A Comparison of Avatar-, Video-, and Robot-Mediated Interaction on Users’ Trust in Expertise

Pan, Ye; Steed, Anthony

doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00012

Cited by 54 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is similar to the results of the study by Pan and Steed (2016) Furthermore, with a median score of 5, the question related to the effectiveness of the proxy system (Interact_Local) provides a satisfactory evaluation, since the response given by the locals was with respect to the entire experience, including the times when they were actually interacting with the proxy representation. Even though many locals did not immediately realize the moment the visitor had left their destination, they did eventually catch on to the fact that they were not present anymore.…”

Section: System Performancesupporting

confidence: 75%

Multi-Destination Beaming: Apparently Being in Three Places at Once through Robotic and Virtual Embodiment

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been shown that an illusion of ownership over an artificial limb or even an entire body can be induced in people through multisensory stimulation, providing evidence that the surrogate body is the person's actual body. Such body ownership illusions (BOIs) have been shown to occur with virtual bodies, mannequins, and humanoid robots. In this study, we show the possibility of eliciting a full-BOI over not one, but multiple artificial bodies concurrently. We demonstrate this by describing a system that allowed a participant to inhabit and fully control two different humanoid robots located in two distinct places and a virtual body in immersive virtual reality, using real-time full-body tracking and two-way audio communication, thereby giving them the illusion of ownership over each of them. We implemented this by allowing the participant be embodied in any one surrogate body at a given moment and letting them instantaneously switch between them. While the participant was embodied in one of the bodies, a proxy system would track the locations currently unoccupied and would control their remote representation in order to continue performing the tasks in those locations in a logical fashion. To test the efficacy of this system, an exploratory study was carried out with a fully functioning setup with three destinations and a simplified version of the proxy for use in a social interaction. The results indicate that the system was physically and psychologically comfortable and was rated highly by participants in terms of usability. Additionally, feelings of BOI and agency were reported, which were not influenced by the type of body representation. The results provide us with clues regarding BOI with humanoid robots of different dimensions, along with insight about self-localization and multilocation.

show abstract

Section: System Performancesupporting

confidence: 75%

Multi-Destination Beaming: Apparently Being in Three Places at Once through Robotic and Virtual Embodiment

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ju and Sirkin, 2010;Kidd and Breazeal, 2004;Komatsu, 2010;Williams and Breazeal, 2013) Facial Affect SHORE (Costa et al, 2016), (Costa et al, 2016;Shahid et al, 2014;Williams and Breazeal, 2013; Elaine S. Short and Matarić, 2017) FACS Coding (Ekman and Friesen, 1975) Takeuchi et al (2006) Honda ASIMO Microsoft Peedy Tapus, Tapus & Mataric (2009) Bandit Virtual Bandit Vossen et al (2009) iCat Voice only Wainer et al (2006) Pioneer 2DX Virtual Pioneer 2DX Wainer et al (2007) Pioneer 2DX Virtual Pioneer 2DX Williams et al (2013) MIT AIDA AIDA on-screen App Wrobel et al (2013) Robulab Virtual Greta Zlotowski (2010) Nabaztag Virtual Nabaztag Table A.3: The results of the reviewed studies broken down by task performance differences and interaction performance differences. Lee et al (2015) N/A Yes N/A Yes Levy-Tzedek et al (2017) Task Performance Yes Leyzberg et al (2012) Task Performance Yes Li and Chignell (2011) Task Performance Yes Ligthart and Truong (2015) N/A Yes Lohan et al (2010) Task Performance, Interaction Performance No Looije et al (2012) Task Performance, Interaction Performance Yes Looije, Neerincx, & Cnossen (2010) N/A Yes Nomura (2009) Task Performance Yes Pan and Steed (2016) Task Performance, Interaction Performance Yes N/A Yes Powers et al (2007) Task Performance, Interaction Performance Yes Robins et al (2006) Task Performance, Interaction Performance Yes Segura et al (2012) Task Performance, Interaction Performance Yes Takeuchi et al (2006) N/A Yes Tapus, Tapus & Mataric (2009) T...…”

Section: Example: Grocer Store Robotmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Creative Superior/Peer (8) (Costa et al, 2016) Costa (2016, Exp. 2 Creative Superior/Peer (8) (Costa et al, 2016) Donahue andScheutz (2015) Performances/Actions Subordinate (1) (Donahue and Scheutz, 2015) Fasola and Mataric (2013) Performances/Actions Superior/Peer (8) (Fasola andMataric, 2013) Fischer et al (2012) Leyzberg et al (2012) 100 Adults US Li and Chignell (2011) 16 Adults Japan Ligthart and Truong (2015) 40 Adults Netherlands Lohan et al (2010) 28 Adults Germany Looije et al (2012) 11 Children Netherlands Looije, Neerincx, & Cnossen (2010) 24 Adults Netherlands Nomura (2009) 37 Adults Japan Pan and Steed (2016) 24 Adults UK 18 Children Portugal Powers et al (2007) 113 Adults US Robins et al (2006) 4 Children UK Segura et al (2012) 42 Adults UK…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Embodiment in Socially Interactive Robots

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical embodiment is a required component for robots that are structurally coupled with their real-world environments. However, most socially interactive robots do not need to physically interact with their environments in order to perform their tasks. When and why should embodied robots be used instead of simpler and cheaper virtual agents?This paper reviews the existing work that explores the role of physical embodiment in socially interactive robots. This class consists of robots that are not only capable of engaging in social interaction with humans, but are using primarily their social capabilities to perform their desired functions. Socially interactive robots provide entertainment, information, and/or assistance; this last category is typically encompassed by socially assistive robotics. In all cases, such robots can achieve their primary functions without performing functional physical work.To comprehensively evaluate the existing body of work on embodiment, we first review work from established related fields including psychology, philosophy, and sociology. We then systematically review 65 studies evaluating aspects of embodiment published from 2003 to 2017 in major peer-reviewed robotics publication venues. We examine relevant aspects of the selected studies, focusing on the embodiments compared, tasks evaluated, social roles of robots, and measurements. We introduce three taxonomies for the types of robot embodiment, robot social roles, and human-robot tasks. These taxonomies are used to deconstruct the design and interaction spaces of socially interactive robots and facilitate analysis and discussion of the reviewed studies. We use this newly-defined methodology to critically discuss existing works, revealing topics within embodiment research for social interaction, assistive robotics, and service robotics, in which more extensive exploration would greatly improve the current understanding of the impact of embodiment on human perception and evaluation of human-robot interactions.The introduced taxonomy for embodiment design is used as a starting point for outlining our characterization of the design space of robot embodiments. The presented arXiv:1912.00312v1 [cs.RO] 1 Dec 2019 characterization can be used to discuss how the physical embodiment of socially interactive robots relates to social capabilities and affordances. By introducing a general model of the design space, existing research findings can better advise robot designers and we discuss how these findings can inform researchers through design decisions in the development of future socially interactive robots.

show abstract

“…Pan and Steed studied the level of trust people have in a surrogate advisor. They tested three surrogate forms: a video of a real human, a virtual human, and a robotic human (Pan and Steed, 2016). Participants had a higher tendency to seek advice from the video or robotic human when making a choice with risk involved.…”

Section: Physicality and Gesturingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Large-Scale Study of Surrogate Physicality and Gesturing on Human–Surrogate Interactions in a Public Space

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological human surrogates, including robotic and virtual humans, have been popularly used in various scenarios, including training, education, and entertainment. Prior research has investigated the effects of the surrogate's physicality and gesturing in human perceptions and social influence of the surrogate. However, those studies have been carried out in research laboratories, where the participants were aware that it was an experiment, and the participant demographics are typically relatively narrowe.g., college students. In this paper, we describe and share results from a large-scale exploratory user study involving 7,685 people in a public space, where they were unaware of the experimental nature of the setting, to investigate the effects of surrogate physicality and gesturing on their behavior during human-surrogate interactions. We evaluate human behaviors using several variables, such as proactivity and reactivity, and proximity. We have identified several interesting phenomena that could lead to hypotheses developed as part of future hypothesis-based studies. Based on the measurements of the variables, we believe people are more likely to be engaged in a human-surrogate interaction when the surrogate is physically present, but movements and gesturing with its body parts have not shown the expected benefits for the interaction engagement. Regarding the demographics of the people in the study, we found higher overall engagement for females than males, and higher reactivity for younger than older people. We discuss implications for practitioners aiming to design a technological surrogate that will directly interact with real humans.

show abstract

A Comparison of Avatar-, Video-, and Robot-Mediated Interaction on Users’ Trust in Expertise

Cited by 54 publications

References 34 publications

Multi-Destination Beaming: Apparently Being in Three Places at Once through Robotic and Virtual Embodiment

Multi-Destination Beaming: Apparently Being in Three Places at Once through Robotic and Virtual Embodiment

Embodiment in Socially Interactive Robots

A Large-Scale Study of Surrogate Physicality and Gesturing on Human–Surrogate Interactions in a Public Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About