skip to main content
10.1145/3371382.3379452acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

The Role of Aesthetics in Robotics and the Rise of Polymorphic Robots

Published:01 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The general topic of this inquiry looks at the methodology of design for new types of companions robots, in the context of a domestic setting. Personalization is essential, but most of Human Robot Interaction (HRI) research focus on adaptive behaviour for social interactions using commercially available devices. These robots represent finite projects, with very little room left for meaningful physical alterations. The goal of this research is to study the impact amongst users, of a robot offering by its conception, a high range of choice for personal customisation.

References

  1. James Henry Auger. 2014. Living With Robots: A Speculative Design Approach. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 1 (2014), 20. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.3. 1.augerGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Josh Bongard. 2014. Why Morphology Matters. In The horizons of Evolutionary robotics, Phil Husbans Patricia Vargas, Ezequiel Di Paolo, Inman Hrvey (Ed.). The MIT Press ©2014, Chapter 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of humanrobot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362, 1480 (2007), 679--704. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Maartje M.A. De Graaf and Somaya Ben Allouch. 2013. Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61, 12 (2013), 1476--1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mauro Dragone, Joe Saunders, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. On the Integration of Adaptive and Interactive Robotic Smart Spaces. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 6, 1 (jan 2015), 165--179. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2015-0009Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Emmanuel Francalanza, Alec Fenech, and Paul Cutajar. 2018. Generative design in the development of a robotic manipulator. Procedia CIRP 67 (2018), 244--249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.12.207Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Frank Hegel. 2012. Effects of a Robot's Aesthetic Design on the attribution of social capabilities. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 469--475. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343796Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Hideki Kozima, Marek P. Michalowski, and Cocoro Nakagawa. 2009. Keepon: A playful robot for research, therapy, and entertainment. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 1 (2009), 3--18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0009--8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Sivam Krish. 2011. A practical generative design method. CAD Computer Aided Design 43, 1 (2011), 88--100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.09.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ryo Midorikawa and Mihoko Niitsuma. 2018. Effects of Touch Experience on Active Human Touch in Human-Robot Interaction. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 22 (2018), 154--159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.11.534Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Mojtaba Khorram Niaki, S. Ali Torabi, and Fabio Nonino. 2019. Why manufacturers adopt additive manufacturing technologies: The role of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 222 (2019), 381--392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 03.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Nike. 2020. Nike by You. https://www.nike.com/nike-by-youGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Irena Papadopoulos and Christina Koulouglioti. 2018. The Influence of Culture on Attitudes Towards Humanoid and Animal-like Robots: An Integrative Review. , 653--665 pages. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12422Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenny Underwood. 2009. The Design of 3D Shape Knitted Preforms. (2009), 186. https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:6130/Underwood.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Michael L. Walters, Dag S. Syrdal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, René te Boekhorst, and Kheng Lee Koay. 2008. Avoiding the uncanny valley: Robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots 24, 2 (2008), 159--178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007--9058--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Yun-Oh Whang, Jeff Allen, Haitao Zhang, Niquelle Sahoury, Barbara E Kahn, and Mary Frances Luce. 2004. Falling in Love With a Product: the Structure of a Romantic Consumer-Product Relationship. Association for consumer research 31 (2004), 316 -- 328. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8907/volumes/v31/NA-31Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Role of Aesthetics in Robotics and the Rise of Polymorphic Robots

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          HRI '20: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
          March 2020
          702 pages
          ISBN:9781450370578
          DOI:10.1145/3371382

          Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 April 2020

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • abstract

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate192of519submissions,37%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader