Takayama RSS2009 Workshop
-
Upload
willow-garage -
Category
Documents
-
view
120 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Takayama RSS2009 Workshop
![Page 1: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Toward a Science of Robotics:Goals and Standards forExperimental Research
Leila TakayamaHuman-Robot InteractionResearch Scientist
![Page 2: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Scientific Principles
•Hypothesis testing•Observable, empirical, and
measurable evidence•Reliable•Reproducible and falsifiable
![Page 3: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Science & Technology
![Page 4: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Variable-based Research
X → Y
“analog, keyboard and receiver input, high fidelity,two-way processing technologies”
![Page 5: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Examples of Variables
•System complexity•Interactivity•Similarity to humans•Task types: collaborative, competitive•Synchronicity of interaction•Collocation
![Page 6: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Study 1 Self Extension into Robots
![Page 7: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Research Questions– What aspects of human-robot interface
design affect feelings of attachment, trust,control, responsibility, and agency inhuman-robot interaction?
– Does one’s sense of self-extension increasewhen a robot is built by the user?
– Does one’s sense of self-extension differbetween more or less anthropomorphicrobots?
![Page 8: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Manipulations
Factor 1 (between): car vs. robot
Factor 2 (between): Use of their assembledrobot/car or a preassembled robot/car
Factor 3 (between): assembly vs. noassembly
![Page 9: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
HypothesesRobot form
Humanoid form is a strong cue ofidentity– H1. People will self extend more into the
car robot than the humanoid.
People extend their positive selfconcept into self-extended objects
– H2. People will prefer the personality ofthe car robot over the humanoid.
9
![Page 10: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
HypothesesRobot assembler
Building an object promotes self extension– H3. People will self extend more into a
robot they assemble than a robotassembled by another.
People extend their positive self concept intoself-extended objects
– H4. People will prefer the personality of arobot they assemble over a robotassembled by another.
10
![Page 11: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Procedure• Participants fill in pre-questionnaire
• Participants given instructions anddiagrams on how to assemble robot
• Participants assemble robot– (M=9 min 49 sec, SD=3 min, 34 sec)
• Participants turn on robot and test it– Tethered control with on/off button
11
![Page 12: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Procedure
12
Task game
• Goal is to collect most points in 10 minutes• Bombs sometimes explode when touched• Bomb detonations deduct 30 seconds• Bomb number and time controlled• Questionnaire
![Page 13: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Assembler Manipulation
•Manipulating assembler– Self: Built a robot, operated same robot– Other: Built a robot, participants told they
needed to operate a different, identicalrobot
•In fact, all participants operated therobot they built
13
![Page 14: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Robot Form Manipulation
![Page 15: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Measures:Self extension
Trait overlap– Personality similarity of self and other
•Galinsky and Moskowitz– Overlap in concepts of self and human other
•Kiesler and Kiesler– Self extension into objects
15
Self Other
![Page 16: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Measures:Self extension
Determining trait overlap– Thirty item modified Wiggin’s personality test
•Completed by participants about themselves before task•Completed by participants about robot after task
– Delta of items calculated, summed to index•(Cronbach’s α=.86)
– Smaller scores indicate greater overlap ofconcepts of self and robot
16
![Page 17: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Measures:Self extension
Self reports• 10 point scales asking about “the device you
guided through the minefield”• Robot control (α=.83)
– Who was more responsible for your generalperformance on this task?
– Who had more control over your generalperformance on this task?
• Sense of team– “I felt that the robot and I were a team.”
17
![Page 18: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Measures:Robot personality
•Robot friendliness– Nine item index (α=.90)– cheerful, enthusiastic, extroverted
•Robot integrity– Five item index (α=.73)– Honest, reliable, trustworthy
•Robot malice– Five item index (α=.74)– Dishonest, unkind, harsh
18
![Page 19: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Results:Self extension
Trait overlap
19
F(1, 52)=4.04, p<.05, partial η²=.13
Greater trait overlap with car robots than humanoids
![Page 20: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Results:Self extension
Robot control
20
Greater relative control attributed to humanoids thanto cars
F(1, 52)=5.47, p<.05, partial η²=.10
![Page 21: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Results:Self extension
Sense of team
21
F(1, 52)=8.34, p<.01, partial η²=.14
Self-assembly participants felt more like a team with the robotthan did other-assembly participants
![Page 22: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Measures:Robot Personality
Robot friendliness
22
F(1, 52)=4.25, p<.05, partial η²=.08 F(1, 52)=4.23, p<.05, partial η²=.08F(1, 52)=4.23, p<.05, partial η²=.08η²=.08η²
Car robots were friendlier thanhumanoids
Self-assembled robots were friendlierthan robots assembled by others
F(1, 52)=4.25, p<.05, partial η²=.08η²=.08η²
![Page 23: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Measures:Robot Personality
Robot integrity
23
Car robots were rated as having more integrity than humanoids
F(1, 52)=4.20, p<.05, partial η²=.08
![Page 24: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Measures:Robot Personality
Robot malice
24
F(1, 52)=8.94, p<.01, partial η²=.15 F(1, 52)=4.78, p<.05, partial η²=.08
Humanoid robots were moremalicious than cars
Robots assembled by otherswere more malicious than
self-assembled robots
F(1, 52)=8.94, <.01, partial η²=.15η²=.15η² F(1, 52)=4.78, p<.05, partial η²=.08η²=.08η²
![Page 25: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Summary of Results
H1. People will self extend more into the carrobot than the humanoid.
H2. People will prefer the personality of thecar robot over the humanoid.
25
![Page 26: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Summary of Results
H3. People will self extend more into a robotthey assemble than a robot assembled byanother.
H4. People will prefer the personality of arobot they assemble over a robot assembledby another.
26
![Page 27: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Design Implications
Goal-specific guidelines
– No form, assembly experience is uniquelyoptimal
– Desirability of self extension informs design
27
![Page 28: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Design Implications
•When self extension is desired– Tele-operated robots as media, human
representations•Medical care, remote therapy
– Non-humanoid form– Promote pre-mission interaction
•Assembly, customization
28
![Page 29: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Design Implications
•When self extension is undesirable– Robots in hostile environments, likely
failures•Search and rescue
– Humanoid form– Minimize pre-mission interaction
•Identical but different robots– Change robot’s name
•Altered robots– Change voice, appearance
29
![Page 30: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Limitations and Next Steps
• Broader population• Outside the lab• Using other robots
• Long-term interactions• Long-term effects• Balancing needs of people operating and
encountering robot
30
![Page 31: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Study 2Disagreeing Robots
![Page 32: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Why would a robot everdisagree with a person?
![Page 33: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Research Questions
•What influences an interface’s point ofinteraction? Body location? Voicelocation?
•(How) do politeness strategies fromhuman-human interaction informhuman-computer interaction?
![Page 34: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Design Questions
•What influences a robot’s point ofinteraction?
•Where should speakers be placed?•(How) can computer agents influence
human decisions, using effectivepoliteness strategies?
![Page 35: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
HypothesesH1. People will change their decisions more often
when the robot disagrees with them than when italways agrees with them, even with identicalsubstantive content.
H2. People will feel more similar to (H2a) and morepositively toward (H2b) the agreeing robot than thedisagreeing one.
H3. A disagreeing voice coming from a separatecontrol box will be more acceptable than adisagreeing voice that came from the robotic body.
![Page 36: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Study Design (N=40)
20 men and 20 women, balanced across conditions
Disagree 60%
Disagree 0%
Voice location:in box
Voice location:on robot
Between-participants
![Page 37: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Procedure
• Write down decisions about desert survival items• For each item
– Tell robot which item to retrieve– Robot responds with survival item information
and judgment about decision– Tell robot which item to retrieve
• Write down final decisions about survival items– These final ratings will be “evaluated”
• Fill out paper questionnaire
![Page 38: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Desert survival task
You are one of the members of a geology clubthat is on a field trip to study unusual formationsin the New Mexico desert. It is the last week inJuly. You have been driving over old trails, farfrom any road, in order to see out-of-the-wayformations. At about 10:30 A.M. the speciallyequipped minibus in which your club is ridingoverturns, rolls into a 20-foot ravine, and burns.The driver and professional advisor to the clubare killed. Both of you are relatively uninjured…
![Page 39: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Desert survival task
Rank the following items according to their importance to your survival, startingwith 1 for the most important one and proceeding to 12 for the least important one.
______ magnetic compass______ 20-ft by 20-ft piece of heavy-duty, light-blue canvas______ book, Plants in the Desert______ rearview mirror______ large knife______ flashlight (four-battery size)______ one jacket per person______ one transparent, plastic ground cloth (6-ft by 4-ft) per person______ .38-caliber loaded pistol______ one 2-quart plastic canteen per person, full of water______ accurate map of the area______ large box of kitchen matches
![Page 40: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Experiment Set-up
![Page 41: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Manipulation: Robotdisagreement
Statement Examples
1.
Description
of selected
item
The knife could be helpful in
cutting down stakes to build a
solar still or to build shelter. It
could also assist in cutting down
firewood for a fire.
2.
Judgment:
disagreeing
or agreeing
That is not as
good as…
That is a better
choice than…
3.
Description
of
alternative
item
The pistol, which could be good
for signaling for help. It could
provide an alternative noise
source if your voice is weak due
to dehydration.
4. Request
for final
selection
Which do you choose?
or
![Page 42: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
MeasuresBehavior• Number of decisions changed
Attitudes• Perceived agreeableness of robot
(2 items, Cronbach’s α=.69)
• Perceived similarity of robot to self(4 items, Cronbach’s α=.94)
• Liking of the robot(8 items, Cronbach’s α=.75)
![Page 43: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Perceived robotagreeablenessagreeableness
![Page 44: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Perceived similarity to robot
![Page 45: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
People changed their minds
![Page 46: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
People like disagreement tocome from elsewhere
![Page 47: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Checking against hypothesesH1. People will change their decisions more often
when the robot disagrees with them than when italways agrees with them, even with identicalsubstantive content.
H2. People will feel more similar to (H2a) and morepositively toward (H2b) the agreeing robot than thedisagreeing one.
H3. A disagreeing voice coming from a separatecontrol box will be more acceptable than adisagreeing voice that came from the robotic body.
![Page 48: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Theory-orientedInterpretations
•Politeness: distancing•Disembodiment•Perceived source
– Two separate agents: Thinker and doer– Single distributed agent
![Page 49: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Design-oriented Implications
• Voices can be more evocative than robot bodies• Agents can be sources of judgment and opinions• People are sensitive to disagreements• Disagreement undermines feelings of similarity• When agreeing 100% of the time, put the voice on the
robot body• When disagreeing (sometimes), put the robot voice
elsewhere
![Page 50: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Validity
• face validity: how reasonable a measureseems to be for its concept
• content validity: how thoroughly a measureaddresses the breadth of a concept
• construct validity: how much a measurecausally relates to other variables withinone’s theory
• external validity: how generalizable theresults will be to other systems and contexts
![Page 51: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Experiment Designs
•Keep it simple•Ceteris paribus•Random assignment to conditions•Balancing•Standardized tasks and measures•Behavioral and attitudinal measures•Sample representativeness
![Page 52: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Stats
•Use with caution!•Especially with
statistical modeling
![Page 53: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Reporting Studies
• Research questions andhypotheses
• Statistical significance• Reproducible methods• Discuss limitations• Thoroughly review
related work• Reduce bias in language• Clear labeling• Define terms
![Page 54: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Experiment Work Practices
•Pilot stimuli, measures, procedures withmultiple types of pilot participants
•Identifying the important variables andtheir relationships (grounded theory)
![Page 55: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Sharing artifacts and code
www.willowgarage.com
![Page 56: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Thanks!
Victoria Groom, Clifford Nass
Claudia Jimenez, Alison King, Morgan Ames, CourtneySchultz, Paloma Ochi, Jessica Yuan
Contact: Leila [email protected]
![Page 57: Takayama RSS2009 Workshop](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051322/5466b945b4af9fce288b4ab6/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Data Frame Model