This reflective piece highlights some unexpected outcomes observed during selected Child-Robot Interaction (CRI) studies. As these were peripheral to the investigations underway, they were not included in related publications, yet they have been instrumental in directing subsequent research. We advise new researchers of the value of an open interactive environment in CRI studies, and careful observation of interactions, even when adjacent to the research question

Cameron, D.

Collins, E.C.

White Rose Research Online

This is a repository copy of Learning from unstructured child-robot interactions.White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/176945/Version: Accepted VersionProceedings Paper:Collins, E.C. and Cameron, D. orcid.org/0000-0001-8923-5591 (2021) Learning from unstructured child-robot interactions. In: 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. RO-MAN 2021 : 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Ro-Man) Workshop on Child Robot Interaction for Beginners: Supporting New Researchers, 08-12 Aug 2021, Virtual conference. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) . © 2021 The Authors. For reuse permissions please contact the Authors.eprints@whiterose.ac.ukhttps://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Learning From Unstructured Child-RobotInteractions1st Emily C. CollinsDepartment of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchester, UK.e.c.collins@manchester.ac.ukORCID 0000-0001-9396-536X2nd David CameronInformation SchoolThe University of SheffieldSheffield, UK.d.s.cameron@sheffield.ac.ukORCID 0000-0001-8923-5591Abstract—This reflective piece highlights some unexpected out-comes observed during selected Child-Robot Interaction (CRI)studies. As these were peripheral to the investigations underway,they were not included in related publications, yet they havebeen instrumental in directing subsequent research. We advisenew researchers of the value of an open interactive environmentin CRI studies, and careful observation of interactions, even whenadjacent to the research question.Index Terms—child-robot interaction, social robotics, qualita-tive roboticsI. INTRODUCTIONHere we present a collection of anecdotes from variousChild-Robot Interaction (CRI) studies, representing momentswhich enlightened us to insights from outside the remit ofthe planned research, whilst helping provide directions forsubsequent research and study design.II. IS HE A ROBOT?The EASEL project was an international collaboration toexplore the potential impact and relevance for social roboticsin educational settings. A key branch of the EASEL projectincluded user testing with various versions of the SyntheticTutoring Assistant, primarily deployed through the Robokind[4] Zeno R50 and R25 platforms. EASEL research includedexaminations of the impacts of different synthetic personalitiesand tutoring approaches to both architecture build and robotdeployment [2], and measurements of children’s perceptionsof robots’ social competences [3], to name just two.One of the earlier findings from the project indicated therewere differences between girls’ and boys’ responses towardsthe Zeno robot with regards to its life-like facial expressions[12]. While not formally tested in the study, children’s sponta-neous descriptions of the robot and their vocalisations towardsit indicated some value in considering the robot’s apparentgender and its animacy as mediating factors. Children wouldat times describe the robot as a boy or a robot and sometimesinterchangeably use these or similar terms with researchers.This flexibility in their descriptions of the robot did raise apertinent question of children’s views towards the appearanceThis work is supported by the European Union Seventh FrameworkProgramme (FP7-ICT-2013-10) under grant agreement no. 611971.of the robot, given the manufacturer’s use of male personalpronouns to promote it.Given this, we redirected a follow-up study to focus onthe children’s descriptions of the robot as being like a boy ornot, both in terms of apparent animacy (as opposed to beinglike a machine) and apparent gender [7]. This work continuedthe quantitative approaches used in the previous study and,while it successfully indicated children had varied views ofthe robot, in a third (now qualitative) study in this series wefound further nuance and sophistication in evaluations fromchildren [8]. Refining the work to make use of a qualitativeapproach meant children had far fewer constraints on how theyexpressed their views of the robot, effectively recreating theoriginal environment that prompted spontaneous discussionsof gender and animacy during [12].III. SEALS EAT FISH; ROBOT SEALS EAT ROBOT FISH.Our second example of adaptations of study direction givenwhat was learned from observed, unstructured CRI, comesfrom a public event in which children were invited to par-ticipate in a healthy-living scenario with a Zeno ’tutor‘ [5].The study was complex, as such an alternative ‘interactionopportunity’, with a Nao robot and PARO robot, was set-upfor waiting child-participants. Again, while peripheral to thestudy, unstructured observations illuminated upon children’sunderstanding of robots outside the quantitative research un-derway. For example, a frequent question topic children wouldask on seeing the Paro robot was Is it real?.While this may seem an unusual question to ask of anobject they could physically interact with, it would invariablytranspire that children were inquiring as to its animacy. Ofparticular note were the variations in discussions on animacywith regards to describing both what a robot needs, and cando, and that these things had some internal logic to them (evenif not factually correct). The most striking example includeda careful and detailed discussion determining if real seals eatreal fish, robot seals must eat robot fish.Thus, despite not gathering data on the goal topic ofperceived apparent gender or animacy in these studies, theinformation learned from seeing children of varying ages (6-10) interactions with the robot, helped us to reconsider theimpacts of a broader set of psychological theories for ourfuture HRI work. For example, in considering how CRI canbe used to explore Carey’s developmental theory of biologicalunderstanding, and the ages at which children move froma superficial view of the world, to a scientific one [6].Specifically, the transitions in understanding and expressingof this, were identifiable in subsequent quantitative [13] andqualitative [14] work. Again, as was learned during EASEL,the loosely structured environment for expressing views in aqualitative manner afforded children the means to articulatetheir complex, charming, and sometimes contradictory under-standings of robotic animacy.IV. MIRO: NOT ALL DEVELOPMENT IS DONE IN THE LABMiro is a companion robot designed to engage users in bothan educational and entertaining manner [9]. It is built arounda differential drive base and a three-DOF neck, and designedto evoke a ”cute” mammalian identity. Miro’s control systemis modelled on a layered architectural understanding of thebrain. Here, different loop-layers are used to implement reflex-like behaviours, or cognitive competences, and make use ofshort-term memory. Miro represents affective state using thecircumplex model [10]. Sound, movement, and colour (via sixinternal RGB LEDs under its shell) combine to communicatemeaningful patterns in various rates [11].In 2017, Sheffield University members of the Miro devel-opment team were invited to demonstrate their platform at theLondon Science Museum Robots exhibition. During severaldays, over a warm school holiday period, the team were set upon a balcony overlooking the museum’s main entrance. Nearlya thousand visitors engaged with the demonstration during thattime. Here, our robots were not active in a stimulus-free, cleanlaboratory. They were challenged by noise, echos, shadows,high ceilings, and vibrations from the footfalls of excitedchildren running towards them. At first an outreach event canfeel like a drain on the precious resource of time. This eventwas not designed to gather publishable data. However, theexperience, and subsequent anecdotes, informed much of ourfuture work. Knowing how the robots finely tuned affectivestates responded when overwhelmed by stimulus was vitalto the non-lab space marketability of future iterations of theplatform. While engaging such a large number of peopleallowed us to observe the more nuanced effects the robot hadon a huge range of individuals. The ’challenge’ of gettingour over-stimulated robots to switch from displaying aroused,exploratory behaviours, to calm, ’sleeping’ states, left even themost over exuberant children quickly quiet and still (resultingin much gratitude from fatigued adults). The over-stimulatedMiro’s would trundle towards changes in light, and quicklyretreat from noise and vibration. But, sitting with a unit, andgently stroking its touch sensors, render Miro’s still, slowstheir pulsating and now mutely coloured lights, and puts themto ’sleep’: lowering their necks and resting their heads on theleg of an equally still child beneath it.V. REFLECTIONSAcross several studies during the course of the EASELproject, we saw many valuable and informative instancesof CRI that could not be captured by the investigations inthe moment. The questions children asked, their spontaneousdeclarations, or their surprising turns of phrase have beeninstrumental in guiding our research efforts as they appearto reach to a crucial question: What is it really like to meeta robot?. We see this as being indicative of the value of themore qualitative approaches to robotics, which are currentlyunder applied [15], and as a path for children to meaningfullycontribute to research directions on issues perhaps more repre-sentative of a future in which daily CRI is more commonplace.REFERENCES[1] D., Reidsma, V., Charisi, D., Davison, F., Wijnen, J., van der Meij,V., Evers, ... P. Verschure. The EASEL project: Towards educationalhuman-robot symbiotic interaction. In Conference on Biomimetic andBiohybrid Systems 2016 pp. 297–306[2] V. Vouloutsi, M. Blancas, R. Zucca, P. Omedas, D. Reidsma, D. Davison,... P. Verschure. Towards a synthetic tutor assistant: the easel project andits architecture. In Conference on Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems2016 pp. 353–364[3] V. Charisi, D. Davison, F. Wijnen, D. Reidsma, V. Evers, Measuringchildren’s perceptions of robots’ social competence: design and valida-tion. In International Conference on Social Robotics 2017 pp. 676–686[4] D. Hanson, S. Baurmann, T. Riccio, R. Margolin, T. Dockins, M.Tavares, K. Carpenter. Zeno: A cognitive character. In Ai magazine,and special proc. of aaai national conference. 2007[5] D. Cameron, S. Fernando, A. Millings, M. Szollosy, E. Collins, R.Moore, ... T. Prescott. Designing robot personalities for human-robotsymbiotic interaction in an educational context. In Conference onBiomimetic and Biohybrid Systems 2016 pp. 413–417[6] S. Carey. Conceptual change in childhood. 1985. MIT press.[7] D. Cameron, S. Fernando, A. Millings, M. Szollosy, E. Collins, R.Moore, A. Sharkey, T. Prescott. Congratulations, it’s a boy! Bench-marking children’s perceptions of the Robokind Zeno-R25. In AnnualConference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems 2016 pp. 33–39[8] D. Cameron, E.C. Collins. Children’s reasoning on robots and gender.In Child-Robot Interaction: Present and Future Relationships workshopat the 12th International Conference on Social Robotics. 2020[9] E.C. Collins, T. Prescott, B. Mitchinson, S. Conran. MIRO: a versatilebiomimetic edutainment robot. In Proceedings of the 12th InternationalConference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology 2015pp. 1–4[10] J. Posner, J. Russell, and B. Peterson, The circumplex model of affect:An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive develop-ment, and psychopathologyy. Development and psychopathology, 200517(3), pp. 715–734.[11] E.C. Collins, T. Prescott, B. Mitchinson Saying it with light: A pilotstudy of affective communication using the MIRO robot. In Conferenceon Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems. 2015 pp. 243–255.[12] D. Cameron, A. Millings, S. Fernando, E.C. Collins, R. Moore, A.Sharkey, ... T. Prescott. The effects of robot facial emotional expressionsand gender on child–robot interaction in a field study. Connectionscience, 30(4) 2018 pp.343–361.[13] D. Cameron, S. Fernando, E.C. Collins, A. Millings, M. Szollosy, R.Moore, ... T. Prescott. You made him be alive: Children’s perceptionsof animacy in a humanoid robot. In Conference on Biomimetic andBiohybrid Systems 2017 pp. 73–85[14] D. Cameron, S. Fernando, E. Cowles-Naja, A. Perkins, A., E.C. Collins,A. Millings, T. Prescott. Children’s age influences their use of biologicaland mechanical questions towards a humanoid. In Annual ConferenceTowards Autonomous Robotic Systems 2017 pp. 290–299.[15] K.A. Riddoch, E. Cross. Hit the robot on the head with this mal-let”–making a case for including more open questions in HRI research.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 2021. 8, p.17.

Learning from unstructured child-robot interactions

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/176945/1/Working_With_children_and__robot__animals.pdf

Learning from unstructured child-robot interactions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

White Rose Research Online