takayama rss2009 workshop
Post on 15-Nov-2014
120 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Toward a Science of Robotics:Goals and Standards forExperimental Research
Leila TakayamaHuman-Robot InteractionResearch Scientist
Scientific Principles
•Hypothesis testing•Observable, empirical, and
measurable evidence•Reliable•Reproducible and falsifiable
Science & Technology
Variable-based Research
X → Y
“analog, keyboard and receiver input, high fidelity,two-way processing technologies”
Examples of Variables
•System complexity•Interactivity•Similarity to humans•Task types: collaborative, competitive•Synchronicity of interaction•Collocation
Study 1 Self Extension into Robots
Research Questions– What aspects of human-robot interface
design affect feelings of attachment, trust,control, responsibility, and agency inhuman-robot interaction?
– Does one’s sense of self-extension increasewhen a robot is built by the user?
– Does one’s sense of self-extension differbetween more or less anthropomorphicrobots?
Manipulations
Factor 1 (between): car vs. robot
Factor 2 (between): Use of their assembledrobot/car or a preassembled robot/car
Factor 3 (between): assembly vs. noassembly
HypothesesRobot form
Humanoid form is a strong cue ofidentity– H1. People will self extend more into the
car robot than the humanoid.
People extend their positive selfconcept into self-extended objects
– H2. People will prefer the personality ofthe car robot over the humanoid.
9
HypothesesRobot assembler
Building an object promotes self extension– H3. People will self extend more into a
robot they assemble than a robotassembled by another.
People extend their positive self concept intoself-extended objects
– H4. People will prefer the personality of arobot they assemble over a robotassembled by another.
10
Procedure• Participants fill in pre-questionnaire
• Participants given instructions anddiagrams on how to assemble robot
• Participants assemble robot– (M=9 min 49 sec, SD=3 min, 34 sec)
• Participants turn on robot and test it– Tethered control with on/off button
11
Procedure
12
Task game
• Goal is to collect most points in 10 minutes• Bombs sometimes explode when touched• Bomb detonations deduct 30 seconds• Bomb number and time controlled• Questionnaire
Assembler Manipulation
•Manipulating assembler– Self: Built a robot, operated same robot– Other: Built a robot, participants told they
needed to operate a different, identicalrobot
•In fact, all participants operated therobot they built
13
Robot Form Manipulation
Measures:Self extension
Trait overlap– Personality similarity of self and other
•Galinsky and Moskowitz– Overlap in concepts of self and human other
•Kiesler and Kiesler– Self extension into objects
15
Self Other
Measures:Self extension
Determining trait overlap– Thirty item modified Wiggin’s personality test
•Completed by participants about themselves before task•Completed by participants about robot after task
– Delta of items calculated, summed to index•(Cronbach’s α=.86)
– Smaller scores indicate greater overlap ofconcepts of self and robot
16
Measures:Self extension
Self reports• 10 point scales asking about “the device you
guided through the minefield”• Robot control (α=.83)
– Who was more responsible for your generalperformance on this task?
– Who had more control over your generalperformance on this task?
• Sense of team– “I felt that the robot and I were a team.”
17
Measures:Robot personality
•Robot friendliness– Nine item index (α=.90)– cheerful, enthusiastic, extroverted
•Robot integrity– Five item index (α=.73)– Honest, reliable, trustworthy
•Robot malice– Five item index (α=.74)– Dishonest, unkind, harsh
18
Results:Self extension
Trait overlap
19
F(1, 52)=4.04, p<.05, partial η²=.13
Greater trait overlap with car robots than humanoids
Results:Self extension
Robot control
20
Greater relative control attributed to humanoids thanto cars
F(1, 52)=5.47, p<.05, partial η²=.10
Results:Self extension
Sense of team
21
F(1, 52)=8.34, p<.01, partial η²=.14
Self-assembly participants felt more like a team with the robotthan did other-assembly participants
Measures:Robot Personality
Robot friendliness
22
F(1, 52)=4.25, p<.05, partial η²=.08 F(1, 52)=4.23, p<.05, partial η²=.08F(1, 52)=4.23, p<.05, partial η²=.08η²=.08η²
Car robots were friendlier thanhumanoids
Self-assembled robots were friendlierthan robots assembled by others
F(1, 52)=4.25, p<.05, partial η²=.08η²=.08η²
Measures:Robot Personality
Robot integrity
23
Car robots were rated as having more integrity than humanoids
F(1, 52)=4.20, p<.05, partial η²=.08
Measures:Robot Personality
Robot malice
24
F(1, 52)=8.94, p<.01, partial η²=.15 F(1, 52)=4.78, p<.05, partial η²=.08
Humanoid robots were moremalicious than cars
Robots assembled by otherswere more malicious than
self-assembled robots
F(1, 52)=8.94, <.01, partial η²=.15η²=.15η² F(1, 52)=4.78, p<.05, partial η²=.08η²=.08η²
Summary of Results
H1. People will self extend more into the carrobot than the humanoid.
H2. People will prefer the personality of thecar robot over the humanoid.
25
Summary of Results
H3. People will self extend more into a robotthey assemble than a robot assembled byanother.
H4. People will prefer the personality of arobot they assemble over a robot assembledby another.
26
Design Implications
Goal-specific guidelines
– No form, assembly experience is uniquelyoptimal
– Desirability of self extension informs design
27
Design Implications
•When self extension is desired– Tele-operated robots as media, human
representations•Medical care, remote therapy
– Non-humanoid form– Promote pre-mission interaction
•Assembly, customization
28
Design Implications
•When self extension is undesirable– Robots in hostile environments, likely
failures•Search and rescue
– Humanoid form– Minimize pre-mission interaction
•Identical but different robots– Change robot’s name
•Altered robots– Change voice, appearance
29
Limitations and Next Steps
• Broader population• Outside the lab• Using other robots
• Long-term interactions• Long-term effects• Balancing needs of people operating and
encountering robot
30
Study 2Disagreeing Robots
Why would a robot everdisagree with a person?
Research Questions
•What influences an interface’s point ofinteraction? Body location? Voicelocation?
•(How) do politeness strategies fromhuman-human interaction informhuman-computer interaction?
Design Questions
•What influences a robot’s point ofinteraction?
•Where should speakers be placed?•(How) can computer agents influence
human decisions, using effectivepoliteness strategies?
HypothesesH1. People will change their decisions more often
when the robot disagrees with them than when italways agrees with them, even with identicalsubstantive content.
H2. People will feel more similar to (H2a) and morepositively toward (H2b) the agreeing robot than thedisagreeing one.
H3. A disagreeing voice coming from a separatecontrol box will be more acceptable than adisagreeing voice that came from the robotic body.
Study Design (N=40)
20 men and 20 women, balanced across conditions
Disagree 60%
Disagree 0%
Voice location:in box
Voice location:on robot
Between-participants
Procedure
• Write down decisions about desert survival items• For each item
– Tell robot which item to retrieve– Robot responds with survival item information
and judgment about decision– Tell robot which item to retrieve
• Write down final decisions about survival items– These final ratings will be “evaluated”
• Fill out paper questionnaire
Desert survival task
You are one of the members of a geology clubthat is on a field trip to study unusual formationsin the New Mexico desert. It is the last week inJuly. You have been driving over old trails, farfrom any road, in order to see out-of-the-wayformations. At about 10:30 A.M. the speciallyequipped minibus in which your club is ridingoverturns, rolls into a 20-foot ravine, and burns.The driver and professional advisor to the clubare killed. Both of you are relatively uninjured…
Desert survival task
Rank the following items according to their importance to your survival, startingwith 1 for the most important one and proceeding to 12 for the least important one.
______ magnetic compass______ 20-ft by 20-ft piece of heavy-duty, light-blue canvas______ book, Plants in the Desert______ rearview mirror______ large knife______ flashlight (four-battery size)______ one jacket per person______ one transparent, plastic ground cloth (6-ft by 4-ft) per person______ .38-caliber loaded pistol______ one 2-quart plastic canteen per person, full of water______ accurate map of the area______ large box of kitchen matches
Experiment Set-up
Manipulation: Robotdisagreement
Statement Examples
1.
Description
of selected
item
The knife could be helpful in
cutting down stakes to build a
solar still or to build shelter. It
could also assist in cutting down
firewood for a fire.
2.
Judgment:
disagreeing
or agreeing
That is not as
good as…
That is a better
choice than…
3.
Description
of
alternative
item
The pistol, which could be good
for signaling for help. It could
provide an alternative noise
source if your voice is weak due
to dehydration.
4. Request
for final
selection
Which do you choose?
or
MeasuresBehavior• Number of decisions changed
Attitudes• Perceived agreeableness of robot
(2 items, Cronbach’s α=.69)
• Perceived similarity of robot to self(4 items, Cronbach’s α=.94)
• Liking of the robot(8 items, Cronbach’s α=.75)
Perceived robotagreeablenessagreeableness
Perceived similarity to robot
People changed their minds
People like disagreement tocome from elsewhere
Checking against hypothesesH1. People will change their decisions more often
when the robot disagrees with them than when italways agrees with them, even with identicalsubstantive content.
H2. People will feel more similar to (H2a) and morepositively toward (H2b) the agreeing robot than thedisagreeing one.
H3. A disagreeing voice coming from a separatecontrol box will be more acceptable than adisagreeing voice that came from the robotic body.
Theory-orientedInterpretations
•Politeness: distancing•Disembodiment•Perceived source
– Two separate agents: Thinker and doer– Single distributed agent
Design-oriented Implications
• Voices can be more evocative than robot bodies• Agents can be sources of judgment and opinions• People are sensitive to disagreements• Disagreement undermines feelings of similarity• When agreeing 100% of the time, put the voice on the
robot body• When disagreeing (sometimes), put the robot voice
elsewhere
Validity
• face validity: how reasonable a measureseems to be for its concept
• content validity: how thoroughly a measureaddresses the breadth of a concept
• construct validity: how much a measurecausally relates to other variables withinone’s theory
• external validity: how generalizable theresults will be to other systems and contexts
Experiment Designs
•Keep it simple•Ceteris paribus•Random assignment to conditions•Balancing•Standardized tasks and measures•Behavioral and attitudinal measures•Sample representativeness
Stats
•Use with caution!•Especially with
statistical modeling
Reporting Studies
• Research questions andhypotheses
• Statistical significance• Reproducible methods• Discuss limitations• Thoroughly review
related work• Reduce bias in language• Clear labeling• Define terms
Experiment Work Practices
•Pilot stimuli, measures, procedures withmultiple types of pilot participants
•Identifying the important variables andtheir relationships (grounded theory)
Sharing artifacts and code
www.willowgarage.com
Thanks!
Victoria Groom, Clifford Nass
Claudia Jimenez, Alison King, Morgan Ames, CourtneySchultz, Paloma Ochi, Jessica Yuan
Contact: Leila Takayamatakayama@willowgarage.com
Data Frame Model
top related