Shah R, Nagaraja S (2019) Privacy with surgical robotics: challenges in applying contextual privacy theory. CoRR. arXiv:1909.01862

  110. Shiomi M, Zanlungo F, Hayashi K, Kanda T (2014) Towards a socially acceptable collision avoidance for a mobile robot navigating among pedestrians using a pedestrian model. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):443–455

    Google Scholar 

  111. Shi C, Shimada M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011) Spatial formation model for initiating conversation. In: Proceedings of robotics: science and systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA

  112. Shu T, Gao X, Ryoo MS, Zhu S (2017) Learning social affordance grammar from videos: transferring human interactions to human–robot interactions. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 1669–1676

  113. Sirithunge HPC, Muthugala MAVJ, Buddhika AG, Jayasekara P, Chandima DP (2017) Interpretation of interaction demanding of a user based on nonverbal behavior in a domestic environment. In: IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, pp 1–8

  114. Steinfeld A, Fong T, Kaber D, Lewis M, Scholtz J, Schultz A, Goodrich M (2006) Common metrics for human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’06. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 33–40

  115. Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Gácsi M, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2010) Video prototyping of dog-inspired non-verbal affective communication for an appearance constrained robot. In: RO-MAN, pp 632–637

  116. Trinh LA, Ekström M, Cürüklü B (2018) Toward shared working space of human and robotic agents through dipole flow field for dependable path planning. Front Neurorobot 12:28

    Google Scholar 

  117. Turnwald A, Wollherr D (2019) Human-like motion planning based on game theoretic decision making. Int J Soc Robot 11(1):151–170

    Google Scholar 

  118. Umbrico A, Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Orlandini A (2020) A holistic approach to behavior adaptation for socially assistive robots. Int J Soc Robot

  119. van den Brule R, Bijlstra G, Dotsch R, Haselager P, Wigboldus DHJ (2016) Warning signals for poor performance improve human–robot interaction. J Hum Robot Interact 5(2):69–89

    Google Scholar 

  120. Vaufreydaz D, Johal W, Combe C (2016) Starting engagement detection towards a companion robot using multimodal features. Robot Auton Syst 75:4–16

    Google Scholar 

  121. Vigliocco G, Perniss P, Vinson D (2014) Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 369(1651):20130292

    Google Scholar 

  122. Walker M, Hedayati H, Lee J, Szafir D (2018) Communicating robot motion intent with augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 316–24

  123. Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Tscheligi M (2011) The usus evaluation framework for user-centered HRI. Adv Interacti Stud 2:89–110

    Google Scholar 

  124. Wykowska A, Chellali R, Al-Amin MM, Müller HJ (2014) Implications of robot actions for human perception. How do we represent actions of the observed robots? Int J Soc Robot 6(3):357–366

    Google Scholar 

  125. Zhou A, Hadfield-Menell D, Nagabandi A, Dragan AD (2017) Expressive robot motion timing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI

  126. Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347–360

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was partially funded by MIUR (Italian Ministry of Education, Universities, and Research) within the PRIN2015 research project UPA4SAR—User-centered Profiling and Adaptation for Socially Assistive Robotics (Grant No. 2015KBL78T), and the European Union’s horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 642667 (safety enables cooperation in uncertain robotic environments—secure). This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada 150 Research Chairs Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Silvia Rossi

  2. University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

    Alessandra Rossi & Kerstin Dautenhahn

  3. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

    Kerstin Dautenhahn

Authors
  1. Silvia Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandra Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kerstin Dautenhahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Rossi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rossi, S., Rossi, A. & Dautenhahn, K. The Secret Life of Robots: Perspectives and Challenges for Robot’s Behaviours During Non-interactive Tasks. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 1265–1278 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00650-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00650-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation