Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- visiting_the_robot_house [2010-10-28 20:32] – rula.sayaf
+++ visiting_the_robot_house [2010-10-28 20:55] (current) – rula.sayaf
@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 Regarding the subjects' preference of the approach direction, it was as follows:
 {{:table1.jpg|}}
+===Evaluating the Host===
+When subjects evaluated the efficiency of their host all scenarios yielded almost the same evaluation unless for the “standing in the middle of the room” scenario. In the last scenario, frontal direction approach was specifically preferred. This is probably because when standing, the subject didn’t feel intimidated by the robot as in that case the subject would have been taller than the robot's figure. In contrast to the scenarios of when the subject was seated; the frontal approach in those scenarios was not preferred because in that case the subject would have been shorter than the robot's figure and would feel vulnerable when the robot is in the intimate personal space of the subject. The same is noticed for the other standing scenarios; when standing to the wall the subjects didn’t prefer the frontal approach as they might have felt that they are less free to escape the robot.
+To conclude, when evaluating the host in the robot house with the two experimentation style we note that there is no significant difference between the live or the video HRI style and results were equivalent in the two cases. This finding suggests that VHRI can be used instead of the live experiments in some cases with offering many of the added-values mentioned earlier, the probability and feasibility of this suggestion grows smaller with the more human-robot interaction involved. Next time if you want to visit a robot house and you only find a big screen viewing a robot video inside, then don't be surprised and enjoy the experience.
+Generally speaking, this robot house experience spots the light on the appropriate actions a robot should have when serving or fetching people objects, it has to approach from the front when feasible. If not, then it has to consider the most appropriate direction approach with considerations of not intimidating the subject. In other words, the robot has to have the courtesy behaviour and not only the high-class people.
+you can check some videos of the Robot House [[http://lirec.eu/content/human-robot-interaction-hri-07-videos|here]].
+Related Articles:
+[[http://libarynth.org/to_act_or_react|To Act or React?]]
+References:
+[1] S. N. Woods, M. L. Walters, K. L. Koay, K. Dautenhahn, "Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video- Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials", Proceedings of 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 06), Hatfield, UK, 6-8 September (2006), University of Hertfordshire. pp 51--58.
+[2] C. D. Kidd, “Sociable robots: The role of presence and task in human-robot interaction”. MSc Thesis 2003, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
+[3]  J. N. Bailensen, J. Blascovich, A. C. Beall, J. M. Loomis, “Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 2003, pp. 819-833.
+[4] A. Paiva, J. Dias, D. Sobral, R. Aylett, S. Woods, L. Hall, C. Zoll, “Caring for Agents that care: Building empathic relations with synthetic agents”. in Proc. AAMAS Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Sys194 – 201.
+[5] S. N. Woods, M. L. Walters, K. L. Koay, K. Dautenhahn, "Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video- Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials", Proceedings of 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 06), Hatfield, UK, 6-8 September (2006), University of Hertfordshire. Pp 51—58.
+[6] E.T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension: Man's Use of Space in Public and Private. The Bodley Head Ltd, London, UK. 1966