Psychophysiological experimental design for use in human-robot interaction studies

This paper outlines key experimental design issues associated with the use of psychophysiological measures in human-robot interaction (HRI) studies and summarizes related studies. Psychophysiological measurements are one tool for evaluating participantspsila reactions to a robot with which they are interacting. A brief review of psychophysiology is provided which includes: physiological activities and response tendencies; common psychophysiological measures; and advantages/issues related to psychophysiological measures. Psychophysiological experimental design recommendations are given for information required from participants before the psychophysiological measures are performed; a method to reduce habituation; post-testing assessment process; determining adequate sample sizes; and testing methods commonly used in HRI studies with recommended electrode placements. Psychophysiological measures should be utilized as part of a multi-faceted approach to experimental design including self-assessments, participant interviews, and/or video-recorded data collection methods over the course of an experimental study. Two or more methods of measurement should be utilized for convergent validity. Although psychophysiological measures may not be appropriate for all HRI studies, they can provide a valuable evaluation tool of participantspsila responses when properly incorporated into a multi-faceted experimental design.

[1]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The skeletomotor system: Surface electromyography. , 2007 .

[2]  Jennifer Healey,et al.  Toward Machine Emotional Intelligence: Analysis of Affective Physiological State , 2001, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[3]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Survey of Psychophysiology Measurements Applied to Human-Robot Interaction , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[4]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Anxiety detection during human-robot interaction , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[5]  S. Knardahl Cardiovascular psychophysiology , 2000, Annals of medicine.

[6]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  R. B. Johnson,et al.  Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches , 2007 .

[8]  Changchun Liu,et al.  Affective State Recognition and Adaptation in Human-Robot Interaction: A Design Approach , 2006, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[9]  M. Bradley,et al.  Measuring emotion: the Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. , 1994, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[10]  G. Vossel,et al.  Finally, After Two Decades , 2001 .

[11]  Paolo Dario,et al.  Development of a Bioinstrumentation System in the Interaction between a Human and a Robot , 2006, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[12]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Physiological and subjective responses to articulated robot motion , 2006, Robotica.

[13]  Nilanjan Sarkar,et al.  Anxiety detecting robotic system – towards implicit human-robot collaboration , 2004, Robotica.

[14]  M. Dawson,et al.  The electrodermal system , 2007 .

[15]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Human-Robot Interaction Experiments: Lessons learned , 2005 .

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

[17]  G. Berntson,et al.  Handbook of Psychophysiology: Cardiovascular Psychophysiology , 2007 .

[18]  C. Spielberger,et al.  Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory , 1970 .