Gaze and Gestures in Telepresence: multimodality, embodiment, and roles of collaboration

This paper proposes a controlled experiment to further investigate the usefulness of gaze awareness and gesture recognition in the support of collaborative work at a distance. We propose to redesign experiments conducted several years ago with more recent technology that would: a) enable to better study of the integration of communication modalities, b) allow users to freely move while collaborating at a distance and c) avoid asymmetries of communication between collaborators.Comment: Position paper, International Workshop New Frontiers in Telepresence 2010, part of CSCW2010, Savannah, GA, USA, 7th of February, 2010. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/events/nft2010

Robot mediated communication: Enhancing tele-presence using an avatar

In the past few years there has been a lot of development in the field of tele-presence. These developments have caused tele-presence technologies to become easily accessible and also for the experience to be enhanced. Since tele-presence is not only used for tele-presence assisted group meetings but also in some forms of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), these activities have also been facilitated. One of the lingering issues has to do with how to properly transmit presence of non-co-located members to the rest of the group. Using current commercially available tele-presence technology it is possible to exhibit a limited level of social presence but no physical presence. In order to cater for this lack of presence a system is implemented here using tele-operated robots as avatars for remote team members and had its efficacy tested. This testing includes both the level of presence that can be exhibited by robot avatars but also how the efficacy of these robots for this task changes depending on the morphology of the robot. Using different types of robots, a humanoid robot and an industrial robot arm, as tele-presence avatars, it is found that the humanoid robot using an appropriate control system is better at exhibiting a social presence. Further, when compared to a voice only scenario, both robots proved significantly better than with only voice in terms of both cooperative task solving and social presence. These results indicate that using an appropriate control system, a humanoid robot can be better than an industrial robot in these types of tasks and the validity of aiming for a humanoid design behaving in a human-like way in order to emulate social interactions that are closer to human norms. This has implications for the design of autonomous socially interactive robot systems

A Review of Verbal and Non-Verbal Human-Robot Interactive Communication

In this paper, an overview of human-robot interactive communication is presented, covering verbal as well as non-verbal aspects of human-robot interaction. Following a historical introduction, and motivation towards fluid human-robot communication, ten desiderata are proposed, which provide an organizational axis both of recent as well as of future research on human-robot communication. Then, the ten desiderata are examined in detail, culminating to a unifying discussion, and a forward-looking conclusion

Telerobotic Pointing Gestures Shape Human Spatial Cognition

This paper aimed to explore whether human beings can understand gestures produced by telepresence robots. If it were the case, they can derive meaning conveyed in telerobotic gestures when processing spatial information. We conducted two experiments over Skype in the present study. Participants were presented with a robotic interface that had arms, which were teleoperated by an experimenter. The robot could point to virtual locations that represented certain entities. In Experiment 1, the experimenter described spatial locations of fictitious objects sequentially in two conditions: speech condition (SO, verbal descriptions clearly indicated the spatial layout) and speech and gesture condition (SR, verbal descriptions were ambiguous but accompanied by robotic pointing gestures). Participants were then asked to recall the objects' spatial locations. We found that the number of spatial locations recalled in the SR condition was on par with that in the SO condition, suggesting that telerobotic pointing gestures compensated ambiguous speech during the process of spatial information. In Experiment 2, the experimenter described spatial locations non-sequentially in the SR and SO conditions. Surprisingly, the number of spatial locations recalled in the SR condition was even higher than that in the SO condition, suggesting that telerobotic pointing gestures were more powerful than speech in conveying spatial information when information was presented in an unpredictable order. The findings provide evidence that human beings are able to comprehend telerobotic gestures, and importantly, integrate these gestures with co-occurring speech. This work promotes engaging remote collaboration among humans through a robot intermediary.Comment: 27 pages, 7 figure

Interactive spaces for children: gesture elicitation for controlling ground mini-robots

[EN] Interactive spaces for education are emerging as a mechanism for fostering children's natural ways of learning by means of play and exploration in physical spaces. The advanced interactive modalities and devices for such environments need to be both motivating and intuitive for children. Among the wide variety of interactive mechanisms, robots have been a popular research topic in the context of educational tools due to their attractiveness for children. However, few studies have focused on how children would naturally interact and explore interactive environments with robots. While there is abundant research on full-body interaction and intuitive manipulation of robots by adults, no similar research has been done with children. This paper therefore describes a gesture elicitation study that identified the preferred gestures and body language communication used by children to control ground robots. The results of the elicitation study were used to define a gestural language that covers the different preferences of the gestures by age group and gender, with a good acceptance rate in the 6-12 age range. The study also revealed interactive spaces with robots using body gestures as motivating and promising scenarios for collaborative or remote learning activities.This work is funded by the European Development Regional Fund (EDRF-FEDER) and supported by the Spanish MINECO (TIN2014-60077-R). The work of Patricia Pons is supported by a national grant from the Spanish MECD (FPU13/03831). Special thanks are due to the children and teachers of the Col-legi Public Vicente Gaos for their valuable collaboration and dedication.Pons Tomás, P.; Jaén Martínez, FJ. (2020). Interactive spaces for children: gesture elicitation for controlling ground mini-robots. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 11(6):2467-2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01290-6S24672488116Alborzi H, Hammer J, Kruskal A et al (2000) Designing StoryRooms: interactive storytelling spaces for children. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques—DIS’00. ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104Antle AN, Corness G, Droumeva M (2009) What the body knows: exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interact Comput 21:66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.10.005Belpaeme T, Baxter PE, Read R et al (2013) Multimodal child–robot interaction: building social bonds. J Human-Robot Interact 1:33–53. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.2.BelpaemeBenko H, Wilson AD, Zannier F, Benko H (2014) Dyadic projected spatial augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology—UIST’14, pp 645–655Bobick AF, Intille SS, Davis JW et al (1999) The KidsRoom: a perceptually-based interactive and immersive story environment. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 8:367–391. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566297Bonarini A, Clasadonte F, Garzotto F, Gelsomini M (2015) Blending robots and full-body interaction with large screens for children with intellectual disability. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 351–354Cauchard JR, E JL, Zhai KY, Landay JA (2015) Drone & me: an exploration into natural human–drone interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing—UbiComp’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 361–365Connell S, Kuo P-Y, Liu L, Piper AM (2013) A Wizard-of-Oz elicitation study examining child-defined gestures with a whole-body interface. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’13. ACM Press, New York, pp 277–280Derboven J, Van Mechelen M, Slegers K (2015) Multimodal analysis in participatory design with children. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 2825–2828Dong H, Danesh A, Figueroa N, El Saddik A (2015) An elicitation study on gesture preferences and memorability toward a practical hand-gesture vocabulary for smart televisions. IEEE Access 3:543–555. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2432679Druin A (1999) Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors computer system CHI is limit—CHI’99, vol 14, pp 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303166Druin A (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav Inf Technol 21:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659Druin A, Bederson B, Boltman A et al (1999) Children as our technology design partners. In: Druin A (ed) The design of children’s technology. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, pp 51–72Epps J, Lichman S, Wu M (2006) A study of hand shape use in tabletop gesture interaction. CHI’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’06. ACM Press, New York, pp 748–753Fender AR, Benko H, Wilson A (2017) MeetAlive : room-scale omni-directional display system for multi-user content and control sharing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on interactive surfaces and spaces, pp 106–115Fernandez RAS, Sanchez-Lopez JL, Sampedro C et al (2016) Natural user interfaces for human–drone multi-modal interaction. In: 2016 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS). IEEE, New York, pp 1013–1022Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J, Nacher V, Catala A (2015) Design and evaluation of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten instruction. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology—ACE’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J, Jurdi S (2016) Towards encouraging communication in hospitalized children through multi-tablet activities. In: Proceedings of the XVII international conference on human computer interaction, pp 29.1–29.4Gindling J, Ioannidou A, Loh J et al (1995) LEGOsheets: a rule-based programming, simulation and manipulation environment for the LEGO programmable brick. In: Proceedings of symposium on visual languages. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 172–179Gonzalez B, Borland J, Geraghty K (2009) Whole body interaction for child-centered multimodal language learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on child, computer and interaction—WOCCI’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–5Grønbæk K, Iversen OS, Kortbek KJ et al (2007) Interactive floor support for kinesthetic interaction in children learning environments. In: Human–computer interaction—INTERACT 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 361–375Guha ML, Druin A, Chipman G et al (2005) Working with young children as technology design partners. Commun ACM 48:39–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039567Hansen JP, Alapetite A, MacKenzie IS, Møllenbach E (2014) The use of gaze to control drones. In: Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications—ETRA’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 27–34Henkemans OAB, Bierman BPB, Janssen J et al (2017) Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. Int J Hum Comput Stud 106:63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001Horn MS, Crouser RJ, Bers MU (2011) Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 16:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2Hourcade JP (2015) Child computer interaction. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, North CharlestonHöysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L (2004) Wizard of Oz prototyping of computer vision based action games for children. Proceeding of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children building a community—IDC’04. ACM Press, New York, pp 27–34Höysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L, Rouvi T (2005) Children’s intuitive gestures in vision-based action games. Commun ACM 48:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039568Hsiao H-S, Chen J-C (2016) Using a gesture interactive game-based learning approach to improve preschool children’s learning performance and motor skills. Comput Educ 95:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.005Jokela T, Rezaei PP, Väänänen K (2016) Using elicitation studies to generate collocated interaction methods. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on human–computer interaction with mobile devices and services adjunct, pp 1129–1133. https://doi.org/10.1145/2957265.2962654Jones B, Benko H, Ofek E, Wilson AD (2013) IllumiRoom: peripheral projected illusions for interactive experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’13, pp 869–878Jones B, Shapira L, Sodhi R et al (2014) RoomAlive: magical experiences enabled by scalable, adaptive projector-camera units. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology—UIST’14, pp 637–644Kaminski M, Pellino T, Wish J (2002) Play and pets: the physical and emotional impact of child-life and pet therapy on hospitalized children. Child Heal Care 31:321–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326888CHC3104_5Karam M, Schraefel MC (2005) A taxonomy of gestures in human computer interactions. In: Technical report in electronics and computer science, pp 1–45Kistler F, André E (2013) User-defined body gestures for an interactive storytelling scenario. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinform) 8118:264–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_17Konda KR, Königs A, Schulz H, Schulz D (2012) Real time interaction with mobile robots using hand gestures. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 177–178Kray C, Nesbitt D, Dawson J, Rohs M (2010) User-defined gestures for connecting mobile phones, public displays, and tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services—MobileHCI’10. ACM Press, New York, pp 239–248Kurdyukova E, Redlin M, André E (2012) Studying user-defined iPad gestures for interaction in multi-display environment. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on intelligent user interfaces—IUI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 93–96Lambert V, Coad J, Hicks P, Glacken M (2014) Social spaces for young children in hospital. Child Care Health Dev 40:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12016Lee S-S, Chae J, Kim H et al (2013) Towards more natural digital content manipulation via user freehand gestural interaction in a living room. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing—UbiComp’13. ACM Press, New York, p 617Malinverni L, Mora-Guiard J, Pares N (2016) Towards methods for evaluating and communicating participatory design: a multimodal approach. Int J Hum Comput Stud 94:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.004Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491Marco J, Cerezo E, Baldassarri S et al (2009) Bringing tabletop technologies to kindergarten children. In: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: celebrating people and technology, pp 103–111Michaud F, Caron S (2002) Roball, the rolling robot. Auton Robots 12:211–222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014005728519Micire M, Desai M, Courtemanche A et al (2009) Analysis of natural gestures for controlling robot teams on multi-touch tabletop surfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 41–48Mora-Guiard J, Crowell C, Pares N, Heaton P (2016) Lands of fog: helping children with autism in social interaction through a full-body interactive experience. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 262–274Morris MR (2012) Web on the wall: insights from a multimodal interaction elicitation study. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104Morris MR, Wobbrock JO, Wilson AD (2010) Understanding users’ preferences for surface gestures. Proc Graph Interface 2010:261–268Nacher V, Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J (2016) Evaluating the usability of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten children instruction. In: 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT). IEEE, New York, pp 130–132Nahapetyan VE, Khachumov VM (2015) Gesture recognition in the problem of contactless control of an unmanned aerial vehicle. Optoelectron Instrum Data Process 51:192–197. https://doi.org/10.3103/S8756699015020132Obaid M, Häring M, Kistler F et al (2012) User-defined body gestures for navigational control of a humanoid robot. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), pp 367–377Obaid M, Kistler F, Häring M et al (2014) A framework for user-defined body gestures to control a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 6:383–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0233-3Obaid M, Kistler F, Kasparavičiūtė G, et al (2016) How would you gesture navigate a drone?: a user-centered approach to control a drone. In: Proceedings of the 20th international academic Mindtrek conference—AcademicMindtrek’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 113–121Pares N, Soler M, Sanjurjo À et al (2005) Promotion of creative activity in children with severe autism through visuals in an interactive multisensory environment. In: Proceeding of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children—IDC’05. ACM Press, New York, pp 110–116Pfeil K, Koh SL, LaViola J (2013) Exploring 3D gesture metaphors for interaction with unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on intelligent user interfaces—IUI’13, pp 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/2449396.2449429Piaget J (1956) The child’s conception of space. Norton, New YorkPiaget J (1973) The child and reality: problems of genetic psychology. Grossman, New YorkPiumsomboon T, Clark A, Billinghurst M, Cockburn A (2013) User-defined gestures for augmented reality. CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’13. ACM Press, New York, pp 955–960Pons P, Carrión A, Jaen J (2018) Remote interspecies interactions: improving humans and animals’ wellbeing through mobile playful spaces. Pervasive Mob Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2018.12.003Puranam MB (2005) Towards full-body gesture analysis and recognition. University of Kentucky, LexingtonPyryeskin D, Hancock M, Hoey J (2012) Comparing elicited gestures to designer-created gestures for selection above a multitouch surface. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10Raffle HS, Parkes AJ, Ishii H (2004) Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. System 6:647–654. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985774Read JC, Markopoulos P (2013) Child–computer interaction. Int J Child-Comput Interact 1:2–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.09.001Read JC, Macfarlane S, Casey C (2002) Endurability, engagement and expectations: measuring children’s fun. In: Interaction design and children, pp 189–198Read JC, Markopoulos P, Parés N et al (2008) Child computer interaction. In: Proceeding of the 26th annual CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI’08. ACM Press, New York, pp 2419–2422Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2014) Tactile interactions with a humanoid robot: novel play scenario implementations with children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 6:397–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0228-0Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Nehaniv CL (2008) Behaviour delay and robot expressiveness in child–robot interactions: a user study on interaction kinesics. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACMIEEE international conference on human robot interaction, pp 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349826Ruiz J, Li Y, Lank E (2011) User-defined motion gestures for mobile interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’11. ACM Press, New York, p 197Rust K, Malu M, Anthony L, Findlater L (2014) Understanding childdefined gestures and children’s mental models for touchscreen tabletop interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interaction design and children—IDC’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 201–204Salter T, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2006) Learning about natural human-robot interaction styles. Robot Auton Syst 54:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2005.09.022Sanghvi J, Castellano G, Leite I et al (2011) Automatic analysis of affective postures and body motion to detect engagement with a game companion. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’11. ACM Press, New York, pp 305–311Sanna A, Lamberti F, Paravati G, Manuri F (2013) A Kinect-based natural interface for quadrotor control. Entertain Comput 4:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2013.01.001Sato E, Yamaguchi T, Harashima F (2007) Natural interface using pointing behavior for human–robot gestural interaction. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 54:1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2007.892728Schaper M-M, Pares N (2016) Making sense of body and space through full-body interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 613–618Schaper M-M, Malinverni L, Pares N (2015) Sketching through the body: child-generated gestures in full-body interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 255–258Seyed T, Burns C, Costa Sousa M et al (2012) Eliciting usable gestures for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’12. ACM Press, New York, p 41Shimon SSA, Morrison-Smith S, John N et al (2015) Exploring user-defined back-of-device gestures for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on human–computer interaction with mobile devices and services—MobileHCI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 227–232Sipitakiat A, Nusen N (2012) Robo-blocks: a tangible programming system with debugging for children. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’12. ACM Press, New York, p 98Soler-Adillon J, Ferrer J, Pares N (2009) A novel approach to interactive playgrounds: the interactive slide project. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–139Stiefelhagen R, Fogen C, Gieselmann P et al (2004) Natural human–robot interaction using speech, head pose and gestures. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566). IEEE, New York, pp 2422–2427Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield PM (1994) Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. J Appl Dev Psychol 15:13–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3Sugiyama J, Tsetserukou D, Miura J (2011) NAVIgoid: robot navigation with haptic vision. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 emerging technologies SA’11, vol 15, p 4503. https://doi.org/10.1145/2073370.2073378Takahashi T, Morita M, Tanaka F (2012) Evaluation of a tricycle-style teleoperational interface for children: a comparative experiment with a video game controller. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, New York, pp 334–338Tanaka F, Takahashi T (2012) A tricycle-style teleoperational interface that remotely controls a robot for classroom children. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 255–256Tjaden L, Tong A, Henning P et al (2012) Children’s experiences of dialysis: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Arch Dis Child 97:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300639Vatavu R-D (2012) User-defined gestures for free-hand TV control. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on interactive TV and video—EuroiTV’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 45–48Vatavu R-D (2017) Smart-Pockets: body-deictic gestures for fast access to personal data during ambient interactions. Int J Hum Comput Stud 103:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.01.005Vatavu R-D, Wobbrock JO (2015) Formalizing agreement analysis for elicitation studies: new measures, significance test, and toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 1325–1334Vatavu R-D, Wobbrock JO (2016) Between-subjects elicitation studies: formalization and tool support. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 3390–3402Voyer D, Voyer S, Bryden MP (1995) Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychol Bull 117:250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250Wainer J, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K (2014) Using the humanoid robot KASPAR to autonomously play triadic games and facilitate collaborative play among children with autism. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 6:183–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2303116Wang Y, Zhang L (2015) A track-based gesture recognition algorithm for Kinect. Appl Mech Mater 738–7399:334–338. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.738-739.334

Explorations in engagement for humans and robots

This paper explores the concept of engagement, the process by which individuals in an interaction start, maintain and end their perceived connection to one another. The paper reports on one aspect of engagement among human interactors--the effect of tracking faces during an interaction. It also describes the architecture of a robot that can participate in conversational, collaborative interactions with engagement gestures. Finally, the paper reports on findings of experiments with human participants who interacted with a robot when it either performed or did not perform engagement gestures. Results of the human-robot studies indicate that people become engaged with robots: they direct their attention to the robot more often in interactions where engagement gestures are present, and they find interactions more appropriate when engagement gestures are present than when they are not.Comment: 31 pages, 5 figures, 3 table