Eliciting Conversation in Robot Vehicle Interactions

Dialog between drivers and speech-based robot vehicle interfaces can be used as an instrument to find out what drivers might be concerned, confused or curious about in driving simulator studies. Eliciting ongoing conversation with drivers about topics that go beyond navigation, control of entertainment systems, or other traditional driving related tasks is important to getting drivers to engage with the activity in an open-ended fashion. In a structured improvisational Wizard of Oz study that took place in a highly immersive driving simulator, we engaged participant drivers (N=6) in an autonomous driving course where the vehicle spoke to drivers using computer-generated natural language speech. First, using microanalyses of drivers’ responses to the car’s utterances, we identify a set of topics that are expected and treated as appropriate by the participants in our study. Second, we identify a set of topics and conversational strategies that are treated as inappropriate. Third, we show that it is just these unexpected, inappropriate utterances that eventually increase users’ trust into the system, make them more at ease, and raise the system’s acceptability as a communication partner.

[1]  Petra Geutner,et al.  Design of the VICO Spoken Dialogue System: Evaluation of User Expectations by Wizard-of-Oz Experiments , 2002, LREC.

[2]  Paul Green,et al.  Applications of Rapid Prototyping to Control and Display Design , 1990 .

[3]  John Heritage,et al.  Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge , 2012 .

[4]  Janni Nielsen,et al.  Getting access to what goes on in people's heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[5]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Driver safety and information from afar: An experimental driving simulator study of wireless vs. in-car information services , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Making sense of agentic objects and teleoperation: In-the-moment and reflective perspectives , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[7]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Improvisation principles and techniques for design , 2007, CHI.

[8]  Micah Alpern,et al.  Developing a car gesture interface for use as a secondary task , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[9]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[10]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Thank you, I did not see that: in-car speech based information systems for older adults , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[11]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Alignment or collaboration? How implicit views of communication influence robot design , 2014, 2014 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS).

[12]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[13]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[14]  Saturnino Luz Filho,et al.  AAAI Spring Symposium Series , 2016, AAAI 2016.

[15]  B. Schuller,et al.  Recognition of Spontaneous Emotions by Speech within Automotive Environment , 2006 .

[16]  Stanley Peters,et al.  A wizard of oz framework for collecting spoken human-computer dialogs , 2004, INTERSPEECH.

[17]  Elizabeth Zoltan-Ford,et al.  How to Get People to Say and Type What Computers Can Understand , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[18]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot–like Agent , 2008 .

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

[20]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Etiquette equality: exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness , 2004, CACM.

[21]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  TRAVTEK EVALUATION TASK C3 CAMERA CAR STUDY , 1995 .