skip to main content
10.1145/3491102.3517670acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Trusted Listener: The Influence of Anthropomorphic Eye Design of Social Robots on User's Perception of Trustworthiness

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, social robots have become human's important companions. The anthropomorphic features of robots, which are important in building natural user experience and trustable human-robot partnership, have attracted increasing attention. Among these features, eyes attract most audience's attention and are particularly important. This study aims to investigate the influence of robot eye design on users’ trustworthiness perception. Specifically, a simulation robot model was developed. Three sets of experiments involving sixty-six participants were conducted to investigate the effects of (i) visual complexity of eye design, (ii) blink rate, and (iii) gaze aversion of social robots on users’ perceived trustworthiness. Results indicate that high visual complexity and gaze aversion lead to higher perceived trustworthiness and reveal a positive correlation between the perceived anthropomorphic effect of eye design and users’ perceived trust, while a non-significant effect of blink rate has been found. Preliminary suggestions are provided for the design of social robots in future works.

References

  1. Mohammad Soltani Delgosha and Nastaran Hajiheydari. 2021. How human users engage with consumer robots? A dual model of psychological ownership and trust to explain post-adoption behaviours. Computers in Human Behavior 117, 106660. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Aimi S. Ghazali, Jaap Ham, Emilia I. Barakova and Panos Markopoulos. 2018. Effects of Robot Facial Characteristics and Gender in Persuasive Human-Robot Interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5, 73 (2018-June-21). DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00073.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Matthew Marge, Carol Espy-Wilson, Nigel G Ward, Abeer Alwan, Yoav Artzi, Mohit Bansal, Gil Blankenship, Joyce Chai, Hal Daumé III and Debadeepta Dey. 2021. Spoken language interaction with robots: Recommendations for future research. Computer Speech & Language, 101255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lu Lu, Pei Zhang and Tingting Zhang. 2021. Leveraging “human-likeness” of robotic service at restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management 94, 102823. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Tian Xu, Hui Zhang and Chen Yu. 2016. See You See Me. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 6, 1, 1-22. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2882970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Anna Zinina, Liudmila Zaidelman, Nikita Arinkin and Artemiy Kotov. 2020. Non-verbal behavior of the robot companion: a contribution to the likeability. Procedia Computer Science 169, 800-806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Ichiroh Kanaya, Shoichi Doi, Shohei Nakamura and Kazuo Kawasaki. Facial design for humanoid robot ACM Press. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2350046.2350077.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Chris Chesher and Fiona Andreallo. 2021. Eye Machines: Robot Eye, Vision and Gaze. International journal of social robotics. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00777-7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Yuki Okafuji, Jun Baba, Junya Nakanishi, Itaru Kuramoto, Kohei Ogawa, Yuichiro Yoshikawa and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2020. Can a humanoid robot continue to draw attention in an office environment? Advanced Robotics 34, 14, 931-946. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2020.1769724.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Henny Admoni and Brian Scassellati. 2017. Social Eye Gaze in Human-Robot Interaction: A Review. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 6, 1, 25. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.5898/jhri.6.1.admoni.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Sean Andrist, Bilge Mutlu and Adriana Tapus. 2015. Look Like Me: Matching Robot Personality via Gaze to Increase Motivation. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Michal Luria, Jodi Forlizzi and Jessica Hodgins. 2018. The effects of eye design on the perception of social robots. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) IEEE, 1032-1037.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yao Song and Yan Luximon. 2021. The face of trust: The effect of robot face ratio on consumer preference. Computers in Human Behavior 116, 106620. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106620.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Yao Song, Ameersing Luximon and Yan Luximon. 2021. The effect of facial features on facial anthropomorphic trustworthiness in social robots. Applied Ergonomics 94, 103420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Elizabeth Phillips, Xuan Zhao, Daniel Ullman and Bertram F. Malle. What is Human-like? ACM. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Alisa Kalegina, Grace Schroeder, Aidan Allchin, Keara Berlin and Maya Cakmak. 2018. Characterizing the design space of rendered robot faces. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 96-104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Simon Coghlan. 2021. Robots and the Possibility of Humanistic Care. International journal of social robotics, 1-14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Luis-Alberto Perez-Gaspar, Santiago-Omar Caballero-Morales and Felipe Trujillo-Romero. 2016. Multimodal emotion recognition with evolutionary computation for human-robot interaction. Expert Systems with Applications 66, 42-61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 3-4, 143-166. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00372-x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Fei Yan, Abdullah M. Iliyasu and Kaoru Hirota. 2021. Emotion space modelling for social robots. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 100, 104178. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Giuliana Ferrante, Gianpaolo Vitale, Amelia Licari, Laura Montalbano, Giovanni Pilato, Ignazio Infantino, Agnese Augello and Stefania La Grutta. 2020. Social robots and therapeutic adherence: A new challenge in pediatric asthma? Paediatric Respiratory Reviews. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2020.11.001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Huili Chen, Hae Won Park and Cynthia Breazeal. 2020. Teaching and learning with children: Impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children's learning and emotive engagement. Computers & Education 150, 103836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Wonjoon Kim, Nayoung Kim, Joseph B Lyons and Chang S Nam. 2020. Factors affecting trust in high-vulnerability human-robot interaction contexts: A structural equation modelling approach. Applied Ergonomics 85, 103056.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Terhi M. Helminen, Suvi M. Kaasinen and Jari K. Hietanen. 2011. Eye contact and arousal: The effects of stimulus duration. Biological Psychology 88, 1, 124-130. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.07.002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jari K Hietanen. 2018. Affective eye contact: an integrative review. Frontiers in psychology 9, 1587.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Chien-Ming Huang and Bilge Mutlu. 2013. Modeling and Evaluating Narrative Gestures for Humanlike Robots. In Robotics: Science and Systems, 57-64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Bilge Mutlu, Toshiyuki Shiwa, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro and Norihiro Hagita. Footing in human-robot conversations ACM Press. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Spatola Nicolas and Wykowska Agnieszka. 2021. The personality of anthropomorphism: How the need for cognition and the need for closure define attitudes and anthropomorphic attributions toward robots. Computers in Human Behavior 122, 106841.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Brian R Duffy. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 3-4, 177-190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Lara Christoforakos, Alessio Gallucci, Tinatini Surmava-Große, Daniel Ullrich and Sarah Diefenbach. 2021. Can Robots Earn Our Trust the Same Way Humans Do? A Systematic Exploration of Competence, Warmth, and Anthropomorphism as Determinants of Trust Development in HRI. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8, 79 (2021-April-09). DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.640444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Helena Kiilavuori, Veikko Sariola, Mikko J. Peltola and Jari K. Hietanen. 2021. Making eye contact with a robot: Psychophysiological responses to eye contact with a human and with a humanoid robot. Biological Psychology 158, 107989. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Tomomi Onuki, Takafumi Ishinoda, Yoshinori Kobayashi and Yoshinori Kuno. 2013. Design of robot eyes suitable for gaze communication. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) IEEE, 203-204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Carl F DiSalvo, Francine Gemperle, Jodi Forlizzi and Sara Kiesler. 2002. 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, 321-326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. K. Ruhland, C. E. Peters, S. Andrist, J. B. Badler, N. I. Badler, M. Gleicher, B. Mutlu and R. McDonnell. 2015. A Review of Eye Gaze in Virtual Agents, Social Robotics and HCI: Behaviour Generation, User Interaction and Perception. Computer Graphics Forum 34, 6, 299-326. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12603.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Kaname Sano, Keisuke Murata, Ryota Suzuki, Yoshinori Kuno, Daijiro Itagaki and Yoshinori Kobayashi. Museum Guide Robot by Considering Static and Dynamic Gaze Expressions to Communicate with Visitors ACM. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Sean Andrist, Xiang Zhi Tan, Michael Gleicher and Bilge Mutlu. 2014. Conversational gaze aversion for humanlike robots. In 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) IEEE, 25-32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Laura C. Trutoiu, Elizabeth J. Carter, Iain Matthews and Jessica K. Hodgins. 2011. Modeling and animating eye blinks. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 8, 3, 1-17. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2010325.2010327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Siyuan Chen, Julien Epps, Natalie Ruiz and Fang Chen. Eye activity as a measure of human mental effort in HCI ACM Press. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1943403.1943454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Antonio Maffei and Alessandro Angrilli. 2019. Spontaneous blink rate as an index of attention and emotion during film clips viewing. Physiology & Behavior 204, 256-263. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.02.037.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Hang Li, Julien Epps and Siyuan Chen. 2020. Think before you speak: An investigation of eye activity patterns during conversations using eyewear. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 143, 102468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. S Venus Jin and Seounmi Youn. 2021. Why do consumers with social phobia prefer anthropomorphic customer service chatbots? Evolutionary explanations of the moderating roles of social phobia. Telematics and Informatics 62, 101644.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Christoph Bartneck, Takayuki Kanda, Omar Mubin and Abdullah Al Mahmud. 2009. Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence? International journal of social robotics 1, 2, 195-204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Corina Pelau, Dan-Cristian Dabija and Irina Ene. 2021. What makes an AI device human-like? The role of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry. Computers in Human Behavior 122, 106855.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Maike Paetzel-Prüsmann, Giulia Perugia and Ginevra Castellano. 2021. The Influence of robot personality on the development of uncanny feelings. Computers in Human Behavior 120, 106756. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Markus Appel, Birgit Lugrin, Mayla Kühle and Corinna Heindl. 2021. The emotional robotic storyteller: On the influence of affect congruency on narrative transportation, robot perception, and persuasion. Computers in Human Behavior 120, 106749.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jakub Złotowski, Diane Proudfoot, Kumar Yogeeswaran and Christoph Bartneck. 2015. Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. International journal of social robotics 7, 3, 347-360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Trusted Listener: The Influence of Anthropomorphic Eye Design of Social Robots on User's Perception of Trustworthiness

    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
      CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2022
      10459 pages
      ISBN:9781450391573
      DOI:10.1145/3491102

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 April 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format