ABSTRACT
Faces are critical in establishing the agency of social robots; however, building expressive mechanical faces is costly and difficult. Instead, many robots built in recent years have faces that are rendered onto a screen. This gives great flexibility in what a robot's face can be and opens up a new design space with which to establish a robot's character and perceived properties. Despite the prevalence of robots with rendered faces, there are no systematic explorations of this design space. Our work aims to fill that gap. We conducted a survey and identified 157 robots with rendered faces and coded them in terms of 76 properties. We present statistics, common patterns, and observations about this data set of faces. Next, we conducted two surveys to understand people's perceptions of rendered robot faces and identify the impact of different face features. Survey results indicate preferences for varying levels of realism and detail in robot faces based on context, and indicate how the presence or absence of specific features affects perception of the face and the types of jobs the face would be appropriate for.
- Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. (2009).Google Scholar
- Christian Becker-Asano and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2011. Evaluating facial displays of emotion for the android robot Geminoid F. In Affective Computational Intelligence (WACI), 2011 IEEE Workshop on. IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Diane S Berry and Leslie Zebrowitz Mcarthur. 1985. Some Components and Consequences of a Babyface. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 2 (1985), 312--323.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mike Blow, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Andrew Appleby, Chrystopher L Nehaniv, and David Lee. 2006. The art of designing robot faces: Dimensions for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Humanrobot interaction. ACM, 331--332. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cynthia Breazeal and Brian Scassellati. 1999. How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1999. IROS'99. Proceedings. 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, Vol. 2. IEEE, 858--863.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cynthia L Breazeal. 2004. Designing sociable robots. MIT press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elizabeth Broadbent, Vinayak Kumar, Xingyan Li, John Sollers 3rd, Rebecca Q Stafford, Bruce A MacDonald, and Daniel M Wegner. 2013. Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PloS one 8, 8 (2013), e72589.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fuyuan Cao, Jiye Liang, and Liang Bai. 2009. A new initialization method for categorical data clustering. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 7 (2009), 10223-- 10228. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haiwen Chen, Richard Russell, Ken Nakayama, and Margaret Livingstone. 2010. Crossing the uncanny valley: adaptation to cartoon faces can influence perception of human faces. Perception 39, 3 (2010), 378--386.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthieu Courgeon, Stéphanie Buisine, and Jean-Claude Martin. 2009. Impact of expressive wrinkles on perception of a virtual characterA's facial expressions of emotions. In Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 201--214. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kerstin Dautenhahn, Sarah Woods, Christina Kaouri, Michael L. Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, and Iain Werry. 2005. What is a robot companion - Friend, assistant or butler?. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carla Diana and Andrea L Thomaz. 2011. The shape of simon: creative design of a humanoid robot shell. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 283--298. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carl F DiSalvo, Francine Gemperle, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sara Kiesler. 2002. All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, 321--326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chris D Frith and Uta Frith. 2006. How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain research 1079, 1 (2006), 36--46.Google Scholar
- Rachel Gockley, Jodi Forlizzi, and Reid Simmons. 2006. Interactions with a moody robot. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 186--193. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jennifer Goetz, Sara Kiesler, and Aaron Powers. 2003. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on. Ieee, 55--60.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F Hara and H Kobayashi. 1995. Use of face robot for human-computer communication. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1995. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century, IEEE International Conference on, Vol. 2. IEEE, 1515--1520.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ran Hee Kim, Yeop Moon, Jung Ju Choi, and Sonya S Kwak. 2014. The effect of robot appearance types on motivating donation. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 210--211. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dingjun Li, PL Patrick Rau, and Ye Li. 2010. A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 2 (2010), 175--186.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Manja Lohse, Frank Hegel, Agnes Swadzba, Katharina Rohlfing, SvenWachsmuth, and Britta Wrede. 2007. What can I do for you? Appearance and application of robots. In Proceedings of AISB, Vol. 7. 121--126.Google Scholar
- Karl F MacDorman, Robert D Green, Chin-Chang Ho, and Clinton T Koch. 2009. Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in human behavior 25, 3 (2009), 695--710. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rachel McDonnell and Martin Breidt. 2010. Face reality: investigating the uncanny valley for virtual faces. In ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2010 Sketches. ACM, 41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bilge Mutlu, Fumitaka Yamaoka, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2009. Nonverbal leakage in robots: communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. ACM, 69--76. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nikolaas N Oosterhof and Alexander Todorov. 2008. The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 32 (2008), 11087--11092.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aaron Powers and Sara Kiesler. 2006. The advisor robot: tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 218--225. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aaron Powers, Adam DI Kramer, Shirlene Lim, Jean Kuo, Sau-lai Lee, and Sara Kiesler. 2005. Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 158--163.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jun'ichiro Seyama and Ruth S Nagayama. 2007. The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments 16, 4 (2007), 337--351. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Sarah N Woods, Michael L Walters, and Kheng Lee Koay. 2007. Looking Good? Appearance Preferences and Robot Personality Inferences at Zero Acquaintance.. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics. 86--92.Google Scholar
- Angela Tinwell, Mark Grimshaw, Debbie Abdel Nabi, and Andrew Williams. 2011. Facial expression of emotion and perception of the Uncanny Valley in virtual characters. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 2 (2011), 741--749. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alexander Todorov, Chris P Said, Andrew D Engell, and Nikolaas N Oosterhof. 2008. Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in cognitive sciences 12, 12 (2008), 455--460.Google Scholar
- Alexander Todorov and James S Uleman. 2003. The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39, 6 (2003), 549--562.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael L Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and René Te Boekhorst. 2009. Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human-robot interaction trials. Procs of New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (2009).Google Scholar
- Yuichiro Yoshikawa, Kazuhiko Shinozawa, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Norihiro Hagita, and Takanori Miyamoto. 2006. Responsive Robot Gaze to Interaction Partner.. In Robotics: Science and systems.Google Scholar
- L.A. Zebrowitz. 1997. Reading faces: window to the soul? Westview Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=4fp9AAAAMAAJGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Characterizing the Design Space of Rendered Robot Faces
Recommendations
The art of designing robot faces: dimensions for human-robot interaction
HRI '06: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interactionAs robots enter everyday life and start to interact with ordinary people [5]the question of their appearance becomes increasingly important. A user's perception of a robot can be strongly influenced by its facial appearance [6]. The dimensions and ...
Head Design and Optimization of An Emotionally Interactive Robot for the Treatment of Autism
CACRE2019: Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Automation, Control and Robotics EngineeringEmotionally interactive robots with facial expressions have various applications, such as research, education, companion, entertainment, and so on. Apart from this, robots with facial expressions demonstrate unique therapeutic effects via eye contact, ...
Robot-Assisted Training with Swedish and Israeli Older Adults
Social RoboticsAbstractThis paper explores robot-assisted training in a cross-cultural context with older adults. We performed user studies with 28 older adults with two different assistive training robots: an adaptive robot, and a non-adaptive robot, in two countries (...
Comments