Do relative positions and proxemics affect the engagement in a Human-Robot collaborative scenario?

, , , &
Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 17 (3):321-347 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of relative position and proxemics in the engagement process involved in Human-Robot collaboration. We evaluate the differences between two experimental placement conditions for an autonomous robot in a collaborative task with a user across two different types of robot behaviours. The study evaluated placement and behaviour types around a touch table with 80 participants by measuring gaze, smiling behaviour, distance from the task, and finally electrodermal activity. Results suggest an overall user preference and higher engagement rates with the helpful robot in the frontal position. We discuss how behaviours and position of the robot relative to a user may affect user engagement and collaboration, in particular when the robot aims to provide help via socio-emotional bonding.

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1075/is.17.3.01pap

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Do relative positions and proxemics affect the engagement in a human-robot collaborative scenario?Fotios Papadopoulos, Dennis Küster, Lee J. Corrigan, Arvid Kappas & Ginevra Castellano - 2016 - Latest Issue of Interaction Studies 17 (3):321-347.
To help or not to help a service robot: Bystander intervention as a resource in human–robot collaboration.Helge Hüttenrauch & Kerstin Severinson-Eklundh - 2006 - Interaction Studies 7 (3):455-477.
Temporal patterns in multi-modal social interaction between elderly users and service robot.Ning Wang, Alessandro Di Nuovo, Angelo Cangelosi & Ray Jones - 2019 - Interaction Studies 20 (1):4-24.
Task allocation for improved ergonomics in Human-Robot Collaborative Assembly.Ilias El Makrini, Kelly Merckaert, Joris De Winter, Dirk Lefeber & Bram Vanderborght - 2019 - Interaction Studies 20 (1):102-133.
Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot.Adriana Tapus, Andreea Peca, Amir Aly, Cristina A. Pop, Lavinia Jisa, Sebastian Pintea, Alina S. Rusu & Daniel O. David - 2012 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 13 (3):315-347.
Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot: A series of single case experiments.Adriana Tapus, Andreea Peca, Amir Aly, Cristina Pop, Lavinia Jisa, Sebastian Pintea, Alina S. Rusu & Daniel O. David - 2012 - Interaction Studiesinteraction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 13 (3):315-347.
To help or not to help a service robot.Helge Hüttenrauch & Kerstin Severinson-Eklundh - 2006 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 7 (3):455-477.
Are robots like people?: Relationships between participant and robot personality traits in human–robot interaction studies.Sarah Woods, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Christina Kaouri, René te Boekhorst, Kheng Lee Koay & Michael L. Walters - 2007 - Interaction Studiesinteraction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 8 (2):281-305.
Exploring the effect of a user’s personality traits on tactile communication with a robot using Bayesian networks.Jungsik Hwang & Kun Chang Lee - 2015 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 16 (1):29-53.
The effects of exposure to different social robots on attitudes toward preferences.Evgenios Vlachos, Elizabeth Jochum & Louis-Philippe Demers - 2016 - Interaction Studies 17 (3):390-404.
Exploring the effect of a user’s personality traits on tactile communication with a robot using Bayesian networks.Jungsik Hwang & Kun Chang Lee - 2015 - Interaction Studies 16 (1):29-53.
Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot: A series of single case experiments.Adriana Tapus, Andreea Peca, Amir Aly, Cristina Pop, Lavinia Jisa, Sebastian Pintea, Alina S. Rusu & Daniel O. David - 2012 - Interaction Studies 13 (3):315-347.
The Effects of Exposure to Different Social Robots on Attitudes toward Preferences.Evgenios Vlachos, Elizabeth Jochum & Louis-Philippe Demers - 2016 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 17 (3):390-404.
Human-robot collaboration for surface treatment tasks.Luis Gracia, J. Ernesto Solanes, Pau Muñoz-Benavent, Jaime Valls Miro, Carlos Perez-Vidal & Josep Tornero - 2019 - Interaction Studies 20 (1):148-184.
Are robots like people?Sarah Woods, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Christina Kaouri, René te Boekhorst, Kheng Lee Koay & Michael L. Walters - 2007 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 8 (2):281-305.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-10-16

Downloads
11 (#1,105,752)

6 months
8 (#352,434)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references