How Does It Feel to Clap Hands with a Robot?

Fitter, Naomi T.; Kuchenbecker, Katherine J.

doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00542-x

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several researchers have devoted effort to enabling robots to shake hands with humans as naturally as humans do with each other, e.g., [7,77]. Other researchers have worked to allow humans to connect with robots in a more light-hearted and playful manner through high-fives and hand-clapping games [31][32][33]. All these interactions feature ways to help humans and robots interact with each other both socially and physically.…”

Section: Human-robot Huggingmentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Arms of a Robot: Designing Autonomous Hugging Robots with Intra-Hug Gestures

Block¹,

Seifi²,

Hilliges³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hugs are complex affective interactions that often include gestures like squeezes. We present six new guidelines for designing interactive hugging robots, which we validate through two studies with our custom robot. To achieve autonomy, we investigated robot responses to four human intra-hug gestures: holding, rubbing, patting, and squeezing. Thirty-two users each exchanged and rated sixteen hugs with an experimenter-controlled HuggieBot 2.0. The robot's inflated torso's microphone and pressure sensor collected data of the subjects' demonstrations that were used to develop a perceptual algorithm that classifies user actions with 88% accuracy. Users enjoyed robot squeezes, regardless of their performed action, they valued variety in the robot response, and they appreciated robot-initiated intra-hug gestures. From average user ratings, we created a probabilistic behavior algorithm that chooses robot responses in real time. We implemented improvements to the robot platform to create HuggieBot 3.0 and then validated its gesture perception system and behavior algorithm with sixteen users. The robot's responses and proactive gestures were greatly enjoyed. Users found the robot more natural, enjoyable, and intelligent in the last phase of the experiment than in the first. After the study, they felt more understood by the robot and thought robots were nicer to hug. CCS Concepts: • Computer systems organization → Robotics; • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in interaction design.

show abstract

Section: Human-robot Huggingmentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Arms of a Robot: Designing Autonomous Hugging Robots with Intra-Hug Gestures

Block¹,

Seifi²,

Hilliges³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The humanistic power of these interactions might increase not by moving care robots, as some would prefer, ‘beyond anthropomorphism’, but rather by giving robots more human appearances. Hands, faces, postures, gestures, demeanors, haptics, tactility, responsiveness, conversation—robots may better express humanistic care when these are more vividly humanlike [ 104 – 106 ] rather than, say, cartoonish, robotlike, or zoomorphic. No doubt increasingly humanlike robots run risks of seeming creepy or (just as terminally) simply laughable.…”

Section: Some Implications For Robot Research and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robots and the Possibility of Humanistic Care

Coghlan

2021

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Care robots are likely to perform increasingly sophisticated caring activities that some will consider comforting and valuable. They will get increasingly humanlike and lifelike. This paper addresses the conceptual question: Even if robots can assist and ease people’s suffering, can such machines provide humanistic care? Arguably, humanistic care is the most humanly distinctive and deepest form of care there is. As such, it may be thought to show most starkly the gulf between human and robot caregiving. The paper argues that humanistic caregiving is indeed a distinctive form of ‘affective’ care dependent on certain uniquely human characteristics or aspects of our humanity which can provide a profound kind of comfort to suffering people. It then argues that there is an important conceptual sense in which robots cannot provide humanistic care. Nonetheless, the paper subsequently suggests that we may recognize a useful sense in which robots, of a suitably anthropomorphic type, can provide humanistic care. Robots might ‘express’ to people with physical, social, or emotional needs the kind of humanistic care that only human beings can provide but that sufferers can nonetheless receive comfort from precisely because of what is expressed to them. Although this sense of humanistic robot care is derivative from uniquely human care, and although it is wide open to social and ethical criticism, it is nonetheless an idea worth clarifying for anyone interested in the possibilities and limits of robot care.

show abstract

“…Perceived safety and trust were the main criteria in the work of Fitter et al [96], where a human and a Baxter robot played a hand-clapping game for an hour to evaluate robot's facial reactivity, physical reactivity, arm stiffness, and clapping tempo. Baxter was perceived as more pleasant and energetic when facial reactivity was present, while physical reactivity made it less pleasant, energetic, and dominant for participants.…”

Section: Selected Work On Humanoid Robotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, the small Nao was allowed to come closer by participants in comparison to both short and tall PR2s [94]; people kept the shortest distance from ASIMO in comparison to Robovie or another human [75]; PeopleBot's mechanoid or humanoid appearances had stronger effect than the robot height [73]. The robot motion was also a focus in other works in this section: Baxter's higher arm stiffness increased perceived safety [96], the level of comfort increased when the robot motion was more predictable [77], and a minimum-jerk profile of the iCat arms had higher safety ratings [74].…”

Section: Achieving Perceived Safety For Humanoid Robotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Safety in Physical Human Robot Interaction -- A Survey

Rubagotti¹,

Tusseyeva²,

Baltabayeva³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review paper focuses on different aspects of perceived safety for a number of autonomous physical systems. This is a major aspect of robotics research, as more and more applications allow human and autonomous systems to share their space, with crucial implications both on safety and on its perception. The alternative terms used to express related concepts (e.g., psychological safety, trust, comfort, stress, fear, and anxiety) are listed and explained. Then, the available methods to assess perceived safety (i.e., questionnaires, physiological measurements, behavioral assessment, and direct input devices) are described. Six categories of autonomous systems are considered (industrial manipulators, mobile robots, mobile manipulators, humanoid robots, drones, and autonomous vehicles), providing an overview of the main themes related to perceived safety in the specific domain, a description of selected works, and an analysis of how motion and characteristics of the system influence the perception of safety. The survey also discusses experimental duration and location of the reviewed papers as well as identified trends over time.

show abstract

How Does It Feel to Clap Hands with a Robot?

Cited by 18 publications

References 32 publications

In the Arms of a Robot: Designing Autonomous Hugging Robots with Intra-Hug Gestures

In the Arms of a Robot: Designing Autonomous Hugging Robots with Intra-Hug Gestures

Robots and the Possibility of Humanistic Care

Perceived Safety in Physical Human Robot Interaction -- A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About