Our findings have implications for builders and evaluators of human–robot interaction systems. The results suggest that participants do not see the robot as a social interaction partner with comparable communication skills. Finally, the participants use fewer non-verbal social signals (for example smiling, nodding, and head shaking), when they are interacting with the robot alone and no experimenter or other human is present. We also found that the participants talked more in the case of social norm violations and less during technical failures. Another result is that the participants sometimes stop moving at the beginning of error situations. The results of the video analysis show that the study participants use many head movements and very few gestures, but they often smile, when in an error situation with the robot. Technical failures are caused by technical shortcomings of the robot. Social norm violations are situations in which the robot does not adhere to the underlying social script of the interaction. The analysis shows that there are two types of error situations: social norm violations and technical failures. For that, we analyzed 201 videos of five human–robot interaction user studies with varying tasks from four independent projects. We investigated the verbal and non-verbal social signals that humans show when error situations occur in human–robot interaction experiments. Therefore, robots would profit from the ability to recognize when error situations occur. Human–robot interactions are often affected by error situations that are caused by either the robot or the human.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |