Chengjie Li
Christopher Peters
ABSTRACT
Mixed reality offers new potentials for social interaction experiences with virtual agents. In addition, it can be used to experiment with the design of physical robots. However, while previous studies have investigated comfortable social distances between humans and artificial agents in real and virtual environments, there is little data with regards to mixed reality environments. In this paper, we conducted an experiment in which participants were asked to walk up to an agent to ask a question, in order to investigate the social distances maintained, as well as the subject's experience of the interaction. We manipulated both the embodiment of the agent (robot vs. human and virtual vs. physical) as well as closed vs. open posture of the agent. The virtual agent was displayed using a mixed reality headset. Our experiment involved 35 participants in a within-subject design. We show that, in the context of social interactions, mixed reality fares well against physical environments, and robots fare well against humans, barring a few technical challenges.
- Jeremy N Bailenson, Jim Blascovich, Andrew C Beall, and Jack M Loomis. 2003. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, 7 (2003), 819--833.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Frank Biocca, Chad Harms, and Judee K Burgoon. 2003. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & virtual environments 12, 5 (2003), 456--480. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Judee K Burgoon. 1991. Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal behavior 15, 4 (1991), 233--259.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Cafaro, B. Ravenet, M. Ochs, H. Högni Vilhjálmsson, and C. Pelachaud. 2016. The Effects of Interpersonal Attitude of a Group of Agents on User's Presence and Proxemics Behavior. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 6, 2, Article 12 (July 2016), 33 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Ennis and C. O'Sullivan. 2012. Perceptually Plausible Formations for Virtual Conversers. Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds 23, 3-4 (May 2012), 321--329. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M.A. Goodrich and A.C. Schultz. 2007. Human-robot Interaction: A Survey. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, 3 (Jan. 2007), 203--275. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E.T. Hall. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, NY.Google Scholar
- Chad Harms and Frank Biocca. 2004. Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds measure of social presence. (2004).Google Scholar
- H. Huettenrauch, K. S. Eklundh, A. Green, and E. A. Topp. 2006. Investigating Spatial Relationships in Human-Robot Interaction. In 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 5052--5059.Google Scholar
- D.C. Jeong, D. Feng, N.C. Krämer, L.C. Miller, and S. Marsella. 2017. Negative Feedback In Your Face: Examining the Effects of Proxemics and Gender on Learning. Springer International Publishing, 170--183.Google Scholar
- Jungjoo Kim, Yangyi Kwon, and Daeyeon Cho. 2011. Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education 57, 2 (2011), 1512--1520. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Lambert. 2004. Body Language. London.Google Scholar
- Kwan Min Lee and Clifford Nass. 2003. Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 289--296. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew Lombard, Theresa B Ditton, Daliza Crane, Bill Davis, Gisela Gil-Egui, Karl Horvath, Jessica Rossman, and S Park. 2000. Measuring presence: A literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument. In Third international workshop on presence, delft, the netherlands, Vol. 240. 2--4.Google Scholar
- Pavel Machotka. 1965. Body movement as communication. Dialogues: Behavioral Science Research 2 (1965), 33--65.Google Scholar
- P. Milgram and F. Kishino. 1994. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. vol. E77-D, no. 12 (12 1994), 1321--1329.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Mumm and Bilge Mutlu. 2011. Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 331--338. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Mumm and B. Mutlu. 2011. Human-robot Proxemics: Physical and Psychological Distancing in Human-robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 331--338. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Obaid, E. B. Sandoval, J. Zlotowski, E. Moltchanova, and C. Bartneck. 2016. Stop! That is Close Enough. How Body Postures Influence Human-Robot Proximity. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. 354--361.Google Scholar
- Larry D Purnell. 2012. Transcultural health care: A culturally competent approach. FA Davis.Google Scholar
- Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emanuel A Schegloff. 1998. Body torque. Social Research (1998), 535--596.Google Scholar
- Viswanath Venkatesh and Philip Johnson. 2002. Telecommuting technology implementations: a within-and between-subjects longitudinal field study. Personnel Psychology 55, 3 (2002), 661--687.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. L. Walters, K. L. Koay, K. Dautenhahn, R. te Boekhorst, and D. S. Syrdal. 2008. Human Approach Distances to a Mechanical Looking Robot with Different Robot Voice Styles. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.Google Scholar
- K. Zibrek, E. Kokkinara, and R. McDonnell. 2017. Don't Stand So Close to Me: Investigating the Efect of Control on the Appeal of Virtual Humans Using Immersion and a Proximity-based Behavioral Task. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 3:1--3:11 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Effects of Posture and Embodiment on Social Distance in Human-Agent Interaction in Mixed Reality
Recommendations
Proxemics for Human-Agent Interaction in Augmented Reality
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsAugmented Reality (AR) embeds virtual content in physical spaces, including virtual agents that are known to exert a social presence on users. Existing design guidelines for AR rarely consider the social implications of an agent’s personal space (PS) and ...
Investigating Social Distances between Humans, Virtual Humans and Virtual Robots in Mixed Reality
AAMAS '18: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent SystemsMixed reality environments offer new potentials for the design of compelling social interaction experiences with virtual characters. In this paper, we summarise initial experiments we are conducting in which we measure comfortable social distances ...
First-person-view drone flying in mixed reality
SA '18: SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 PostersThis paper presents a study aimed at creating an aerial mixed reality environment by using a first-person-view drone. We develop a drone with a stereoscopic camera based on human binocular vision. Then, we present a novel mixed reality environment with ...
Comments