Detecting Perceived Appropriateness of a Robot's Social Positioning Behavior from Non-Verbal Cues

What if a robot could detect when you think it got too close to you during its approach? This would allow it to correct or compensate for its social 'mistake'. It would also allow for a responsive approach, where that robot would reactively find suitable approach behavior through and during the interaction. We investigated if it is possible to automatically detect such social feedback cues in the context of a robot approaching a person. We collected a dataset in which our robot would repeatedly approach people (n=30) to verbally deliver a message. Approach distance and environmental noise were manipulated, and our participants were tracked (position and orientation of upper body and head). We evaluated their perception of the robot's behavior through questionnaires and found no single or joint effects of the manipulations. This showed that, in this case, personal differences are more important than contextual cues – thus highlighting the importance of responding to behavioral feedback. This dataset is being made publicly available as part of this publication † . On this dataset, we then trained a random forest classifier to infer people's perception of the robot's approach behavior from features generated from the response behaviors. This resulted in a set of relevant features that perform significantly better than chance for a participant-dependent classifier; which implies that the behaviors of our participants, even with our relatively limited tracking, contain interpretable information about their perception of the robot's behavior. Our findings demonstrate, for this specific context, that the observable behavior of people does indeed contain usable information about their subjective perception of a robot's behavior. As such they, together with the dataset, provide a stepping stone for future research into the automatic detection of such social feedback cues, e.g. with other or more fine-grained observations of people's behavior (such as facial expressions), with more sophisticated machine learning techniques, and/or in different contexts.

[1]  Jaebok Kim,et al.  Robot response behaviors to accommodate hearing problems , 2015, ICSR 2015.

[2]  J. Cappella Mutual influence in expressive behavior: adult--adult and infant--adult dyadic interaction. , 1981, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  M. Patterson,et al.  Compensatory Reactions to Spatial Intrusion , 1971 .

[4]  Gwenn Englebienne,et al.  Responsive Social Agents - Feedback-Sensitive Behavior Generation for Social Interactions , 2016, ICSR.

[5]  Rachid Alami,et al.  Human-aware robot navigation: A survey , 2013, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[6]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.

[7]  Hayley Hung,et al.  Do they like me? Using video cues to predict desires during speed-dates , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCV Workshops).

[8]  M. Joosse,et al.  Cultural differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach a group of people , 2014, CABS '14.

[9]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  An empirical framework for human-robot proxemics , 2009 .

[10]  Gwenn Englebienne,et al.  "I Would Like to Get Close to You": Making Robot Personal Space Invasion Less Intrusive with a Social Gaze Cue , 2018, HCI.

[11]  Christopher M. Schlick,et al.  Human‐Robot Interaction in Assisted Personal Services: Factors Influencing Distances That Humans Will Accept between Themselves and an Approaching Service Robot , 2016 .

[12]  Christian Laugier,et al.  From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey , 2014, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[13]  A. Mehrabian Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  Gwenn Englebienne,et al.  Dynamics of social positioning patterns in group-robot interactions , 2015, 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[15]  Mark A. Neerincx,et al.  Personalising game difficulty to keep children motivated to play with a social robot: A Bayesian approach , 2017, Cognitive Systems Research.

[16]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Perceptual Models of Human-Robot Proxemics , 2014, ISER.

[17]  E. Hall,et al.  The Hidden Dimension , 1970 .

[18]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Towards Conversational Agents That Attend to and Adapt to Communicative User Feedback , 2011, IVA.

[19]  M. Matarić,et al.  Robots Have Needs Too: People Adapt Their Proxemic Preferences to Improve Autonomous Robot Recognition of Human Social Signals , 2015 .

[20]  Gwenn Englebienne,et al.  TERESA: a socially intelligent semi-autonomous telepresence system , 2015 .

[21]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.