Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction

Focusing on the Holistic Interaction Experience

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The experience of interacting with a robot has been shown to be very different in comparison to people’s interaction experience with other technologies and artifacts, and often has a strong social or emotional component—a difference that poses potential challenges related to the design and evaluation of HRI. In this paper we explore this difference, and its implications on evaluating HRI. We outline how this difference is due in part to the general complexity of robots’ overall context of interaction, related to their dynamic presence in the real world and their tendency to invoke a sense of agency.

We suggest that due to these differences HCI evaluation methods should be applied to HRI with care, and we present a survey of select HCI evaluation techniques from the perspective of the unique challenges of robots. We propose a view on social interaction with robots that we call the holistic interaction experience, and introduce a set of three perspectives for exploring social interaction with robots: visceral factors of interaction, social mechanics, and social structures. We demonstrate how our three perspectives can be used in practice, both as guidelines to discuss and categorize robot interaction, and as a component in the evaluation process. Further, we propose an original heuristic for brainstorming various possibilities of interaction experiences based on a concept we call the interaction experience map.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrett HC, Todd PM, Miller GF et al (2005) Accurate judgments of intention from motion cues alone: a cross-cultural study. Evol Human Behav 26(4):313–331. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartneck C, Forlizzi J (2004) A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2004. ROMAN’04, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan, 20–22 September 2004. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 581–594. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bartneck C, van der Hoek M, Mubin O et al (2007) “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do!”: switching off a robot. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2007. HRI’07, Washington, DC, USA, 10–12 March 2007. ACM, New York, pp 217–222. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228746

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartneck C, Verbunt M, Mubin O et al (2007) To kill a mockingbird robot. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2007. HRI’07, Washington, DC, USA, 10–12 March 2007. ACM, New York, pp 81–87. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228728

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bates J (1994) The role of emotion in believable agents. Commun ACM 37(7):122–125. doi:10.1145/176789.176803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bethel CL, Bringes C, Murphy RR (2009) Non-facial and non-verbal affective expression in appearance-constrained robots for use in victim management: robots to the rescue! In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2009. HRI’09, San Diego, California, USA, 11–13 March 2009. ACM, New York, pp 191–192. doi:10.1145/1514095.1514130

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1998) Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boehner K, DePaula R, Dourish P et al (2007) How emotion is made and measured. Int J Hum-Comput Stud (IJHCS) 65(4):275–291. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Breazeal CL (2003) Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int J Hum-Comput Stud (IJHCS) 59(1–2):119–155. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00018-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Breazeal CL (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Autonom Syst 42(3–4):167–175. doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Breazeal CL, Brooks AG, Gray J et al (2004) Tutelage and collaboration for humanoid robots. Int J Human Robot (IJHR) 1(2):315–348. doi:10.1142/S0219843604000150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burgard W, Cremers AB, Fox D et al (1999) Experiences with an interactive museum tour-guide robot. Artif Intell 114(1–2):3–55. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00070-3

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Crabtree A, Benford S, Greenhalgh C et al (2006) Supporting ethnographic studies of ubiquitous computing in the wild. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive systems, 2006. DIS’06, University Park, PA, US, 26–28 June 2006. ACM, New York, pp 60–69. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142417

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Cramer H, Goddijn J, Wielinga B et al (2010) Effects of (in)accurate empathy and situational valence on attitudes towards robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2010. HRI’10, Osaka, Japan, 2–5 March 2010. ACM, New York, pp 141–142. doi:10.1145/1734454.1734513

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Cramer H, Kemper N, Amin A et al (2009) ‘Give me a hug:’ the effects of touch and autonomy on people’s responses to embodied social agents. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 20(2–3):2–3. doi:10.1002/cav.317

    Google Scholar 

  16. Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dautenhahn K (2002) Design spaces and niche spaces of believable social robots. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2002. ROMAN’02, Berlin, Germany, 25–27 September 2002. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 192–197. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2002.1045621

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dennett D (1987) The intentional stance. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Desmet PMA (2005) Measuring emotions: development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In: Blythe MA, Overbeeke K, Monk AF et al (eds) Funology: from usability to enjoyment. Kluwer Academic, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dewey J (1980) Art as experience. Perigee Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd GD et al (1998) Human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundation of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  23. Drury JL, Scholtz J, Yanco HA (2003) Awareness in human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 2003. SMC’03, Washington, DC, USA, 5–8 October 2003, vol 1. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 912–918. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2003.1243931

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eberts RE (1994) User interface design. Prentice Hall, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Fernaeus Y, Ljungblad S, Jacobsson M et al (2009) Where third wave HCI meets HRI: report from a workshop on user-centred design of robots. In: Adjunct proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (late-breaking abstracts), 2009. HRI LBA’09, San Diego, California, USA, 11–13 March 2009. ACM, New York, pp 293–294. doi:10.1145/1514095.1514182

    Google Scholar 

  26. Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2007. HRI’07, Washington, DC, USA, 10–12 March 2007. ACM, New York, pp 129–136. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228734

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, 2006. HRI’06, Salt Lake City, USA, 2–4 March 2006. ACM, New York, pp 258–256. doi:10.1145/1121241.1121286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Friedman B, Kahn PHJr, Hagman J (2003) Hardware companions?—what online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2003. CHI’03, Fort Lauderdale, USA, 5–10 April 2003. ACM, New York, pp 273–280. doi:10.1145/642611.642660

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Fussell SR, Kiesler S, Setlock LD et al (2008) How people anthropomorphize robots. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2008. HRI’08, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 12–15 March 2008. ACM, New York, pp 145–152. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349842

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Garreau J (2007) Bots on the ground. Washington Post, WWW, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501009_pf.html. Visited April 9th, 2008

  31. Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E (1999) Design: cultural probes. Interactions 6(1):21–29. doi:10.1145/291224.291235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gockley R, Forlizzi J, Simmons R (2006) Interactions with a moody robot. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, 2006. HRI’06, Salt Lake City, USA, 2–4 March 2006. ACM, New York, pp 186–193. doi:10.1145/1121241.1121274

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Gockley R, Forlizzi J, Simmons R (2007) Natural person-following behavior for social robots. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2007. HRI’07, Washington, DC, USA, 10–12 March 2007. ACM, New York, pp 17–24. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228720

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Greenberg S (2003) Working through task-centered system design. In: Diaper D, Stanton N (eds) The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  35. Groom V, Chen J, Johnson T et al (2010) Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2010. HRI’10, Osaka, Japan, 2–5 March 2010. ACM, New York, pp 211–218. doi:10.1145/1734454.1734545

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Guo C, Sharlin E (2008) Exploring the use of tangible user interfaces for human-robot interaction: a comparative study. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2007. CHI’07, San Jose, California, USA, 28 April–3 May 2007. ACM, New York, pp 121–130. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357076

    Google Scholar 

  37. Harrison S, Dourish P (1996) Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, 1996. CSCW’96, Boston, US, 16–20 November 1996. ACM, New York. doi:10.1145/240080.240193

    Google Scholar 

  38. Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57:243–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ho CC, MacDorman KF, Pramono ZADD (2008) Human emotion and the uncanny valley: a GLM, MDS, and isomap analysis of robot video ratings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2008. HRI’08, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 12–15 March 2008. ACM, New York, pp 169–176. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349845

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Holz T, Dragone M, O’Hare MP (2009) Where robots and virtual agents meet: a survey of social interaction research across milgram’s reality-virtuality continuum. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):83–93. doi:10.1007/s12369-008-0002-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Höök K (2005) User-centered design and evaluation of affective interfaces. In: From brows to trust. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7. Springer, Berlin, New York, Heidelberg

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Höök K, Sengers P, Andersson G (2003) Sense and sensibility: evaluation and interactive art. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2003. CHI’03, Fort Lauderdale, USA, 5–10 April 2003. ACM, New York, pp 241–248. doi:10.1145/642611.642654

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Hornecker E, Buur J (2006) Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2006. CHI’06, Montréal, Quèbec, 22–28 April 2006. ACM, New York, pp 437–446. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124838

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hüttenrauch H, Eklundh KS (2002) Fetch-and-carry with CERO: observations from a long-term user study with a service robot. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2002. ROMAN’02, Berlin, Germany, 25–27 September 2002. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 158–163. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2002.1045615

    Google Scholar 

  45. Isbister K, Höök K, Sharp M et al (2006) The sensual evaluation instrument: developing an affective evaluation tool. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2006. CHI’06, Montréal, Quèbec, 22–28 April 2006. ACM, New York, pp 1163–1172. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124946

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N et al (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971. doi:10.1109/TRO.2007.904904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kiesler S, Hinds P (2004) Introduction to this special issue on human-robot interaction. Human Comput Interact 19(1/2):1–8. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2005.850577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Landsberger HA (1958) Hawthorne revisited. Ithaca Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lee H, Kim HJ, Kim C (2007) Autonomous behavior design for robotic appliances. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2007. HRI’07, Washington, DC, USA, 10–12 March 2007. ACM, New York, pp 201–208. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228744

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee MK, Forlizzi J, Rybski PE et al (2009) The snackbot: documenting the design of a robot for long-term human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2009. HRI’09, San Diego, California, USA, 11–13 March 2009. ACM, New York, pp 7–14. doi:10.1145/1514095.1514100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Lockerd A, Breazeal CL (2004) Tutelage and socially guided robot learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2004. IROS’04, Sendai, Japan, 28 September–2 October 2004, vol 4. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 3475–3480. doi:10.1109/IROS.2004.1389954

    Google Scholar 

  52. Marti P, Pollini A, Rullo A et al (2005) Engaging with artificial pets. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the European association of cognitive ergonomics, 2005. EACE’05, Chania, Greece, 29 September–1 October 2005. ACM, New York, pp 99–106

    Google Scholar 

  53. Michalowski MP, Sabanovic S, Kozima H (2007) A dancing robot for rhythmic social interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2007. HRI’07, Washington, DC, USA, 10–12 March 2007. ACM, New York, pp 89–96. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228729

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani: the uncanny valley (in Japanese). Energy 7:33–35. English translation provided at CogSci’05 workshop: Toward social mechanisms of android science. Views of the Uncanny Valley. WWW, http://www.androidscience.com/theuncannyvalley/proceedings2005/uncannyvalley.html

    Google Scholar 

  55. Muhl C, Nagai T (2007) Does disturbance discourage people from communicating with a robot? In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2009. ROMAN’09, Toyama, Japan, 27 September–2 October 2009. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 1137–1142. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415251

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mutlu B, Shiwa T, Kanda T et al (2009) Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2009. HRI’09, San Diego, California, USA, 11–13 March 2009. ACM, New York, pp 61–68. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415251

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Norman DA (1988) The design of everyday things. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  59. Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pacchierotti E, Christensen HI, Jensfelt P (2006) Design of an office guide robot for social interaction studies. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2006. IROS’06, Beijing, China, 9–15 October 2006. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 4965–4970. doi:10.1109/IROS.2006.282519

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Picard RW (1999) Affective computing for HCI. In: Proceedings of the HCI international conference on human-computer interaction, 1999. HCI’99, Munich, Germany, 22–26 August 1999. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, pp 829–833

    Google Scholar 

  62. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information Leland Standford Junior University, Cambridge, UK, first paperback edition

  63. Richer J, Drury JL (2003) A video game-based framework for analyzing human-robot interaction: characterizing interface design in real-time interactive multimedia applications. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, 2006. HRI’06, Salt Lake City, USA, 2–4 March 2006. ACM, New York, pp 266–273. doi:10.1145/1121241.1121287

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sanders EBN (1992) Converging perspectives: product development research for the 1990s. Des Manage J 3(4):49–54

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sengers P, Gaver B (2006) Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive systems, 2006. DIS’06, University Park, PA, US, 26–28 June 2006. ACM, New York, pp 99–108. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142422

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  66. Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J (2007) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  67. Short E, Hart J, Vu M et al (2010) No fair!!: an interaction with a cheating robot. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2010. HRI’10, Osaka, Japan, 2–5 March 2010. ACM, New York, pp 219–226. doi:10.1145/1734454.1734546

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Sidner CL, Lee C, Morency LP et al (2006) The effect of head-nod recognition in human-robot conversation. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, 2006. HRI’06, Salt Lake City, USA, 2–4 March 2006. ACM, New York, pp 290–296. doi:10.1145/1121241.1121291

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Staudte M, Crocker MW (2009) Visual attention in spoken human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2009. HRI’09, San Diego, California, USA, 11–13 March 2009. ACM, New York, pp 77–84. doi:10.1145/1514095.1514111

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  70. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sung J, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2009) “Pimp my Roomba”: designing for personalization. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2009. CHI’09, Boston, USA, 4–9 April 2009. ACM, New York, pp 193–196. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518732

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sung J, Grinter RE, Christensen HI et al (2008) Housewives or technophiles?: understanding domestic robot owners. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2008. HRI’08, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 12–15 March 2008. ACM, New York, pp 129–136. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349840

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Sung J, Guo L, Grinter RE et al (2007) “My Roomba is Rambo”: intimate home appliances. In: Proceedings of the international conference on ubiquitous computing, 2007. UBICOMP’07, Innbruck, Austria, 16–17 September 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4717. Springer, Berlin, New York, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_9

    Google Scholar 

  74. Takayama L, Groom V, Nass C (2009) I’m sorry, Dave: I’m afraid I won’t do that: social aspects of human-agent conflict. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2009. CHI’09, Boston, USA, 4–9 April 2009. ACM, New York, pp 2099–2108. doi:10.1145/1518701.1519021

    Google Scholar 

  75. Takayama L, Ju W, Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: what everyday people think robots should do. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2008. HRI’08, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 12–15 March 2008. ACM, New York, pp 25–32. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349827

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. Tanaka F, Movellan JR, Fortenberry B et al (2006) Daily HRI evaluation at a classroom environment: reports from dance interaction experiments. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, 2006. HRI’06, Salt Lake City, USA, 2–4 March 2006. ACM, New York, pp 3–9. doi:10.1145/1121241.1121245

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  77. Tolmie P, Pycock J, Diggins T et al (2002) Unremarkable computing. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2002. CHI’02, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 20–25 April 2002. ACM, New York, pp 399–406. doi:10.1145/503376.503448

    Google Scholar 

  78. Voida A, Grinter RE, Ducheneaut N et al (2005) Listening in: practices surrounding iTunes music sharing. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing sysems, 2005. CHI’05, Portland, OR, USA, 2–7 April 2005. ACM, New York, pp 191–200. doi:10.1145/1054972.1054999

    Google Scholar 

  79. Yanco HA, Drury JL (2004) Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 2004. SMC’04, The Hague, The Netherlands, 10–13 October 2004, vol 3. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 2841–2846. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2004.1400763

    Google Scholar 

  80. Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E et al (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):95–108. doi:10.1007/s12369-008-0006-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Young JE, Xin M, Sharlin E (2007) Robot expressionism through cartooning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction, 2007. HRI’07, Washington, DC, USA, 10–12 March 2007. ACM, New York, pp 309–316. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228758

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

    James E. Young, Amy Voida & Ehud Sharlin

  2. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    James E. Young & Takeo Igarashi

  3. JST ERATO, Tokyo, Japan

    Takeo Igarashi

  4. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    JaYoung Sung, Henrik I. Christensen & Rebecca E. Grinter

Authors
  1. James E. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. JaYoung Sung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy Voida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ehud Sharlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takeo Igarashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henrik I. Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rebecca E. Grinter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Young.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Young, J.E., Sung, J., Voida, A. et al. Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 3, 53–67 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0081-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0081-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation