Experiences developing socially acceptable interactions for a robotic trash barrel

Service robots in public places need to both understand environmental cues and move in ways that people can understand and predict. We developed and tested interactions with a trash barrel robot to better understand the implicit protocols for public interaction. In eight lunch-time sessions spread across two crowded campus dining destinations, we experimented with piloting our robot in Wizard of Oz fashion, initiating and responding to requests for impromptu interactions centered on collecting people's trash. Our studies progressed from open-ended experimentation to testing specific interaction strategies that seemed to evoke clear engagement and responses, both positive and negative. Observations and interviews show that a) people most welcome the robot's presence when they need its services and it actively advertises its intent through movement; b) people create mental models of the trash barrel as having intentions and desires; c) mistakes in navigation are indicators of autonomous control, rather than a remote operator; and d) repeated mistakes and struggling behavior polarized responses as either ignoring or endearing.

[1]  H. Huttenrauch,et al.  To help or not to help a service robot , 2003, The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003..

[2]  Wendy Ju,et al.  The Design of Implicit Interactions: Making Interactive Systems Less Obnoxious , 2008, Design Issues.

[3]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Moonlight in Miami: a field study of human-robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise , 2004 .

[4]  Wendy Ju Approachability : How People Interpret Automatic Door Movement as Gesture , 2008 .

[5]  Sebastian Thrun,et al.  A Gesture Based Interface for Human-Robot Interaction , 2000, Auton. Robots.

[6]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[7]  J. F. Kelley,et al.  An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications , 1984, TOIS.

[8]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  The Oz of Wizard: Simulating the human for interaction research , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[9]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Bodies in motion: mobility, presence, and task awareness in telepresence , 2014, CHI.

[10]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  Using spatial and temporal contrast for fluent robot-human hand-overs , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[11]  Myungsuk Kim,et al.  Come on in!: A strategic way to intend approachability to a space by using motions of a robotic partition , 2013, 2013 IEEE RO-MAN.

[12]  Kentaro Ishii,et al.  Blinkbot: look at, blink and move , 2010, UIST '10.

[13]  Vladimir A. Kulyukin Human-Robot Interaction Through Gesture-Free Spoken Dialogue , 2004, Auton. Robots.

[14]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home , 2006, HRI '06.

[15]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Will I bother here? - A robot anticipating its influence on pedestrian walking comfort , 2013, 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[16]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  Legibility and predictability of robot motion , 2013, 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction , 2008, 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[18]  Paul Watzlawick,et al.  Some Tentative Axioms of Communication , 1967 .

[19]  Laurel D. Riek,et al.  Wizard of Oz studies in HRI , 2012, J. Hum. Robot Interact..

[20]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  The Role of Users ’ Preconceptions in Talking to Computers and Robots , 2006 .

[21]  Michio Okada,et al.  STB: Intentional Stance Grounded Child-Dependent Robot , 2010, ICSR.

[22]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Which Robot Behavior Can Motivate Children to Tidy up Their Toys? Design and Evaluation of “Ranger” , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[23]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Social interactions in HRI: the robot view , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[24]  Akira Ito,et al.  Reactive movements of non-humanoid robots cause intention attribution in humans , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[25]  J. Ruesch,et al.  Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. , 1967 .

[26]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Who Should I Blame? Effects of Autonomy and Transparency on Attributions in Human-Robot Interaction , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[27]  H. H. Clark Coordinating with each other in a material world , 2005 .

[28]  Henrik I. Christensen,et al.  Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[29]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Moonlight in Miami : A Field Study of Human-Robot Interaction in the Context of an Urban Search and Rescue Disaster Response Training Exercise , 2003 .

[30]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice , 1995 .

[31]  Alan C. Schultz The 1999 AAAI Mobile Robot Competition , 2000, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[32]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Animate Objects: How Physical Motion Encourages Public Interaction , 2010, PERSUASIVE.