GlowBots are small wheeled robots that develop

complex relationships between each other and with their

owner. They develop attractive patterns which are

affected both by user interaction and communication

between the robots. The project shows how robots can

interact with humans in subtle and sustainable ways for

entertainment and enjoyment

Bodin, Johan

Holmquist, Lars Erik

Jacobsson, Mattias

Knurek, Jeffrey

Ljungblad, Sara

English

GlowBots are small wheeled robots that develop complex relationships between each other and with their owner. They develop attractive patterns which are affected both by user interaction and communication between the robots. The project shows how robots can interact with humans in subtle and sustainable ways for entertainment and enjoyment

Holmquist, Lars

Northumbria Research Link

GlowBots: Robots that evolve relationships

Swedish Institute of Computer Science Publications Database

GlowBots: Robots That Evolve Relationships  
 
Mattias Jacobsson*, Sara Ljungblad*, Johan Bodin*, Jeffrey Knurek* and  
Lars Erik Holmquist† 
* Future Applications Lab, Viktoria Institute 
Hörselgången 4, 2nd Floor 
417 56, Göteborg, Sweden 
† Swedish Institute of Computer Science 
Box 1263 
164 29, Kista, Sweden 
{majak, saral, bjohan}@viktoria.se, jknurek@yahoo.com, leh@sics.se 
www.viktoria.se/fal 
ABSTRACT 
GlowBots are small wheeled robots that develop 
complex relationships between each other and with their 
owner. They develop attractive patterns which are 
affected both by user interaction and communication 
between the robots. The project shows how robots can 
interact with humans in subtle and sustainable ways for 
entertainment and enjoyment. 
 
Keywords 
Embodied Agents, Human Robot Interaction, Multi 
Agent Systems, Design 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 
What is the potential role of robots in everyday life? 
Most people think of robots as futuristic mechanical 
slaves doing our bidding, or as zoomorphic creatures 
modeled on real pets. This perception is sustained both 
by popular culture and by corporate demonstrators such 
as Honda’s humanoid (ASIMO) and Sony’s robot dog 
(AIBO).  
In our work, we are trying to break with the traditional 
view of robots and find a new basis for designing robot 
applications. For instance, in the workshop ”Designing 
Robots for Everyday Life” we gathered an international 
community of human-robot interaction researchers to 
brainstorm completely new forms of robot applications 
[7]. The results of this process included robots shaped 
like indoor plants that would subtly guide people at an 
airport, and an amusement park guide that would 
enhance the overall experience by encouraging the 
visitors’ feelings of fear and delight.   
We have also been systematically developing new 
design methods to see how users’ interests can be 
transferred into novel design – in particular for robots 
[9]. In one case, we transferred the special relationship 
that some people have with unusual pets, such as snakes, 
lizards and spiders, to robot designs – but without 
transferring the anthropomorphic properties of these 
pets (Figure 1). The results of this process were turned 
into design concepts for four types of robot applications. 
They all have very different properties but have in 
common subtle basic elements that generate interest and 
are a foundation for long-lasting relationships. 
With GlowBots we will demonstrate one practical result 
of this process. The GlowBots are small wheeled robots 
that communicate with the user and with each others 
through sensors and displays. Over time, they develop 
complex relationships between each other and with their 
owner, which in turn manifest themselves in attractive 
patterns on their display. The project shows how robots 
can interact with humans in much more subtle, but also 
more sustainable, ways than the robots we have come to 
know from science fiction and spectacular industry 
demonstrations.  
2. BACKGROUND 
What would be design requirements for a more subtle 
robot technology, one which could be found in the 
intersection between robotics and ubiquitous computing; 
- robots that quietly find their ways into our everyday 
life and eventually become an integral part of it?  
People have an underlying assumption that robots are 
socially capable [3]; hence they are quite biased when it 
comes to their image of a robot. The word itself 
originates from Czech ”robota”, which means work or 
  
Figure 1: When designing the GlowBots we took 
inspiration from the relationship people develop with 
unusual pets such as spiders 
 
compulsive labor. The general definition of the word 
given in the Merriam-Webster dictionary also reflects 
this perception: 
”An automatic apparatus or device that performs 
functions ordinarily ascribed to human being or 
operates with what appears to be almost human 
intelligence”.  
As a consequence we instead prefer to use the term 
”embodied agents” to describe a more general and open 
view of robots that moves the focus away from such 
traditionally biased anthropomorphic preconceptions 
[8]. Other researchers prefer the term ”robotic product” 
to denote mechanically based interactive applications 
[4]. 
Examples of robots intended for practical use include 
the Roomba vacuum cleaner [14], the Artemis guard 
robot [11] or the Minerva museum tour guide robot [13]. 
These are in line with the origin of the word robot, as 
they opt for performing specific jobs on the behalf of 
humans. 
Another example, the Robot Fish [6], is designed to be a 
copy of a common fish in terms of looks, properties and 
behavior. This approach is quite common, and often 
anthropomorphic values are added to the designs as a 
mean to extend interaction. Examples of that can be 
seen in Aibo, RoboPanda and Furby [10] to name a few 
commercial examples. 
In a sense our work is the opposite to the above 
approaches; we have no intention to make a new dog or 
cat, or replace work already performed by humans. 
Several researchers are also pursuing such alternative 
views of robots. For instance, The Hug [2] is an example 
of a robot that does not look like anything biological, 
but instead reminiscent of an artifact that can be found 
in an everyday setting, in this case a pillow. It does not 
have any sophisticated communication capabilities like 
speech, or complex behavior like walking. Instead it 
appeals to our most primitive need of affection. Our 
work is similar in that we also move our focus away 
from the ordinary expectations of robotics. 
Another study with a similar objective looked at 
peoples’ relationships with everyday artifacts, such as 
computers, corkscrews and notebooks [5]. It pointed out 
that a notebook will increase in perceived value over 
time as it is filled with notes and sketches, while e.g. a 
computer’s value actually decreases as it becomes 
increasingly obsolete. We found such observations 
inspirational in regards to where we should position 
ourselves and think about future robot applications. 
 
 
3. METHODS  
In the field of human-computer interaction there are a 
number of methods for inferring design implications 
either directly from studies of users or by extrapolating 
from known human needs and interests. One such 
method is to use fictive representative characters called 
personas [1]. We started by looking for possible sources 
of established interaction and engagement where 
autonomy plays a significant role. We decided to study 
and interview users of unusual pets, e.g. spiders, lizards 
and snakes. We conducted a total of 10 interviews with 
six male and four female subjects. Three of the 
interviews were made face-to-face and the rest by phone 
due to logistic restrictions. Typical questions would then 
be: 
• Why are you interested in this particular 
species? 
• Describe what your pet does 
• What do you do together with your pet? 
• How can you tell the mood of your pet? 
Transcribed answers from the interviews were then cut 
up and written down onto Post-its. The general idea in 
this case is to form distinct characters representing 
different intrinsic characteristics based on real data 
gathered from the interviews.  
From the scrambled Post-its we then linked together 
different properties in various constellations. After 
iterating this process several times four distinct clusters 
started to emerge representing the rough outline for the 
personas.   
The next step is to create personas, which are 
descriptive scenario of an imagined user. We produced a 
total of four personas [8]. From this point we will focus 
only on the persona that is relevant in the context of 
GlowBots.  
In one of the clusters we could read several statements 
without any apparent contradiction e.g.: 
• He does not pet his pets, nor is he interested in 
different personalities of the pets. 
• He is interested in breeding his pets in order to 
create nice patterns. 
• He enjoys reading about his pets and often 
meets up with people that have similar pets, to 
look at or even exchange pets.   
The scenario is created by filling in general fictive ”glue 
data” that connects the different statements into a 
meaningful coherent description. We even named the 
persona, which is a powerful way of building a mental 
image around a common reference. This persona goes 
by the name Nadim. At this stage the scenario still 
referred to a relationship with pets; however, by simply 
changing the word ”pets” to ”agents”, we shifted or 
transferred the scenarios to our target domain [9]: 
Nadim is 32-years old and works as a network engineer, 
living alone in a two-bedroom flat in a small town. He 
has always had a great interest in collecting and 
exploring various things, and as he got older he became 
fascinated in having agents as a hobby. Nadim finds it 
exciting to try to understand their behavior and sees 
them as a research area where there is always 
something more to learn. He enjoys watching them 
communicating to each other and changing their 
patterns. Every single agent has its own specific colour 
pattern, and when it is put close to another agent they 
both start to change their individual patterns. The 
surrounding light, sounds and movement etc, also 
affects their patterns. The changes are slow, and 
sometimes it takes several days until it Nadim can see 
how an agent is reacting. The challenge is to avoid 
results that are bland or unattractive. Nadim is quite 
good in developing agents with unique interesting 
patterns, and he puts pictures of the agents on his 
website. The number of agents Nadim owns varies, and 
he has never bothered to give them any names. He likes 
to read everything that crosses his path; Internet pages 
and magazines. He also frequently visits other sites to 
compare patterns and sometimes he writes in a forum 
for people with the same type of agents. They sometimes 
also meet to let their agents affect each other’s patterns.  
This scenario now expresses what a potential user of an 
autonomous agent would look like. The final step in this 
process includes matching technology with the scenarios 
to sketch out real designs: 
The agents can evolve interesting patterns over time, but 
it is a lengthy process and might not always succeed. 
Agents will be equipped with a color display on their 
back and have one or more sensors for light, movement 
and sound. The sensing can be different for different 
agents. Each agent will have a unique color pattern, 
developed from meetings with other agents the 
environment it is in. By touching the agent in a 
particular way makes it possible to temporarily freeze a 
pattern. Achieving a nice pattern requires several agent-
agent interactions and an attention to timing.  
Based on this description we could now proceed with 
technical implementation. 
 
4. TECHNICAL DESIGN 
The GlowBot is based upon an open experimental robot 
platform, the e-Puck, developed by EPFL [12].  Despite 
its size, the platform contains an impressive number of 
components. There are eight IR proximity sensors, one 
camera, three microphones, a 3-axis accelerometer, a 
speaker, two stepper motors, a Bluetooth interface, a 
number of LEDs, a PIC micro controller, and a twelve 
step mode-selector. 
In order to implement our scenario, we needed to 
increase the communication capability of the e-Pucks. 
We developed a small display consisting of 148 light 
emitting diodes (LEDs) that can be individually 
controlled. The display turret consists of two 
sandwiched PCB’s; one controller board that takes 
higher level commands from the e-Puck through a serial 
port, and one matrix board holding the LEDs. Basic 
requirements for the development were to make it 
inexpensive, visually appealing and energy efficient. 
The LEDs are quite cheap in large quantities and they 
can be pulsed by short bursts of electricity to make them 
brighter and more energy efficient.  
 In our first proof-of-concept prototype the GlowBots 
play a distributed version of Conway’s Game of Life, a 
well-known example of how to create evolving patterns 
of cellular automata. The next version will let users 
create patterns directly and observe how they disperse 
and evolve among a collection of robots.  
 
In a demonstration setting such as SIGGRAPH, people 
will be able to gather around the demonstration, and 
interact with the GlowBots (Figure 2). By gently picking 
up or putting the hands around the GlowBots they will 
react immediately and visibly by producing new patterns 
on the display. The user can affect the new pattern by 
actuating the various sensors, for instance producing 
noise into the microphones or subjecting the robot to 
light. When the user then puts the GlowBot back with 
the other robots, it starts to mingle with them, 
immediately sharing its new pattern. The other robots 
will be affected by it, and start to evolve their own 
patterns and share it among their neighbours in turn. The 
effect to the attendees will be like sowing a seed that 
spreads among the other robots as they move around. 
Thanks to the openness of the set-up several people can 
interact with the GlowBots simultaneously, and even 
more will be able to watch and enjoy the demo without 
directly interacting. 
 
  
  
Figure 2: GlowBots interact among themselves and 
with users to create interesting patterns. 
5. CONCLUSIONS  
We have presented a novel prototype, GlowBots, that 
was the result of a design effort developed to open up 
new perspectives on the future role of everyday robots. 
We wanted to encourage a more long-term relationship 
with the robots, inspired by how people interact with 
artifacts and creatures in everyday settings. One aspect 
that crystallized in this process is the need of open 
ended play – an important factor to sustain interest over 
time.  We believe this work shows that it is possible to 
develop new and novel products that last considerably 
longer and have a much more rewarding interaction than 
what is being offered today. 
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
A special thanks goes to Katarina Walter who conducted 
the interviews and made this whole project possible in 
the first place. We also would like to thank the rest of 
our colleagues at Future Applications Lab for their 
invaluable input from time to time. This project is 
sponsored by the Future and Emerging Technologies 
program (IST-FET) of the European Community under 
contract IST-2003-1940. 
REFERENCES 
1. Carroll, J.M., ”Making Use: scenario-based design of 
human computer interactions”, Cambridge, Mass, MIT 
Press, 2000. 
2. DiSalvo, C., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., Montgomery, E., 
Yonkers, W. and Divine, J., ”The Hug: An Exploration of 
Robotic Form for Intimate Communication”, In 
Proceedings of RO-MAN 03, vol., no.pp. 403- 408, 2003. 
3. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I. and Dautenhahn, K., ”A survey 
of Socially Interactive Robots”, Robotics and 
Autonomous Systems, 42, 143-166, 2003. 
4. Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C., and Gemperle, F. (2004). 
”Assistive Robotics and an Ecology of Elders Living 
Independently in Their Homes.” Journal of HCI Special 
Issue on Human-Robot Interaction, V19 N1/2, January, 
2004. 
5. Kaplan, F., ”Everyday robotics: robots as everyday 
objects” In Proceedings of Soc-Eusai 2005, p.59-64, 
Grenoble, France, 2005. 
6. Liu, H. and Hu. H., ”Biologically inspired behaviour 
design for autonomous robotic fish” International 
Journal of Automation and Computing, Vol. V3, No. 4, 
pp. 336-347. October 2006. 
7. Ljungblad, S. and Holmquist, L.E., ”Designing Robot 
Applications for Everyday Envionments”, In Proceedings 
of Smart Objects & Ambient Intelligence 2005 (SOC-
EUSAI), Grenoble, France, 2005. 
8. Ljungblad, S., Walter, K., Jacobsson, M. and Holmquist, 
L.E., ”Designing Personal Embodied Agents with 
Personas”. In Proceedings of RO-MAN 06, Hatfield, 
United Kingdom, 2006. 
9. Ljungblad, S., and Holmquist, L.E., ”Transfer Scenarios: 
Grounding Innovation with Marginal Practices” 
Submitted to CHI’07, ACM Press. 
10. Lund, H. H., ”Adaptive Robotics in the Entertainment 
Industry”. In Proceedings of IEEE International 
Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics 
and Automation (CIRA2003), 16-20 July, Kobe, IEEE 
Press, 2003. 
11. [Artemis] http://www.tmsuk.co.jp/artemis/product.html 
12. [e-Puck] http://www.e-puck.org 
13. [Minerva] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~minerva/ 
14. [Roomba] http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=122 
 


GlowBots: Robots that Evolve Relationships

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northumbria Research Link

Swedish Institute of Computer Science Publications Database

RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden

Software institutes' Online Digital Archive

CiteSeerX

Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-line