Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
to_act_or_react [2010-10-28 13:12] – rula.sayaf | to_act_or_react [2010-10-28 20:44] (current) – rula.sayaf | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Within our research in the dynamics of living with robots and interactive companions, it is essential to consider actions of robots and reactions of humans for the near future scenarios. Testing similar scenarios during the present could approximate and anticipate the future. In LIREC and within the various studies conducted, a relevant study of sharing living spaces with robots in a home and social places was performed to investigate how this will affect social spaces relationships and proxmics with humans in order to shape how the interaction will have to be. For this reason the experiment has to involve working with medium or large human-scaled mobile robots in rather big spaces with considerable resources of hardware and human researchers and experimenters [1, | Within our research in the dynamics of living with robots and interactive companions, it is essential to consider actions of robots and reactions of humans for the near future scenarios. Testing similar scenarios during the present could approximate and anticipate the future. In LIREC and within the various studies conducted, a relevant study of sharing living spaces with robots in a home and social places was performed to investigate how this will affect social spaces relationships and proxmics with humans in order to shape how the interaction will have to be. For this reason the experiment has to involve working with medium or large human-scaled mobile robots in rather big spaces with considerable resources of hardware and human researchers and experimenters [1, | ||
- | If we take the [[http:// | + | If we take the [[http:// |
+ | |||
+ | Due to the restrictions and unaffordable resources to run such studies that would last for long periods of time; other methods of experimentation has to be used. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Added-values of Theatre=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | For all the above-mentioned restrictions in large-scale experiments, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The added values of this method compared to the Live and Video HRI methods are many. It affords involving more than one individual user to test the technology in hand in an interactive effective way with the feasible use Wizard of Oz. Allowing running early stage experiments before employing many resources for implementing full autonomous robots. The experiment scenarios have a variety of options since they don't rely on the presence of one subject who is responsible of participating in action with the robot. Instead, the actor plays the role of a user interfacing with the robot and the audience will be in this way able to watch and then involve in a discussion with the characters themselves to investigate aspects and issues of interest to the audience. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This provides freedom in creating the scenarios and scripts for the actors and semi actors (the robots). The scenarios include very advanced functions of the robots that they might not exactly have, such as: smooth space navigation, natural language interaction and reasoning and all other social skills and intelligence that we humans have. Resulting in having significant feedback about the targeted robotic system form the targeted users involved in the experiments. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Starring Actors=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the experiment of this pilot study a Pioneer and Peoplebot were the electronic actors in the scenarios after being modified by the LIREC team at the university of Hertfordshire. Following we list all individual tasks involved in the play: 1- Actors: improvise scenarios that might face the robots 2- Semi-actors: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The wide range of audience' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===The Progress of the Wheel=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | After discussing the stage action, we will now review the reaction of the audience and further talk about how this would benefit the robot development wheel. The audience reactions focused on five categories as following: 1- Intelligence aspect: took the most time of the discussion but it was only discussed once 2- Personalization: | ||
+ | 4- The communication of the robot: how the robot verbally and non-verbally communicates with humans. This discussion is important in terms of showing what the public thinks the communication should and could be and how it might be developed with the most substantial aspects to focus on. Personalization of communication was discussed along with memory. Meaning that the ability of the robot to speak according to user's preference is something significant and preferred. Audience also expressed that natural language communication with the robot is preferred more than certain keywords communication. 5- The physical embodiment and appearance: also was frequently discussed. Again along with personalization where it showed that having a user defined physical appearance of the robot would be helpful and useful. It is noteworthy to discuss this aspect in the future development of robots. We will also tackle personalizing the appearance aspect in another work in LIREC framework of research. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===The Wheel In Motion === | ||
+ | |||
+ | The substantial results of this novel experiment using theatre in Human-Robot interaction prove its validity and significance in extracting more information about user preferences especially in what is related to communication, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Read more: | ||
+ | [[http:// | ||
+ | [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | References: | ||
+ | [1] A. Green, H. Huttenrauch & K. Severinson-Eklundh, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||