2015
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01253
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robot Comedy Lab: experimenting with the social dynamics of live performance

Abstract: The success of live comedy depends on a performer's ability to “work” an audience. Ethnographic studies suggest that this involves the co-ordinated use of subtle social signals such as body orientation, gesture, gaze by both performers and audience members. Robots provide a unique opportunity to test the effects of these signals experimentally. Using a life-size humanoid robot, programmed to perform a stand-up comedy routine, we manipulated the robot's patterns of gesture and gaze and examined their effects on… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
27
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the facts that eye contact between performers and audience members (e.g., Antonietti et al, 2009) or visual characteristics of the performers (Davidson, 2001, 2012; Thompson et al, 2005; Mitchell and MacDonald, 2012; Morrison et al, 2014) can affect audience members' judgments do not clearly point to whether audience members' interpretations will therefore be more similar to each other as a result, or more similar to performers'. Similarly, the fact that audience members can react differently to comparable live vs. recorded performances (see Barker, 2013; Katevas et al, 2015) doesn't clearly predict in which situation they are more likely to share understanding with performers or each other.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the facts that eye contact between performers and audience members (e.g., Antonietti et al, 2009) or visual characteristics of the performers (Davidson, 2001, 2012; Thompson et al, 2005; Mitchell and MacDonald, 2012; Morrison et al, 2014) can affect audience members' judgments do not clearly point to whether audience members' interpretations will therefore be more similar to each other as a result, or more similar to performers'. Similarly, the fact that audience members can react differently to comparable live vs. recorded performances (see Barker, 2013; Katevas et al, 2015) doesn't clearly predict in which situation they are more likely to share understanding with performers or each other.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another example pertains to positive and negative impressions people have of the robots. Positive impressions include social engagement with the robot (Moshkina et al, 2014), the effectiveness of the social actor in delivering messages (Katevas et al, 2015), the degree to which people perceive the robot as an intelligent agent (Talamas et al, 2016)and the anthropomorphism value for social acceptability (de Graaf et al, 2015). In contrast, several questionnaires were developed to measure negative attitudes (Tatsuya et al, 2016) and anxiety (Nomura et al, 2006) toward robots.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar to the scenario at hand, which focuses on the adaptation of presented information through speech, entertainment is one research area of social robots, where speech and content presentation are of central importance, too. Scenarios include Japanese Manzai [11], standup comedy [14,18], joke [35] and story telling [27], where presented contents or their delivery (e.g. animation, sound or voice parameters) are optimized in real-time for an individual user or a larger audience.…”
Section: Adaptive Social Robotsmentioning
confidence: 99%