Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Safe Spot: Perceived safety of dominant and submissive appearances of quadruped robots in human-robot interactions (2403.05400v1)

Published 8 Mar 2024 in cs.RO

Abstract: Unprecedented possibilities of quadruped robots have driven much research on the technical aspects of these robots. However, the social perception and acceptability of quadruped robots so far remain poorly understood. This work investigates whether the way we design quadruped robots' behaviors can affect people's perception of safety in interactions with these robots. We designed and tested a dominant and submissive personality for the quadruped robot (Boston Dynamics Spot). These were tested in two different walking scenarios (head-on and crossing interactions) in a 2x2 within-subjects study. We collected both behavioral data and subjective reports on participants' perception of the interaction. The results highlight that participants perceived the submissive robot as safer compared to the dominant one. The behavioral dynamics of interactions did not change depending on the robot's appearance. Participants' previous in-person experience with the robot was associated with lower subjective safety ratings but did not correlate with the interaction dynamics. Our findings have implications for the design of quadruped robots and contribute to the body of knowledge on the social perception of non-humanoid robots. We call for a stronger standing of felt experiences in human-robot interaction research.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (45)
  1. M. Raibert, K. Blankespoor, G. Nelson, and R. Playter, “Bigdog, the rough-terrain quadruped robot,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 10 822–10 825, 2008.
  2. J. Ferreira, A. P. Moreira, M. Silva, and F. Santos, “A survey on localization, mapping, and trajectory planning for quadruped robots in vineyards,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 237–242.
  3. P. Biswal and P. K. Mohanty, “Development of quadruped walking robots: A review,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 2017–2031, 2021.
  4. J. George, “5 real-world applications of quadruped robots,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://formant.io/news-and-blog/2021/12/07/operations/quadruped-robots/
  5. J. Moses and G. Ford, “See spot save lives: fear, humanitarianism, and war in the development of robot quadrupeds,” Digital War, vol. 2, pp. 64–76, 2021.
  6. B. Dynamics, “An ethical approach to mobile robots in our communities.” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://bostondynamics.com/blog/an-ethical-approach-to-mobile-robots-in-our-communities/
  7. E. Ackerman, “When robots enter the world, who is responsible for them?” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://spectrum.ieee.org/when-robots-enter-the-world-who-is-responsible-for-them
  8. D. Hambling, “Robot dogs wars: How spot’s rampage gets it wrong and the armed robots you really need to worry about,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://shorturl.at/kmA03
  9. X. Meng, S. Wang, Z. Cao, and L. Zhang, “A review of quadruped robots and environment perception,” in 2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC).   IEEE, 2016, pp. 6350–6356.
  10. E. Hauser, Y.-C. Chan, P. Chonkar, G. Hemkumar, H. Wang, D. Dua, S. Gupta, E. M. Enriquez, T. Kao, J. Hart et al., “" what’s that robot doing here?": Perceptions of incidental encounters with autonomous quadruped robots,” in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems, 2023, pp. 1–15.
  11. C. Bartneck, D. Kulić, E. Croft, and S. Zoghbi, “Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots,” International journal of social robotics, vol. 1, pp. 71–81, 2009.
  12. F. Moesgaard, L. Hulgaard, and M. Bødker, “Incidental encounters with robots,” in 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 377–384.
  13. Z. Chen, T. Fan, X. Zhao, J. Liang, C. Shen, H. Chen, D. Manocha, J. Pan, and W. Zhang, “Autonomous social distancing in urban environments using a quadruped robot,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 8392–8403, 2021.
  14. C. Mavrogiannis, F. Baldini, A. Wang, D. Zhao, P. Trautman, A. Steinfeld, and J. Oh, “Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1–39, 2023.
  15. J. Rios-Martinez, A. Spalanzani, and C. Laugier, “From proxemics theory to socially-aware navigation: A survey,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 7, pp. 137–153, 2015.
  16. H. Karnan, A. Nair, X. Xiao, G. Warnell, S. Pirk, A. Toshev, J. Hart, J. Biswas, and P. Stone, “Socially compliant navigation dataset (scand): A large-scale dataset of demonstrations for social navigation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 807–11 814, 2022.
  17. B. Yang, J. Jiao, L. Wang, and M. Liu, “An online interactive approach for crowd navigation of quadrupedal robots,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 13 556–13 562.
  18. K. Katyal, Y. Gao, J. Markowitz, S. Pohland, C. Rivera, I.-J. Wang, and C.-M. Huang, “Learning a group-aware policy for robot navigation,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 11 328–11 335.
  19. X. Xu, L. Liying, M. Khamis, G. Zhao, and R. Bretin, “Understanding dynamic human-robot proxemics in the case of four-legged canine-inspired robots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10729, 2023.
  20. E. Sanoubari, B. David, C. Kew, C. Cunningham, and K. Caluwaerts, “From message to expression: Exploring non-verbal communication for appearance-constrained robots,” in 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 1193–1200.
  21. A. Zacharaki, I. Kostavelis, A. Gasteratos, and I. Dokas, “Safety bounds in human robot interaction: A survey,” Safety science, vol. 127, p. 104667, 2020.
  22. N. Akalin, A. Kiselev, A. Kristoffersson, and A. Loutfi, “A taxonomy of factors influencing perceived safety in human–robot interaction,” International Journal of Social Robotics, pp. 1–12, 2023.
  23. O. Demirbilek and B. Sener, “Product design, semantics and emotional response,” Ergonomics, vol. 46, no. 13-14, pp. 1346–1360, 2003.
  24. P. M. Desmet and S. Roeser, “Emotions in design for values,” Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, pp. 203–219, 2015.
  25. U. Zabala, I. Rodriguez, J. M. Martínez-Otzeta, and E. Lazkano, “Expressing robot personality through talking body language,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 4639, 2021.
  26. G. Hoffman and W. Ju, “Designing robots with movement in mind,” Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 91–122, 2014.
  27. B. Meerbeek, M. Saerbeck, and C. Bartneck, “Towards a design method for expressive robots,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, 2009, pp. 277–278.
  28. L. Hiah, L. Beursgens, R. Haex, L. P. Romero, Y.-F. Teh, M. ten Bhömer, R. van Berkel, and E. I. Barakova, “Abstract robots with an attitude: Applying interpersonal relation models to human-robot interaction,” in 2013 IEEE RO-MAN.   IEEE, 2013, pp. 37–44.
  29. H. Kim, S. S. Kwak, and M. Kim, “Personality design of sociable robots by control of gesture design factors,” in RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.   IEEE, 2008, pp. 494–499.
  30. M. Obaid, E. B. Sandoval, J. Złotowski, E. Moltchanova, C. A. Basedow, and C. Bartneck, “Stop! that is close enough. how body postures influence human-robot proximity,” in 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN).   IEEE, 2016, pp. 354–361.
  31. P. D. Chatzoglou, V. Lazaraki, S. D. Apostolidis, and A. C. Gasteratos, “Factors affecting acceptance of social robots among prospective users,” International Journal of Social Robotics, pp. 1–20, 2023.
  32. M. M. de Graaf, S. Ben Allouch, and J. A. Van Dijk, “Why would i use this in my home? a model of domestic social robot acceptance,” Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 115–173, 2019.
  33. S. Naneva, M. Sarda Gou, T. L. Webb, and T. J. Prescott, “A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1179–1201, 2020.
  34. J. Zimmerman, J. Forlizzi, and S. Evenson, “Research through design as a method for interaction design research in hci,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2007, pp. 493–502.
  35. A.-S. Belling and D. Buzzo, “The rhythm of the robot: A prolegomenon to posthuman somaesthetics,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 2021, pp. 1–6.
  36. E. Márquez Segura, L. Turmo Vidal, and A. Rostami, “Bodystorming for movement-based interaction design,” Human Technology, vol. 12, 2016.
  37. W. Lee, Y.-k. Lim, and R. Shusterman, “Practicing somaesthetics: exploring its impact on interactive product design ideation,” in Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, 2014, pp. 1055–1064.
  38. H.-C. You, Y.-H. Chen, and Y.-S. Deng, “Affective movement design for a robot pet through bodystorming workshops,” 2013.
  39. M. Luria, J. Oden Choi, R. G. Karp, J. Zimmerman, and J. Forlizzi, “Robotic futures: Learning about personally-owned agents through performance,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference, 2020, pp. 165–177.
  40. S. R. Klemmer, B. Hartmann, and L. Takayama, “How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design,” in Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, 2006, pp. 140–149.
  41. D. Porfirio, E. Fisher, A. Sauppé, A. Albarghouthi, and B. Mutlu, “Bodystorming human-robot interactions,” in proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM symposium on user Interface software and technology, 2019, pp. 479–491.
  42. Intel, “Robotics in healthcare: The future of robots in medicine,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/healthcare-it/robotics-in-healthcare.html
  43. P. L. Smith and D. R. Little, “Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-n design,” Psychonomic bulletin & review, vol. 25, pp. 2083–2101, 2018.
  44. L. Takayama and C. Pantofaru, “Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction,” in 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2009, pp. 5495–5502.
  45. K. Seaborn, G. Barbareschi, and S. Chandra, “Not only weird but “uncanny”? a systematic review of diversity in human–robot interaction research,” International Journal of Social Robotics, pp. 1–30, 2023.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Nanami Hashimoto (2 papers)
  2. Emma Hagens (1 paper)
  3. Arkady Zgonnikov (36 papers)
  4. Maria Luce Lupetti (5 papers)
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now