Contingency scaffolds language learning

In human robot interaction the question how to communicate is an important one. The answer to this question can be approached through several perspectives. One approach to study the best way how a robot should behave in an interaction with a human is by providing a consistent robotic behavior. From this we can gain insights into what parameters are triggering what responsive behavior in an user. This method allows us as roboticists to investigate how we can elicit a specific behavior in users in order to facilitate robot's learning. In previous studies, we have shown how responsive eye gaze and feedback on a looming detection is modifying the human tutoring behavior [1]. In this paper, we present a study was carried out within the ITALK project. The study is targeting, how we can tune robotic feedback strategies of the iCub robot to evoke a tutoring behavior in a human tutor that is supporting a language acquisition system. We used a longitudinal approach for the study to also verify the verbal feedback given by the robot.

[1]  J. Watson,et al.  Early socio–emotional development: Contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. , 1999 .

[2]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  Towards using prosody to scaffold lexical meaning in robots , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL).

[3]  D. Regan,et al.  Looming detectors in the human visual pathway , 1978, Vision Research.

[4]  Julian M. Pine,et al.  Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. , 2004 .

[5]  A. Meltzoff.  'Like me': a foundation for social cognition. , 2007, Developmental science.

[6]  M. Tomasello.  First Steps toward a Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition , 2001 .

[7]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  Robot learning of lexical semantics from sensorimotor interaction and the unrestricted speech of human tutors , 2010 .

[8]  James T. Miller,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  Lakshmi J. Gogate,et al.  Type of Maternal Object Motion During Synchronous Naming Predicts Preverbal Infants' Learning of Word-Object Relations. , 2008, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[10]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[11]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Tutor Spotter: Proposing a Feature Set and Evaluating It in a Robotic System , 2011, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[12]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  A constructivist approach to robot language learning via simulated babbling and holophrase extraction , 2009, 2009 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life.

[13]  L. Gogate,et al.  Attention to Maternal Multimodal Naming by 6- to 8-Month-Old Infants and Learning of Word-Object Relations. , 2006, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[14]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  In Press, Ieee Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development , 2010 .

[15]  M. Tomasello.  Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition , 2003 .

[16]  Gergely Csibra,et al.  Recognizing Communicative Intentions in Infancy , 2010 .

[17]  A. Fogel,et al.  Alive communication. , 2007, Infant Behavior and Development.

[18]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Contingency allows the robot to spot the tutor and to learn from interaction , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL).

[19]  S. Levine,et al.  What counts as effective input for word learning?* , 2012, Journal of Child Language.

[20]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  Like Me?- Measures of Correspondence and Imitation , 2001, Cybern. Syst..