The impact of the contingency of robot feedback on HRI

In this paper, we investigate the impact the contingency of robot feedback may have on the quality of verbal human-robot interaction. In order to assess not only what the effects are but also what they are caused by, we carried out experiments in which naïve participants instructed the humanoid robot iCub on a set of shapes and on a stacking task in two conditions, once with socially contingent, nonverbal feedback implemented in response to different gaze and demonstrating behaviors of the human tutor, and once with non-contingent, saliency-based feedback. The results of the analysis of participants' linguistic behaviors in the two conditions show that contingency has an impact on the complexity and the pre-structuring of the task for the robot, i.e. on the participants' tutoring behaviors. Contingency thus plays a considerable role for learning by demonstration.

[1]  C. Trevarthen,et al.  The infant's role in mother–infant communications , 1986, Journal of Child Language.

[2]  L. A. Egeren,et al.  Mother-infant responsiveness: timing, mutual regulation, and interactional context. , 2001, Developmental psychology.

[3]  N. Fox,et al.  Social perception in infants , 1985 .

[4]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Issues of Relevance for Discourse Analysis: Contingency in Action, Interaction and Co-Participant Context , 1996 .

[5]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  How People Talk with Robots: Designing Dialog to Reduce User Uncertainty , 2011, AI Mag..

[6]  Anna Filipi.  Toddler and Parent Interaction , 2009 .

[7]  Henrik Schiøler,et al.  Sociable Robots Through Self-Maintained Energy , 2006 .

[8]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  Input and interaction in language acquisition: Beginning from Baby Talk: twenty years of research on input in interaction , 1994 .

[9]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  Computational and conversational discourse : burning issues, an interdisciplinary account , 1996 .

[10]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 2015 .

[11]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Contributing to Discourse , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  Learning about objects with human teachers , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[13]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  The mobot museum robot installations: a five year experiment , 2003, Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453).

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

[15]  Anna Filipi,et al.  Toddler and Parent Interaction: The Organisation of Gaze, Pointing and Vocalisation , 2009 .

[16]  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).

[17]  Dare A. Baldwin,et al.  Evidence for ‘motionese’: modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action , 2002 .

[18]  Hideaki Kuzuoka,et al.  Precision timing in human-robot interaction: coordination of head movement and utterance , 2008, CHI.

[19]  H. Ishiguro,et al.  Social Reflex Hypothesis on Blinking Interaction , 2007 .

[20]  Stern Dn.  A micro-analysis of mother-infant interaction. Behavior regulating social contact between a mother and her 3-month-old twins. , 1971 .

[21]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  Optimality of human teachers for robot learners , 2010, 2010 IEEE 9th International Conference on Development and Learning.

[22]  Katharina J. Rohlfing,et al.  How can multimodal cues from child-directed interaction reduce learning complexity in robots? , 2006, Adv. Robotics.

[23]  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.

[24]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  RobotCub: an open framework for research in embodied cognition , 2004, 4th IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2004..

[25]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Mindful tutors: Linguistic choice and action demonstration in speech to infants and a simulated robot , 2011 .

[26]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  Effects of social exploration mechanisms on robot learning , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[27]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  The iCub humanoid robot: an open platform for research in embodied cognition , 2008, PerMIS.

[28]  Katharina J. Rohlfing,et al.  Better be reactive at the beginning. Implications of the first seconds of an encounter for the tutoring style in human-robot-interaction , 2012, 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[29]  A. Fernald,et al.  Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults , 1991 .

[30]  Giorgio Metta,et al.  YARP: Yet Another Robot Platform , 2006 .

[31]  J. Bavelas,et al.  Listener Responses as a Collaborative Process: The Role of Gaze , 2002 .

[32]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Explorations in engagement for humans and robots , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Toward sociable robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[34]  付伶俐.  打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[35]  Robin Wooffitt,et al.  Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications , 1998 .

[36]  L. Gogate,et al.  A study of multimodal motherese: the role of temporal synchrony between verbal labels and gestures. , 2000, Child development.

[37]  Heidi Keller,et al.  Temporal Contingency as an Independent Component of Parenting Behavior , 1999 .

[38]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Common metrics for human-robot interaction , 2006, HRI '06.

[39]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[40]  Andrea Lockerd Thomaz,et al.  Teachable robots: Understanding human teaching behavior to build more effective robot learners , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[41]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Levels of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[42]  Ian Pratt-Hartmann,et al.  Temporal prepositions and their logic , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[43]  J. Sidnell,et al.  Language Diversity and Social Action , 2012, Current Anthropology.

[44]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  Drum-mate: interaction dynamics and gestures in human–humanoid drumming experiments , 2010, Connect. Sci..

[45]  Hideaki Kuzuoka,et al.  “The first five seconds”: Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in HRI , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[46]  Patricia Zukow-Goldring,et al.  Sensitive Caregiving Fosters the Comprehension of Speech: When Gestures Speak Louder than Words , 1996 .