Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

Robots in Museums An Analysis of Best Practice in Human Robot Interaction

Andreas Bischof, M.A. Cultural Science

Graduate School CrossWorlds

University of Technology Chemnitz

06/14/2012

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

1. What Robots? From a Cultural Concept to „Robotics“,

Social Robots as border crossers

3 Min.

2. Robots in Museums Scenario „Tour Guide“; Timeline; 3 Examples:

Pioneer, robust & class winner

8 Min.

3. Designing HRI Having Ideas, lacking Methods; What can HRI

learn from Museums Robots?

7 Min.

4. What‘s up? Open Issues; Project Idea CrossWorlds 2 Min.

Content

2

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

1. What Robots?

Cultural Concept “Robot”

What does „Robotics“ do?

Social Robots as border crossers

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

1. What Robots?

Cultural Concept „Robots“

ANCIENT WORLD

- artificial, man-like, subserving (i.e. Talus)

MIDDLE AGES & RENAISSANCE

- mechanic / automatic (DaVinci, Al-Jazari)

- souled, threatening (Golem)

18th & 19th CENTURY

- androids (Jaquet-Droz, E.T.A. Hoffmann )

- artificial life (Frankenstein‘s Monster)

20th CENTURY

- Robots as Members of Society

- Robots as Replacement for Humans

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

1. What Robots?

3 Strands from Cultural concepts of „Robots“

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

1. What Robots?

What is „Robotics“ doing?

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

1. What Robots?

Social Robots as border crossers

- Informational Gap due to Perspective Problem: users are not experts; creators

are not users

- People make sense about machines:

Theory of Mind

Uncanny Valley

- Robots in social and everyday scenarios are confronted with these cultural

concepts!

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Scenario “Tour Guide”

Lock Back - Timeline

Minerva – The pioneer

Fraunhofer Robots – robust species

RoboX – Class Winner

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Scenario „Tour-Guide Robots“

Challenges:

crowded ‘real’ environment, no laboratory

uninformed, untrained users

set of everyday tasks

short length of use „Spontaneous Short-Term Interaction“

Motivations:

Robots as Demonstrators

Robots as learning objects

Robots as attraction for museal context

Robots as Products

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Minerva – The Pioneer

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Minerva – The Pioneer

Features making her a Trendsetter:

- on the fly task planning

- constructors aim: „believable agent“ - display internal states to reach attended goals

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Fraunhofer Robots – robust species

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Fraunhofer Robots – robust species

- 40 km / day each

- working since 11 years

- simple Navigation (scratched map)

- simple Presentation (everything fixed)

- limited interactional potential

darlings of the public!

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

RoboX – class winner

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

RoboX – class winner

secret of success: human-like interactional behaviour

- ‚natural‘ perception (Face, Voice)

- ‚natural‘ expression (facial expression, 7 emotional states)

- includes Reactive Presentation Scenarios

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

2. Robots in Museums

Comparing

Minerva Fraunhofer-Robots RoboX

built 1997 built 2000 built 2002

Main Task Guiding Attracting Guiding

Mapping live scratched live

Task Planning on the fly fixed on the fly, reactive

Perception obstacle avoidance obstacle avoidance Face, Voice, Buttons

Internal States 4 States 2 States 7 States

Expression Screen, Voice, Face Screen, Voice Screen, Voice, Face

Presentation of Content* adapted: "crowded?" initialized: "people?"

Reactive Scenarios: "yes/no?"

(canned)

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

3. Designing HRI

Colliding Term “Interaction”

Having ideas, lacking Methods

Results of Inquiry

2 principles

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

3. Designing HRI

Human Robot Interaction: Colliding Definitions of „Interaction“

Informatics: one-way; Human > Computer

i.e. dragging, pushing, zooming, manipulating

Average Joe: mixture of both; tends to anthropomorphise

technical artifacts

Social Sciences: both ways; Human <> Human (or others?)

i.e. talking, coordination on sidewalk, presenting a paper

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

3. Designing HRI

Having Ideas, lacking Methods

- a lot of (successfull) ideas in designing HRI, but no methodical reflected

procedures to modell user or specific interaction scenarios up front

- i.e. „What does it mean for the user to be in a Museum?“

- Newer developments: Axiomatic Design, Interaction Design

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

3. Designing HRI

What is the problem about this HRI trial and error?

What they say… … what happens

We thought…

The Robot does…

… this specific Voice /

Content / Menu would

be approperiate.

… recognizes

person, asks for

aternatives.

?

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

3. Designing HRI

Nevertheless they evaluated HRI (3 out of 60 papers)

- "people are basically destructive" (Nourbakhsh et al. 2002a)

- most attracting: motion and awareness of human presence

- most effective: dialogical interactions, multi modality

- Physical design: height between 1.50 - 1.60 m for interactional robots

- Children are significantly higher attracted by robots than adults

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

Which principles make HRI successfully? (making the other 57 papers talking)

- Knowing about interactional structures makes robots better interaction

partners

- Form follows function: HCI input can be adopted easily

- Perception of humans in a human way raises potential for adaptive behaviour

(from „something?“ to „somebody!“)

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

3. Designing HRI

both principles can achieve trust (Reliability)!

both principles can lead to Uncanny Valley problems!

„Honesty“

transparent design:

tutorial-welcoming

showing (real) states and goals

allowing the user to understand

the machine‘s (and it‘s

constructor‘s) intention

„Deception“

impressive design:

character design

use of professional Storytellers

using the (cultural and social pre-

formed) narratives and Typecasts

of everyday-life

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

4. What‘s up?

Fields to Improve

Questions on our Project

Project Idea CrossWorlds

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

4. What‘s up?

Fields to improve

(technical & HRI)

Everything concerning human speech

more ‚natural‘ HRI

Multi-User Usability (i.e. age)

Interacting with Web Devices Locomotion Concepts

adjust robot‘s features to the Museum‘s goals

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

Questions for our Project

- Motivation: learning object, demonstrator, museum feature?

- Scenario: What Problem does the robot solves in the Museum?

- Fame: What do we do better than others?

Andreas Bischof, M.A.

14.06.2012

4. What‘s up

Just an Idea…

- foster interactions between visitors

- attach robot features to the museum‘s needs

- foster collaboration between graduate school members