Schneiders, Eike

English

With the increase in robot complexity and diversity of domains in which we encounter robots, we also experience an increased need for research focusing on more varied aspects of human-robot interaction. While most research has focused on the dyadic interaction (one-to-one) between one human and one robot, we are currently observing a paradigm shift towards increased attention to HRI in non-dyadic systems. However, we still have limited knowledge of what interaction techniques work well for non-dyadic HRI combining human participants with multiple digital artefacts, including robots. I investigate what characterises non-dyadic HRI in various contexts, including the home and industry, and how the addition of robots affects how we interact in groups. This paper presents my research questions, preliminary results, and plans for future studies, thereby contributing to a better understanding of the concepts and interaction techniques in non-dyadic interaction in human-robot groups in various contexts.<br/

    Aalborg UniversitetNon-Dyadic Human-Robot Interaction: Concepts and Interaction TechniquesSchneiders, EikePublished in:Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionDOI (link to publication from Publisher):10.5555/3523760.3523963Publication date:2022Document VersionOther versionLink to publication from Aalborg UniversityCitation for published version (APA):Schneiders, E. (2022). Non-Dyadic Human-Robot Interaction: Concepts and Interaction Techniques. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 1176-1178).IEEE Press. https://doi.org/10.5555/3523760.3523963General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.            - Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.            - You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            - You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal -Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: November 19, 2022Non-Dyadic Human-Robot Interaction:Concepts and Interaction TechniquesEike SchneidersDepartment of Computer Science Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark eike@cs.aau.dkAbstract—With the increase in robot complexity and the diversity of domains in which we encounter robots, there is an increased need for research focusing on more varied aspects of human-robot interaction. While most research has focused on the dyadic interaction (one-to-one) between one human and one robot, we are currently observing a paradigm shift towards increased attention to HRI in non-dyadic systems. However, we still have limited knowledge of which interaction techniques work well for non-dyadic HRI combining human participants with multiple digital artefacts, including robots. We investigate what characterises non-dyadic HRI in various contexts, including the home and industry, and how the addition of robots affects how we interact in groups. This paper presents our research questions, preliminary results, and plans for future studies, thereby contributing to a better understanding of the concepts and interaction techniques in non-dyadic interaction in human- robot groups in various contexts. Index Terms—Non-dyadic HRI, interaction techniques in groups with robots, human-human interactionI.  I  NTRODUCTIONThe increasing emphasis on ecologies of technologies com- municating and interacting with each other (e.g., speakers, watches, lights, personal assistants, robotic vacuum cleaners) changes how we interact with technology. This shift in focus from dyadic systems, as in one technological artefact with one human, towards digital ecologies [13] brings new challenges and new ways of understanding technology and interaction. While most current research still focuses on dyadic HRI [15], we currently observe a paradigm shift towards non-dyadic interaction in a variety of contexts (e.g., domestic or indus- trial) in the field of human-robot interaction [11]. Non-dyadic human-robot interaction is more than the mere upscaling of dyadic interactions between one human and one robot [9]. Multiple humans interacting with robots add a new layer of complexity, namely human-human interaction [9]. How is the interaction affected by the presence of other humans, non- robotic technologies, and robots? How do humans interact with each other to accomplish a given robot-supported task? What type of interaction techniques are utilised in these non- dyadic settings? How does non-dyadic HRI affect the spatial and temporal dimensions of the interactions? These are just some of the questions that are relevant to answer in order to understand the current development of robots in non-dyadic settings fully.A. Research QuestionsIn order to achieve a better understanding of what interac- tion in non-dyadic settings mean and how it affects the human- robot and the human-human interaction in these settings, our work is guided by the following three research questions.1) Which concepts characterise research on non-dyadic human-robot interaction?2) What impact do robots have on interaction in mixed human-robot groups?3) How do robots influence human-human interaction in non-dyadic interaction?II.  BACKGROUNDDifferent aspects of non-dyadic interaction with robots have been investigated, including: reduction of loneliness [8], impact of robotic co-workers in industry [14], interaction with robots in hospitals [10], [12], collaboration in groups [6], [9], [19], human perception of groups of robots [5], [7], robot mediated intimacy [20], human reaction to robot abuse [2], [3], or literature reviews investigating non-dyadic HRI [15], [17]. Yet, an increasing number of research has called for a greater need to investigate HRI going beyond the dyadic interaction between one human and one robot (e.g., [5], [8], [20]). Three recent examples of studies investigating different aspects of non-dyadic HRI are [5], [8], [12]. Fraune et al. [5] investigate how the presence, or absence, of entitativity (feeling of belonging to the same group) changes human perception towards triads of robots. Their study manipulates robot entitativity using four distinct factors (robot appearance, motion, decisions, and proximity). Based on this study, Fraune et al. argue for a better understanding of investigation using robot groups, as this knowledge is crucial for robots to reach their full potential when working in human groups. In order to combat loneliness in young adults, Jeong et al. [8] conducted a study in the domestic context, in which multiple households were connected through the robot Fribo. The robot would, anonymously, notify each household in the group about activities identified through audio performed by the other households. Even though these participating households were still alone, the interaction through the robots was sufficient to start a change in human-human relations and increase the feeling of closeness to others. Lastly, we want to highlight aHRI Pioneer HRI 2022, March 7-10, 2022, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan1176978-1-6654-0731-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEEFig. 1. Various photographs/screenshots taken during home visits (a, b) and visits in companies using collaborative robots (c, d, e).recent study by Pelikan et al. [12] considering the importance of spatiality when introducing robots in the hospital context. Based on two years of extensive data collection in operation rooms, both robot-supported and non-robotic, Pelikan et al. identify changes in human-human dynamics depending on the robot’s presence. For instance, the addition of the robot distributes team members spatially, thereby leading to an increase in the cognitive distance, making it harder to achievea coherent situational awareness across team members.III.  R ESEARCH A PPROACH AND R ESULTS TO DATEIn order to approach an answer to RQ1, we investigated current non-dyadic research conducted in the HRI community. This was done through a comprehensive literature review on all HRI publications from 2006-2020, including both years, forming an initial corpus of 587 full papers. To structure our research approach, we used the 4C framework for interaction in groups [18]. Modifying the framework, as presented in our previous work [15], allowed us to classify current efforts of investigating non-dyadic HRI. Further, this analysis helped us to identify tendencies, as well as shortcomings of current re- search. Key findings include; i) a heavy focus on simultaneous over sequential interaction in non-dyadic HRI; ii) an uneven configuration of groups (human-to-robot) investigated, as 52% of all non-dyadic HRI research was focusing on systems involving multiple digital technologies, including robots, but only one human participant; and iii) we present empirical evidence to an ongoing ‘paradigm shift’ [11] towards an increased emphasis on non-dyadic interaction—even though HRI still has a strong focus on dyadic interaction studies (only 27.9% non-dyadic). To investigate RQ2 and RQ3, we conducted several qualita- tive studies in the wild, specifically in the domestic [16] (see Figure 1a & b) and industrial (see Figure 1c, d, and e) contexts (two industrial studies are ongoing projects). Using in-situ interviews, contextual technology tours [1], observations, and audio/video recordings during an in-the-wild study (N = 24), we were able to present three primary insights on robot interaction in the home. Firstly, the introduction of robots fragments previous coherent tasks, only some of which are automated. Secondly, interacting with domestic robots is rarelya dyadic interaction. The use of these is a group effort, both while collocated and remotely, which requires behaviour andenvironmental change from all household members. Lastly, digital technologies and humans acting as proxies are vital for breakdown intervention and recovery. The two most recent studies (still ongoing), investigate the industrial context and how the introduction of robots shapes not only the interaction with the robots itself but the interaction and social dynamics between team members of a manufacturing cell. Methods used include company visits (including observations, demonstrations, and informal conver- sations), semi-structured interviews, webinar participation, as well as discourse analysis of over 100 case studies presented by cobot manufacturers. Findings include the impact of spatial re-arrangement, necessitated by the robots, and its, primarily positive, impact on human-human interaction. These findings were in some regard contradictory to findings presented in the hospital context [12]. Furthermore, we identified a similar task fragmentation as in the domestic context, which in the industry led to changes in human job identity from, e.g., ‘welder’, to ‘robot supporter’.IV. R EMAINING W ORKAs part of this PhD project, we plan one additional study. The final study will be conducted in collaboration with re- searchers from Cornell University and MIT, and focus on investigating RQ2 and RQ3. The current study design, which is still in development, is based on a video analysis of triads of human workers completing two assembly tasks. Through this video analysis, we hope to learn how groups of humans entrain [4] to each other, thereby obtaining new insights into how this can be transferred to robots to improve collaboration in non-dyadic human-robot teams. A follow-up study for this is planned, though not part of this PhD, which centres around the mapping of the identified strategies of entrainment to a Franka Emika robot to entrain as a member of a mixed group of humans and robots.V. C ONCLUSIONIn this paper, we have given a brief overview of recent work related to non-dyadic HRI and why we believe this investigation is essential. Furthermore, we present our previous research [15], [16] as well as how these are related to the three research questions as presented in Section I-A. Lastly, we presented some initial plans on the remaining studies part of this PhD project.HRI Pioneer HRI 2022, March 7-10, 2022, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan1177R EFERENCES[1] L. Baillie, D. Benyon, C. Macaulay, and M. G. Petersen. Investigating design issues in household environments. Cognition, Technology & Work, 5(1):33–43, 2003.[2] Drazen Brsci´ c, Hiroyuki Kidokoro, Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Takayuki Kanda. Escaping from children’s abuse of social robots. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction, HRI ’15, pages 59–66, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.[3] Joe Connolly, Viola Mocz, Nicole Salomons, Joseph Valdez, Nathan Tsoi, Brian Scassellati, and Marynel V´ azquez. Prompting prosocial human interventions in response to robot mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI ’20, page 211–220, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery.[4] Liam Cross, Martine Turgeon, and Gray Atherton. How moving together binds us together: The social consequences of interpersonal entrainment and group processes. Open Psychology, 1(1):273–302, 2019.[5] Marlena R. Fraune, Yusaku Nishiwaki, Selma Sabanovi´ c, Eliot R. Smith, and Michio Okada. Threatening flocks and mindful snowflakes: How group entitativity affects perceptions of robots. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI ’17, page 205–213, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery. [6] Marlena R. Fraune, Steven Sherrin, Selma Šabanovi´ c, and Eliot R.Smith. Is human-robot interaction more competitive between groups than between individuals? In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 104–113, 2019.[7] Markus H¨ aring, Dieta Kuchenbrandt, and Elisabeth Andr´ e. Would you like to play with me?: How robots’ group membership and task features influence human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, HRI ’14, pages 9–16, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.[8] Kwangmin Jeong, Jihyun Sung, Hae-Sung Lee, Aram Kim, Hyemi Kim, Chanmi Park, Yuin Jeong, JeeHang Lee, and Jinwoo Kim. Fribo: A social networking robot for increasing social connectedness through sharing daily home activities from living noise data. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI ’18, page 114–122, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery.[9] Malte F. Jung, Dominic Difranzo, Solace Shen, Brett Stoll, Houston Claure, and Austin Lawrence. Robot-assisted tower construction—a method to study the impact of a robot’s allocation behavior on interper- sonal dynamics and collaboration in groups. J. Hum.-Robot Interact., 10(1), October 2020.[10] Bilge Mutlu and Jodi Forlizzi. Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction.In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, HRI ’08, page 287–294, New York, NY, USA, 2008. Association for Computing Machinery.[11] Raquel Oliveira, Patrı́cia Arriaga, Patrı́cia Alves-Oliveira, Filipa Correia, Sofia Petisca, and Ana Paiva. Friends or foes? socioemotional support and gaze behaviors in mixed groups of humans and robots. In Pro- ceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction, HRI ’18, page 279–288, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery.[12] Hannah R. M. Pelikan, Amy Cheatle, Malte F. Jung, and Steven J. Jackson. Operating at a distance - how a teleoperated surgical robot reconfigures teamwork in the operating room. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 2(CSCW), November 2018.[13] Dimitrios Raptis, Jesper Kjeldskov, Mikael B Skov, and Jeni Paay. What is a digital ecology?: Theoretical foundations and a unified definition. Australian Journal of Intelligent Information Processing Systems, 13(4):5, 2014.[14] Allison Saupp´ e and Bilge Mutlu. The social impact of a robot co- worker in industrial settings. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15, page 3613–3622, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery.[15] Eike Schneiders, EunJeong Cheon, Jesper Kjeldskov, Matthias Rehm, and Mikael B. Skov. Non-dyadic interaction: A literature review of 15 years of human-robot interaction conference publications. J. Hum.-Robot Interact., 2021.[16] Eike Schneiders, Anne Marie Kanstrup, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Mikael B. Skov. Domestic robots and the dream of automation: Understanding human interaction and intervention. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.[17] Sarah Sebo, Brett Stoll, Brian Scassellati, and Malte F. Jung. Robots in groups and teams: A literature review. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 4(CSCW2), October 2020.[18] Henrik Sørensen, Dimitrios Raptis, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Mikael B. Skov. The 4c framework: Principles of interaction in digital ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp ’14, page 87–97, New York, NY, USA, 2014. Association for Computing Machinery.[19] Sarah Strohkorb, Ethan Fukuto, Natalie Warren, Charles Taylor, Bobby Berry, and Brian Scassellati. Improving human-human collaboration between children with a social robot. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO- MAN), pages 551–556, 2016.[20] Dina Utami and Timothy Bickmore. Collaborative user responses in multiparty interaction with a couples counselor robot. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 294–303, 2019.HRI Pioneer HRI 2022, March 7-10, 2022, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan1178

Non-Dyadic Human-Robot Interaction: Concepts and Interaction Techniques

https://vbn.aau.dk/files/464496420/Non_Dyadic_HRI_Pioneer.pdf

Non-Dyadic Human-Robot Interaction: Concepts and Interaction Techniques

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

VBN