Assessment of robot to human instruction conveyance modalities across virtual, remote and physical robot presence

Most Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) experiments are costly and time consuming because they involve deploying a physical robot in a physical space. Experiments using virtual environments can be easier and less expensive, but it is difficult to ensure that the results will be valid in the physical domain. To begin to answer this concern, we have performed an evaluation comparing participants' understanding of robotic guidance instructions using robots that were virtually, remotely, or physically present for the experiment. All but one set of experimental conditions gave similar results across the three presence levels. Further, we find that qualitative responses about the robots were largely the same regardless of presence level.

[1]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents , 2011, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[2]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Comfortable approach distance with small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles , 2013, 2013 IEEE RO-MAN.

[3]  Alan R. Wagner,et al.  Assessment of robot guidance modalities conveying instructions to humans in emergency situations , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[4]  Alan R. Wagner,et al.  Effect of Robot Performance on Human–Robot Trust in Time-Critical Situations , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[5]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Embodiment and Human-Robot Interaction: A Task-Based Perspective , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[6]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[7]  Paul Robinette,et al.  Trust in emergency evacuation robots , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR).

[8]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video-Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[9]  Jeff Orkin,et al.  The Restaurant Game: Learning Social Behavior and Language from Thousands of Players Online , 2008, J. Game Dev..

[10]  Lilia V. Moshkina Improving Request Compliance through Robot Affect , 2012, AAAI.

[11]  Lilia V. Moshkina,et al.  Recognizing Nonverbal Affective Behavior in Humanoid Robots , 2010 .

[12]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[13]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[14]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk , 2012, Political Analysis.

[15]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[16]  Lydia B. Chilton,et al.  The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing , 2010, EC '10.

[17]  Futoshi Naya,et al.  Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..