Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing Interaction Dynamics in the Context of Robot Programming by Demonstration

International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we focus on human–robot interaction peculiarities that occur during programming by demonstration. Understanding what makes the interaction rewarding and keeps the user engaged helps optimize the robot’s learning. Two user studies are presented. The first one validates facially displayed expressions on the iCub robot. The best recognized displays are then used in a second study, along with other ways of providing feedback during teaching a manipulation task to a robot. We determine the preferred and more effective way of providing feedback in relation to the robot’s tactile sensing, in order to improve the teaching interaction and to keep the users engaged throughout the interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Analysis was based on ANOVA, a statistical technique used for testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups. It is based on comparing the mean value of a common component. When the null hypothesis is false, the result is significant, implying an F value greater than 1, and a p-value pα, e.g. α=0.05.

References

  1. Bartneck C, Reichenbach J, Breemen AV (2004) In your face, robot! The influence of a character’s embodiment on how users perceive its emotional expressions. In: Design and emotion 2004 conference

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bartneck C, Kanda T, Mubin O, Mahmud AA (2009) Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence? Int J Soc Robot 1(2):195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bicchi A (1995) On the closure properties of robotic grasping. Int J Robot Res 14(4):319–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Breazeal C (2009) Role of expressive behaviour for robots that learn from people. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B, Biol Sci 364:3527–3538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brooke J (1996) SUS—a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Usability evaluation in industry, pp 189–194

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cakmak M, Thomaz AL (2012) Designing robot learners that ask good questions. In: HRI, pp 17–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Calinon S, Billard A (2007) What is the teacher’s role in robot programming by demonstration?—Toward benchmarks for improved learning. Interact Stud 8(3):441–464, Special issue on psychological benchmarks in human–robot interaction

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cramer H, Goddijn J, Wielinga B, Evers V (2010) Effects of (in)accurate empathy and situational valence on attitudes towards robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 141–142

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dautenhahn K (1998) The art of designing socially intelligent agents—science, fiction and the human in the loop. Appl Artif Intell J 12:12–17 special issue on socially intelligent agents

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dautenhahn K, Werry I (2000) Issues of robot-human interaction dynamics in the rehabilitation of children with autism

  11. Gielniak MJ, Thomaz AL (2011) Spatiotemporal correspondence as a metric for human-like robot motion. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 77–84

    Google Scholar 

  12. Giusti L, Marti P (2006) Interpretative dynamics in human robot interaction. In: Robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN, pp 111–116

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hanson D (2005) Expanding the aesthetics possibilities for humanlike robots. In: Proc IEEE “Humanoid robotics” conference. special session on the Uncanny Valley

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hart S, Staveland L (1988) Development of NASA-tlx (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Human mental workload, pp 139–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hassenzahl M, Burmester M, Koller F (2003) Attrakdiff: Ein fragebogen zur messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer qualität. In: Mensch & computer 2003: interaktion in bewegung, vol 196. B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, p 187

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Knox WB, Glass BD, Love BC, Maddox WT, Stone P (2012) How humans teach agents—a new experimental perspective. Int J Soc Robot 4(4):409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leyzberg D, Avrunin E, Liu J, Scassellati B (2011) Robots that express emotion elicit better human teaching. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’11, pp 347–354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22(140):1–55

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nicolescu MN, Mataric MJ (2003) Natural methods for robot task learning: instructive demonstrations, generalization and practice. In: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 241–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Peacock M (2001) Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in efl. Int J Appl Linguist 11(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ponce J, Sullivan S, Sudsang A, daniel Boissonnat J, Merlet JP (1996) On computing four-finger equilibrium and force-closure grasps of polyhedral objects. Int J Robot Res 16:11–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv CL, Mirza NA, Francois D, Olsson L (2005) Sustaining interaction dynamics and engagement in dyadic child-robot interaction kinesics: lessons learnt from an exploratory study. In: IEEE international workshop on ROMAN 2005, pp 716–722

    Google Scholar 

  23. Russell JA (1980) A circumplex model of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 39(6):1161–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Russell J (1991) Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychol Bull 110(3):426–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Russell J (1997) Reading emotions from and into faces: resurrecting a dimensional-contextual perspective. In: Russell JA, Fernández-Dols JM (eds) The psychology of facial expression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 295–320

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Sauser EL, Argall BD, Metta G, Billard AG (2012) Iterative learning of grasp adaptation through human corrections. Robot Auton Syst 60:55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ushida H (2010) Effect of social robot’s behavior in collaborative learning. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’10, pp 195–196

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Yohanan S, MacLean KE (2011) Design and assessment of the haptic creature’s affect display. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’11, pp 473–480

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation through the NCCR in Robotics, the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013—Challenge 2—Cognitive Systems, Interaction, Robotics—under grant agreement no[231500]-[ROBOSKIN], and the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 288533 ROBOHOW.COG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Lucia Pais.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pais, A.L., Argall, B.D. & Billard, A.G. Assessing Interaction Dynamics in the Context of Robot Programming by Demonstration. Int J of Soc Robotics 5, 477–490 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0204-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0204-0

Keywords

Navigation