Taichi Hirayama
ABSTRACT
Such multiple agent interactions as robot-robot interactions are one effective approach to indirectly provide information, unlike direct interactions between people and agents. Several studies reported the effectiveness of this approach and developed conversational mechanisms for robot-robot interaction, although their physical interaction design for robot-robot interaction remains relatively less focused. This study concentrated on the effects of speed in touching behaviors between robots, because people may perceive the relationships shared between robots differently due to various motion speeds even though the motion is identical. Therefore, we conducted two web-survey experiments to investigate the perceptions of a robot's touching motion and how the relationship between two robots was perceived when a robot touched another at different speeds. The first experiment showed two peak speeds where people perceived a robot's touch as patting (friendly touch) or slapping (aggressive touch). The second experiment results showed similar peak speeds where people perceived the relationships between robots as positive or negative to patting or slapping behaviors. We believe that knowledge about the relationships between motion speeds and perceived friendliness between robots will contribute to design physical interaction between robots.
Supplemental Material
- X. Z. Tan, S. Regi, E. J. Carter, and A. Steinfeld, “From one to another: how robot-robot interaction affects users' perceptions following a transition between robots,” in 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 114-122, 2019.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- M. R. Fauna, B. C. Foisted, C. E. Sembrowski, K. A. Gates, M. M. Krupp, and S. Šabanović, “Effects of robot-human versus robot-robot behavior and entitativity on anthropomorphism and willingness to interact,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 105, pp. 106220, 2020.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Erel, Y. Cohen, K. Shafrir, S. D. Levy, I. D. Vidra, T. Shem Tov, and O. Zuckerman, “Excluded by Robots: Can Robot-Robot-Human Interaction Lead to Ostracism?,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 312-321, 2021.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Iio, Y. Yoshikawa, and H. Ishiguro, “Pre-scheduled Turn-Taking between Robots to Make Conversation Coherent,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, Biopolis, Singapore, pp. 19-25, 2016.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Iio, Y. Yoshikawa, and H. Ishiguro, “Double-meaning agreements by two robots to conceal incoherent agreements to user's opinions,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 35, no. 19, pp. 1145-1155, 2021.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Sakamoto, K. Hayashi, T. Kanda, M. Shiomi, S. Koizumi, H. Ishiguro, T. Ogasawara, and N. Hagita, “Humanoid Robots as a Broadcasting Communication Medium in Open Public Spaces,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 157-169, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Iio, Y. Yoshikawa, and H. Ishiguro, “Retaining Human-Robots Conversation: Comparing Single Robot to Multiple Robots in a Real Event,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence Intelligent Informatics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 675-685, 2017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Shiomi, S. Okumura, M. Kimoto, T. Iio, and K. Shimohara, “Two is better than one: Social rewards from two agents enhance offline improvements in motor skills more than single agent,” PloS one, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. e0240622, 2020.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Tamura, M. Shiomi, M. Kimoto, T. Iio, K. Shimohara, and N. Hagita, “Robots as an interactive-social medium in storytelling to multiple children,” Interaction Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 110-140, 2021.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Okada, R. Taniguchi, A. Tatsumi, M. Okubo, M. Kimoto, T. Iio, K. Shimohara, and M. Shiomi, “Effects of Touch Behaviors and Whispering Voices in Robot-Robot Interaction for Information Providing Tasks,” in 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 7-13.Google Scholar
- J. S. Downs, M. B. Holbrook, S. Sheng, and L. F. Cranor, “Are your participants gaming the system? screening mechanical turk workers,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 2399–2402, 2010.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. M. Oppenheimer, T. Meyvis, and N. Davidenko, “Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power,” Journal of experimental social psychology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 867-872, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Law, B. F. Malle, and M. Scheutz, “A touching connection: how observing robotic touch can affect human trust in a robot,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 2003-2019, 2021.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. T. Suvilehto, E. Glerean, R. I. M. Dunbar, R. Hari, and L. Nummenmaa, “Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 112, no. 45, pp. 13811-13816, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. T. Suvilehto, L. Nummenmaa, T. Harada, R. I. Dunbar, R. Hari, R. Turner, N. Sadato, and R. Kitada, “Cross-cultural similarity in relationship-specific social touching,” Journal of Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 286, no. 1901, pp. 20190467, 2019.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. J. A. M. Willemse, A. Toet, and J. B. F. van Erp, “Affective and Behavioral Responses to Robot-Initiated Social Touch: Toward Understanding the Opportunities and Limitations of Physical Contact in Human–Robot Interaction,” Frontiers in ICT, vol. 4, no. 12, 2017.Google Scholar
- B. Alenljung, R. Andreasson, R. Lowe, E. Billing, and J. Lindblom, “Conveying Emotions by Touch to the Nao Robot: A User Experience Perspective,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 82, 2018.Google ScholarCross Ref
- X. Zheng, M. Shiomi, T. Minato, and H. Ishiguro, “What Kinds of Robot's Touch Will Match Expressed Emotions?,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, pp. 127-134, 2019.Google Scholar
- M. Shiomi, K. Shatani, T. Minato, and H. Ishiguro, “Does a Robot's Subtle Pause in Reaction Time to People's Touch Contribute to Positive Influences?,” in 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 364-369, 2018.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Shiomi, K. Shatani, T. Minato, and H. Ishiguro, “How should a Robot React before People's Touch?: Modeling a Pre-Touch Reaction Distance for a Robot's Face,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3773-3780, 2018.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Sakamoto, and H. Ishiguro, “Geminoid: Remote-controlled android system for studying human presence,” Kansei Engineering International, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3-9, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. F. Glas, T. Minato, C. T. Ishi, T. Kawahara, and H. Ishiguro, “Erica: The erato intelligent conversational android,” in Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on, pp. 22-29, 2016.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Shiomi, H. Sumioka, K. Sakai, T. Funayama, and T. Minato, “SŌTO: An Android Platform with a Masculine Appearance for Social Touch Interaction,” in Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 447–449, 2020.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Yu, E. Hui, J. Lee, D. Poon, A. Ng, K. Sit, K. Ip, F. Yeung, M. Wong, and T. Shibata, “Use of a Therapeutic, Socially Assistive Pet Robot (PARO) in Improving Mood and Stimulating Social Interaction and Communication for People With Dementia: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial,” JMIR research protocols, vol. 4, no. 2, 2015.Google Scholar
- N. Yoshida, S. Yonemura, M. Emoto, K. Kawai, N. Numaguchi, H. Nakazato, S. Otsubo, M. Takada, and K. Hayashi, “Production of character animation in a home robot: A case study of lovot,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 39-54, 2022.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- What is the speed boundary between patting and slapping by a robot?: Investigating perceptions toward robot-robot interaction
Recommendations
The effects of robot touch and proactive behaviour on perceptions of human-robot interactions.
HRI '09: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interactionDespite robots' embodiment, the effect of physical contact or touch and its interaction with robots' autonomous behaviour has been a mostly overlooked aspect of human-robot interaction. This video-based, 2x2 between-subject survey experiment (N=119) ...
Inflated roly-poly
TEI '12: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied InteractionWe present an air-contained display medium that can be directly deformed and spatially moved by various physical interaction techniques for interactive games. We first investigated familiar objects in our everyday lives that allow users to easily ...
A new paradigm of humanoid robot motion programming based on touch interpretation
Most humanoid soccer robot teams design the basic movements of their robots, like walking and kicking, off-line and manually. Once these motions are considered satisfactory, they are stored in the robot's memory and played according to a high level ...
Comments