Fetch-and-carry with CERO: observations from a long-term user study with a service robot

Hüttenrauch, Helge; Eklundh, Kerstin Severinson

doi:10.1109/roman.2002.1045615

Cited by 75 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In [107], Huttenrauch and Severinson-Eklundh describe a long-term usage study of CERO, a service robot that assists motion-impaired people in an office environment (Fig. 10).…”

Section: Field Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A survey of socially interactive robots

Fong

Nourbakhsh

Dautenhahn

2003

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

2,415

1,378

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report reviews "socially interactive robots": robots for which social human-robot interaction is important. We begin by discussing the context for socially interactive robots, emphasizing the relationship to other research fields and the different forms of "social robots". We then present a taxonomy of design methods and system components used to build socially interactive robots. Following this taxonomy, we survey the current state of the art, categorized by use and application area. Finally, we describe the impact of these these robots on humans and discuss open issues.

show abstract

“…In [107], Huttenrauch and Severinson-Eklundh describe a long-term usage study of CERO, a service robot that assists motion-impaired people in an office environment (Fig. 10).…”

Section: Field Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, research in social robot has focused exclusively on short duration interaction, ranging from periods of several minutes (e.g., tour-guiding) to several weeks, such as in [107]. Little is known about interaction over longer periods.…”

Section: Open Issues and Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of socially interactive robots

Fong

Nourbakhsh

Dautenhahn

2003

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

2,415

1,378

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Covering a period of two weeks, data does not allow drawing conclusions in terms of usage patterns or continuing adoption of the device. Longterm usage of robots and usage patterns beyond novelty effects have been examined by [7,17,19,20]. We didn't find a significant change in how people overall rated the robot during the two weeks and assume that amongst others, novelty factors might be one reason for this.…”

Section: Limitations and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…It documents the evolution of people's perception of robots for only two weeks. The responses are likely to portray certain novelty effects which can be described as the first responses to a technology [17,19]. Covering a period of two weeks, data does not allow drawing conclusions in terms of usage patterns or continuing adoption of the device.…”

Section: Limitations and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Robotics

2011

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The study presented in this paper examined people's perception of domestic service robots by means of an ethnographic study. We investigated initial reactions of nine households who lived with a Roomba vacuum cleaner robot over a two week period. To explore people's attitude and how it changed over time, we used a recurring questionnaire that was filled at three different times, integrated in 18 semi-structured qualitative interviews. Our findings suggest that being part of a specific household has an impact how each individual household member perceives the robot. We interpret that, even though individual experiences with the robot might differ from one other, a household shares a specific opinion about the robot. Moreover our findings also indicate that how people perceived Roomba did not change drastically over the two week period.

show abstract

“…The initial concern is, of course, the physical safety of the robot' users as well as that of third parties sharing the space in which the robot is operating [37]. However, inability to do this in a manner that is also socially acceptable, may also be a major hurdle to their adoption and use [21,40]. For example, if a robot were to generate loud, intrusive acoustic warning sounds whenever it approached a person, the user would be unlikely to perceive this robot as a socially acceptable companion, in particular for long-term use.…”

Section: Human-robot Proxemicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Roles and Baseline Proxemic Preferences for a Domestic Service Robot

Koay

Syrdal

Ashgari-Oskoei

et al. 2014

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of our research is to develop socially acceptable behavior for domestic robots in a setting where a user and the robot are sharing the same physical space and interact with each other in close proximity. Specifically, our research focuses on approach distances and directions in the context of a robot handing over an object to a user. Our present study consisted of two parts. Firstly, we carried out a large-scale survey trying to identify the internal structure between users' different social role expectations and the relationships between these and users' technology usage. Results from this study led to the development of a measure for preferred robot social roles. In the second part, this measure was used in a live human-robot interaction (HRI) study in a home setting, designed to create a baseline understanding of The work described in this paper was conducted within the EU Integrated Projects LIREC (LIving with Robots and intEractive Companions, funded by the European Commission under contract numbers FP7 215554, and partly funded by the ACCOMPANY project, a part of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007(FP7/ -2013 human-robot Proxemics approach directions and distances for a Care-O-bot 3 based on these roles. In order to support users interpretation of the robots intentions in those tasks, the HRI studies used a simple LED light display panel. Findings indicate that, participants were comfortable with the robot approaching to the closest implemented distance (0.5 m). For the task requiring relatively more coordination, participants preferred the robot to approach from the front to a larger extent than for tasks requiring less coordination. The ability to identify the signals from the LED display also impacted how participants evaluated the robots behaviour. Users who had previous experience of interacting with robots differentiated less between approaches, and also evaluated tasks requiring more coordination with the robot more favourably. The findings in the short-term sample were strongly influenced by expectations as to the social role expectation they had of the robot, suggesting that social expectations impact proxemic interactions even if the robot platform is clearly not humanoid.

show abstract

Fetch-and-carry with CERO: observations from a long-term user study with a service robot

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 75 publications

References 11 publications

A survey of socially interactive robots

A survey of socially interactive robots

Social Robotics

Social Roles and Baseline Proxemic Preferences for a Domestic Service Robot

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About