Embodiment Effects in Interactions with Failing Robots

Kontogiorgos, Dimosthenis; Waveren, Sanne van; Wallberg, Olle; Pereira, Ana Isabel; Leite, Iolanda; Gustafson, Joakim

doi:10.1145/3313831.3376372

Cited by 38 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Correia et al [22] has found a decrease in trustworthiness when robots fail, however, the effect is mitigated if the robot attributes the failure to a technical problem. Mitigation strategies depend on several factors, such as the nature of the task [51], failure timing [53] and failure severity [61].…”

Section: Robot Failuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures

Kontogiorgos

Pereira

Gustafson

2021

J Multimodal User Interfaces

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversational interfaces that interact with humans need to continuously establish, maintain and repair common ground in task-oriented dialogues. Uncertainty, repairs and acknowledgements are expressed in user behaviour in the continuous efforts of the conversational partners to maintain mutual understanding. Users change their behaviour when interacting with systems in different forms of embodiment, which affects the abilities of these interfaces to observe users’ recurrent social signals. Additionally, humans are intellectually biased towards social activity when facing anthropomorphic agents or when presented with subtle social cues. Two studies are presented in this paper examining how humans interact in a referential communication task with wizarded interfaces in different forms of embodiment. In study 1 (N = 30), we test whether humans respond the same way to agents, in different forms of embodiment and social behaviour. In study 2 (N = 44), we replicate the same task and agents but introduce conversational failures disrupting the process of grounding. Findings indicate that it is not always favourable for agents to be anthropomorphised or to communicate with non-verbal cues, as human grounding behaviours change when embodiment and failures are manipulated.

show abstract

Section: Robot Failuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures

Kontogiorgos

Pereira

Gustafson

2021

J Multimodal User Interfaces

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, people's trust of robots was found to have no correlation with error severity when humans and robots worked in teams [29]; however, people were more likely to assign blame, usually to themselves or the team as a whole, when experiencing a high severity error than a low one. Error severity, as manipulated by imposing time pressure, was found to influence participants' verbal and gaze behaviors [18]. Our study explored three levels of error severity manipulated by varying task performance and focused on richer social signals, including facial expressions.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Exploring Human Responses to Robot Errors with Varying Severity

Stiber

Huang

2020

Companion Publication of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Not all errors are created equal, and it is not clear which types of errors users are willing to accommodate. Under some conditions errors are likely to have negative effects [6,16]. Some errors are likely to be considered more frustrating, rude, or confusing than others, while some mistakes could potentially be viewed as cute, amusing, or make the system feel less threatening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Error analyses are often performed in human-agent interactions [6,16,[22][23][24]27], sometimes with surprising results. Some studies of robot errors have found that participants view robots that make some mistakes favorably over robots that interact flawlessly [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The form factor seems to have some effect on users' perception. In one study, failures in smart-speaker systems negatively affected users' intentions to interact with the device; however, this was not the case with a human-like robot embodiment [16]. Faulty robots can also be perceived as significantly less trustworthy [6], and there may be error handling strategies that can help with some of these issues [6,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conversational Error Analysis in Human-Agent Interaction

Aneja

McDuff

Czerwinski

2020

Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversational Agents (CAs) present many opportunities for changing how we interact with information and computer systems in a more natural, accessible way. Building on research in machine learning and HCI, it is now possible to design and test multi-turn CA that is capable of extended interactions. However, there are many ways in which these CAs can "fail" and fall short of human expectations. We systematically analyzed how five different types of conversational errors impacted perceptions of an embodied CA. Not all errors negatively impacted perceptions of the agent. Repetitions by the agent and clarifications by the human significantly decreased the perceived intelligence and anthropomorphism of the agent. Turn-taking errors significantly decreased the likability of the agent. However, coherence errors significantly positively increased likability, and these errors were also associated with positive valence via facial expressions, suggesting that the users found them amusing. We believe this work is the first to identify that turn-taking, repetition, clarification, and coherence errors directly affect users' acceptance of an embodied CA, and are worth taking note by designers of such systems during dialog configuration. We release the Agent Conversational Error (ACE) dataset, a set of transcripts and error annotations of human-agent conversations. The dataset can be found at the GITHUB link: https://github.com/deepalianeja/ACE-dataset CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing → HCI design and evaluation methods; Interactive systems and tools; • Computing methodologies → Artificial intelligence.

show abstract

Embodiment Effects in Interactions with Failing Robots

Cited by 38 publications

References 46 publications

Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures

Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures

Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Exploring Human Responses to Robot Errors with Varying Severity

Conversational Error Analysis in Human-Agent Interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About