Social Roles and Baseline Proxemic Preferences for a Domestic Service Robot

Abstract

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.

Degree of autonomy for education robot

“…In a autonomous ubiquitous environment, students and robots are sharing the same physical space such as classroom and interact with each other in close proximity [1,11,12]. And robot's tasks may range from education or play, to assist the teachers without any intervention [13].…”

“…For the purpose of this Standard, KS B 7301 [4], ISO 8373 [11], KS B 6937 [14], KS B 6938 [15], the following terms and definitions apply. Table 2 shows definition of terms for education robot.…”

Why not Robot Teachers: Artificial Intelligence for Addressing Teacher Shortage

“…Hence, in the last few years, robots have featured as coworkers with humans in factories (McCutcheon et al 2014), as companions to pupils (Robinson et al 2013) and as support for the disabled, critically ill and elderly (Roy et al 2000). Super-intelligent game robots have also featured in sports (Müller 2016), self-driving cars in logistics (Silberg and Wallace 2012), diagnosis algorithms in healthcare (Gulshan et al 2016) and robot sexual partners in the social realm (Brady 2006).…”

Enabling Global Robot Navigation Based on a Cloud Robotics Approach

“…Furthermore, even if the current literature is rich of examples about robots in real or realistic environments, as [24,25], at the best of our knowledge this is the first attempt to include referential markers to provide information in a robotic scenario in real environments.…”