A Taxonomy to Structure and Analyze Human–Robot Interaction

Abstract

Robotic systems are one of the core technologies that will shape our future. Robots already change our private and professional life by working together with humans in various domains. Evoked by this increasing trend, great variability exists in terms of robots and interaction scenarios. This has boosted research regarding shaping factors of human–robot interaction (HRI). Nevertheless, this variety hinders the comparability and the generalizability of insights. What is needed for efficient research is a structured approach that allows the analysis of superordinate attributes, making previous HRI research comparable, revealing research gaps and thus guiding future research activities. Based on the review of previous HRI frameworks we developed a new HRI taxonomy that (1) takes into account the human, the robot, the interaction and the context of the HRI, (2) is applicable to various HRI scenarios and (3) provides predefined categories to enable structured comparisons of different HRI scenarios. A graphical representation of the taxonomy, including all possible classifications, eases the application to specific HRI scenarios. To demonstrate the use and value of this taxonomy, it is applied to different studies in HRI in order to identify possible reasons for contrasting results. The exemplified applications of the taxonomy underline its value as a basis for reviews and meta-analyses. Moreover, the taxonomy offers a framework for future HRI research as it offers guidance for systematic variations of distinctive variables in HRI.

Impact of Anthropomorphic Robot Design on Trust and Attention in Industrial Human-Robot Interaction

“…Anthropomorphism is broadly defined as the human tendency to transfer human-like characteristics to non-human entities [17]. The implementation of anthropomorphic characteristics to robot design can be induced on different dimensions [51]. A human-like robot appearance is the most apparent anthropomorphic design feature.…”

A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction

“…On the one hand, it describes the general tendency of people to attribute human characteristics including humanlike mental capacities to non-living objects (12,13). On the other hand, anthropomorphism describes a human-like design of robots that in turn facilitates the attribution of human-like characteristics to the robot (3). This design element is used to evoke expectations, which, if met, represent a knowledge base for interaction and a better anticipation of robots' actions, ANTROPOMORPHISM IN HRI 4 even for first encounters with this often completely new technology (5,11,14).…”

“…The fields of application considered are categorized as the social, service, and industrial domain. The social domain is defined as any domain where robots are used in therapeutic, educational, or entertainment settings (39). The service and industrial domain are defined based on the International Organization for Standardization and (ISO 8373:2012) (40).…”

10 Years of Human-NAO Interaction Research: A Scoping Review

“…To identify the categories for data analysis, we integrated and adapted the HRI taxonomies from previous studies (Yanco and Drury, 2004;Bethel and Murphy, 2010;Salter et al, 2010;Tsiakas et al, 2018;Baraka et al, 2020;Onnasch and Roesler, 2020) and annotated the papers by the predefined categories. We describe below the different annotations used.…”