skip to main content
10.1145/3171221.3171271acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Detecting Contingency for HRI in Open-World Environments

Published:26 February 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a novel algorithm for detecting contingent reactions to robot behavior in noisy real-world environments with naive users. Prior work has established that one way to detect contingency is by calculating a difference metric between sensor data before and after a robot probe of the environment. Our algorithm, CIRCLE (Contingency for Interactive Real-time CLassification of Engagement) provides a new approach to calculating this difference and detecting contingency, improving the running time for the difference calculation from 2.5 seconds to approximately 0.001 seconds on an 1100-sample vector, and effectively enabling real-time detection of contingent events. We show accuracy comparable to the best offline results for detecting contingency in this way (89.5% vs 91% in prior work), and demonstrate the utility of the real-time contingency detection in a field study of a survey-administering robot in a noisy open-world environment with naive users, showing that the robot can decrease the number of requests it makes (from 38 to 13) while more efficiently collecting survey responses (30% response rate rather than 26.3%).

References

  1. Steven M. Alessandri, Margaret W. Sullivan, and Michael Lewis. 1990. Violation of expectancy and frustration in early infancy. Developmental Psychology 26, 5 (1990), 738--744.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Minoru Asada, Koh Hosoda, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Toshio Inui, Yuichiro Yoshikawa, Masaki Ogino, and Chisato Yoshida. 2009. Cognitive Developmental Robotics: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 1, 1 (2009), 12--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Asif, M. Sabeel, and Mujeeb ur-Rahman an Z. H. Khan. 2016. Waiter Robot -- Solution to Restaurant Automation. Proceedings of the 1st Student Multi Disciplinary Research Conference (MDSRC) November (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ann E Bigelow and Philippe Rochat. 2006. Two-month-old Infants - Sensitivity to Social Contingency in Mother-Infant and Stranger-Infant Interaction. Infancy 9, 3 (2006), 313--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Nicholas J Butko and Javier R Movellan. 2010. Infomax Control of Eye Movements. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 2, 2 (2010), 91--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Richard L Canfield and Marshall M Haith. 1991. Young Infants - Visual Expectations for Symmetric and Asymmetric Stimulus Sequences. Developmental Psychology 27, 2 (1991), 198--208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Angelo Cangelosi, Giorgio Metta, Gerhard Sagerer, Stefano Nolfi, Chrystopher Nehaniv, Kerstin Fischer, Jun Tani, Tony Belpaeme, Giulio Sandini, Francesco Nori, Luciano Fadiga, Britta Wrede, Katharina Rohlfing, Elio Tuci, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Joe Saunders, and Arne Zeschel. 2010. Integration of action and language knowledge: A roadmap for Developmental robotics. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 2, 3 (2010), 167--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Vivian Chu, Kalesha Bullard, and Andrea L. Thomaz. 2014. Multimodal real-time contingency detection for HRI. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems Iros (2014), 3327--3332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gunnar Farneb. 2003. Two-Frame Motion Estimation Based on Polynomial Expansion. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2749, 1 (2003), 363--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Markus Finke, Kheng Lee Koay, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, Michael L. Walters, and Joe Saunders. 2005. Hey, I'm over here - How can a robot attract people's attention? Proceedings - IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2005 (2005), 7--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kevin Gold and Brian Scassellati. 2006. Learning acceptable windows of contingency. Connection Science 18, 2 (2006), 217--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Vanessa Evers, and Bob Wielinga. 2010. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 4 (2010), 361--375.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. P Kaewtrakulpong and R Bowden. 2001. An Improved Adaptive Background Mixture Model for Real- time Tracking with Shadow Detection. Advanced Video Based Surveillance Systems (2001), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Zenta Miyashita, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2009. An affective guide robot in a shopping mall. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction - HRI '09 (2009), 173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Zenta Miyashita, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2010. A communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 26, 5 (2010), 897--913. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Simon Keizer, Mary Ellen Foster, Zhuoran Wang, and Oliver Lemon. 2014. Machine Learning for Social Multiparty Human--Robot Interaction. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 4, 3 (2014), 1--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jinhan Lee, Crystal Chao, Aaron F. Bobick, and Andrea L. Thomaz. 2012. Multicue Contingency Detection. International Journal of Social Robotics 4, 2 (2012), 147--161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. MK Lee and Jodi Forlizzi. 2009. Designing adaptive robotic services. Proc. of IASDR'09 November (2009), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Timm Linder, Stefan Breuers, Bastian Leibe, and Kai O Arras. 2016. On multimodal people tracking from mobile platforms in very crowded and dynamic environments. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 5512--5519.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Sara Ljungblad and Jirina Kotrbova. 2012. Hospital robot at work: something alien or an intelligent colleague? . . . Cooperative Work (2012), 177--186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Javier R. Movellan. 2005. An infomax controller for real time detection of social contingency. Proceedings of 2005 4th IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning 2005 (2005), 19--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Steffen Muller, Sven Hellbach, Erik Schaffernicht, Antje Ober, Andrea Scheidig, and Horst Michael Gross. 2008. Whom to talk to? Estimating user interest from movement trajectories. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN (2008), 532--538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Aastha Nigam and Laurel D Riek. 2015. Social context perception for mobile robots. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 3621--3627.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Shokoofeh Pourmehr, Jack Thomas, Jake Bruce, Jens Wawerla, and Richard Vaughan. 2017. Robust sensor fusion for finding HRI partners in a crowd. Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation i (2017), 3272--3278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Satoru Satake, Takayuki Kanda, Dylan F Glas, Michita Imai, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2013. A robot that approaches pedestrians. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 29, 2 (2013), 508--524. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Chao Shi, Masahiro Shiomi, Christian Smith, Takayuki Kanda, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2013. A Model of Distributional Handing Interaction for a Mobile Robot. Robotics: Science and Systems (2013). http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record. jsf?pid=diva2:631957Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. N.M.a Su, L.S.b Liu, and A.b Lazar. 2014. Mundanely miraculous: The robot in healthcare. Proceedings of the NordiCHI 2014: The 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (2014), 391--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hidenobu Sumioka, Yuichiro Yoshikawa, Masanori Morizono, and Minoru Asada. 2011. Socially Developmental Robot based on Self-Induced Contingency with Multi Latencies. Proceedings of The 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Neurodynamics (2011), 3--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. G M Tarabulsy, R Tessier, and a Kappas. 1996. Contingency detection and the contingent organization of behavior in interactions: implications for socioemotional development in infancy. Psychological Bulletin 120, 1 (1996), 25--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. John S. Watson. 1972. Smiling, Cooing, and "The Game". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development 18, 4 (1972), 323--339. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 23084026Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mary-Anne Williams. 2012. Robot Social Intelligence. International Conference on Social Robotics 4 (2012), 45--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Fumitaka Yamaoka, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2006. How contingent should a communication robot be? Proceeding of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI '06 (2006), 313--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Zoran Zivkovic. 2004. Improved adaptive Gaussian mixture model for background subtraction. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition 2, 2 (2004), 28--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Zoran Zivkovic and Ferdinand Van Der Heijden. 2006. Efficient adaptive density estimation per image pixel for the task of background subtraction. Pattern Recognition Letters 27, 7 (2006), 773--780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Detecting Contingency for HRI in Open-World Environments

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            HRI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
            February 2018
            468 pages
            ISBN:9781450349536
            DOI:10.1145/3171221

            Copyright © 2018 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 26 February 2018

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            HRI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate49of206submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader