Hannah R.M. Pelikan
Mathias Broth
ABSTRACT
This paper explores how humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot. Video data of participants playing a charade game with a Nao robot were analyzed from a multimodal conversation analysis perspective. Participants soon adjust aspects of turn-design such as word selection, turn length and prosody, thereby adapting to the robot's limited perceptive abilities as they become apparent in the interaction. However, coordination of turns-at-talk remains troublesome throughout the encounter, as evidenced by overlapping turns and lengthy silences around possible turn endings. The study discusses how the robot design can be improved to support the problematic taking of turns-at-talk with humans. Two programming strategies to address the identified problems are presented: 1. to program the robot so that it will be systematically receptive at the equivalence to transition relevance places in human-human interaction, and 2. to make the robot preferably produce verbal actions that require a response in a conditional way, rather than making a response only possible.
Supplemental Material
- Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, and Janet F. McLean. 2010. Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 9: 2355-2368. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mathias Broth, Jakob Cromdal and Lena Levin. In press. Starting out as a driver. Instructed pedal skill progression over a series of trials. In Memory Practices and Learning. Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives, Åsa Mäkitalo, Per Linell, and Roger Säljö (eds). Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, USA.Google Scholar
- Graham Button and Wes Sharrock. 1995. On simulacrums of conversation: Toward a clarification of the relevance of conversation analysis for human-computer interaction. In The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interfaces, Peter J. Thomas (ed.). Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 107--125. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arnulf Deppermann. 2015. When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. In Gesprächsforschung 16: 63--101.Google Scholar
- Nicholas J. Enfield. 2006. Social consequences of common ground. In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, Nicholas J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.). Berg, Oxford, UK, 399--430.Google Scholar
- Kerstin Fischer. 2011. Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '11). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 53--60. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1957656.1957672 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kerstin Fischer. 2011. How people talk with robots: Reduce user uncertainty. AI Magazine 32, 4: 31-38.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kerstin Fischer and Joe Saunders. 2012. Getting acquainted with a developing robot. In Human Behaviour Understanding, Albert A. Salah, Javier Ruiz-del-Solar, Çetin Meriçli, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer (eds.). Springer, Berlin, 125--133. http://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--642--34014--7_11 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Terrence Fong, Charles Thorpe, and Charles Baur. 2003. Collaboration, dialogue, human-robot interaction. In Robotics Research, Raymond A. Jarvis and Alexander Zelinsky (eds.). Springer, Berlin, 255--266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3--540--36460--9_17Google Scholar
- Norman Fraser, Nigel Gilbert, Scott McGlashan, and Robin Wooffitt. 1997. Humans, Computers and Wizards: Human (Simulated) Computer Interaction. Routledge, London, UK. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Charles Goodwin. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.). Irvington, NY, USA, 97--121.Google Scholar
- Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in Action. Cambridge University Press, UK. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sara Kiesler and Pamela Hinds. 2004. Introduction to this special issue on human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 1--2: 1--8. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sara Kiesler and Lee Sproull. 1997. "Social" human-computer interaction. In Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology, Bataya Friedman (ed.). Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA, USA, 191--199. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stefan Kopp. 2010. Social resonance and embodied coordination in face-to-face conversation with artificial interlocutors. Speech Communication 52, 6: 587-597. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.02.007 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yoshinori Kuno, Kazuhisa Sadazuka, Michie Kawashima, Keiichi Yamazaki, Akiko Yamazaki, and Hideaki Kuzuoka. 2007. Museum guide robot based on sociological interaction analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 1191--1194. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240624.1240804 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Luff, Christian Heath, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Jon Hindmarsh, Keiichi Yamazaki, and Shinya Oyama. 2003. Fractured ecologies: Creating environments for collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction 18, 1: 51--84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_3 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bilge Mutlu, Takayuki Kanda, Jodi Forlizzi, Jessica Hodgins, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2012. Conversational gaze mechanisms for humanlike robots. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems. 1, 2, Article 12, (33 pages). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2070719.2070725 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56, 1: 81--103. http://doi.org/10.1111/0022--4537.00153Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '94), Catherine Plaisant (ed.). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 72--78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/259963.260288 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Jamie Pearson, Jiang Hu, Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. Pickering, and Clifford I. Nass. 2006. Adaptive language behavior in HCI: How expectations and beliefs about a system affect users' word choice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06), Rebecca Grinter, Thomas Rodden, Paul Aoki, Ed Cutrell, Robin Jeffries, and Gary Olson (eds.). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 1177--1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124948 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karola Pitsch, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Yuya Suzuki, Luise Süssenbach, Paul Luff, and Christian Heath. 2009. "The first five seconds": Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in HRI. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2009), 985--991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326167Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karola Pitsch, Katrin S. Lohan, Katharina Rohlfing, Joe Saunders, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, and Britta Wrede. 2012. Better be reactive at the beginning. Implications of the first seconds of an encounter for the tutoring style in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2012), 974--981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343876Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jörg Roche. 1998. Variation in Xenolects. Sociolinguistica, 12: 117--139.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harvey Sacks. 1992. Lectures on Conversation (Vol. 1). Gail Jefferson (ed.). Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Harvey Sacks, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.). Irvington, NY, NY, USA, 15--21.Google Scholar
- Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 4: 696--735.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emanuel A. Schegloff, 1987. Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation's turn-taking organisation. In Talk and Social Organisation. Graham Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.). Clevedon, UK, 70-85. {Originally written in 1973}.Google Scholar
- Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1998. Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41, 3--4: 235--263.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, UK.Google Scholar
- Emanuel A. Schegloff and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8, 4: 289--327.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lucy A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, UK. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Keiichi Yamazaki, Akiko Yamazaki, Mai Okada, Yoshinori Kuno, Yoshinori Kobayashi, Yosuke Hoshi, Karola Pitsch, Paul Luff, Dirk vom Lehn, and Christian Heath. 2009. Revealing Gauguin: Engaging visitors in robot guide's explanation in an art museum. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09), 1437--1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518919 Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Why That Nao?: How Humans Adapt to a Conventional Humanoid Robot in Taking Turns-at-Talk
Recommendations
Conversational gaze mechanisms for humanlike robots
During conversations, speakers employ a number of verbal and nonverbal mechanisms to establish who participates in the conversation, when, and in what capacity. Gaze cues and mechanisms are particularly instrumental in establishing the participant roles ...
Controlling social dynamics with a parametrized model of floor regulation
Special Issue on HRI System StudiesTurn-taking is ubiquitous in human communication, yet turn-taking between humans and robots continues to be stilted and awkward for human users. The goal of our work is to build autonomous robot controllers for successfully engaging in human-like turn-...
Precision timing in human-robot interaction: coordination of head movement and utterance
CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsAs research over the last several decades has shown that non-verbal actions such as face and head movement play a crucial role in human interaction, such resources are also likely to play an important role in human-robot interaction. In developing a ...
Comments