Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who is Willing to Help Robots? A User Study on Collaboration Attitude

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

Abstract

In order to operate in human-populated environments, robots need to show reasonable behaviors and human-compatible abilities. In the so-called Symbiotic Autonomy, robots and humans help each other to overcome mutual limitations and complete their tasks. When the robot takes the initiative and asks the human for help, there is a change of perspective in the interaction, which has not yet been specifically addressed by HRI studies. In this paper, we investigate the novel scenario brought about by Symbiotic Autonomy, by addressing the factors that may influence the interaction. In particular, we introduce the “Collaboration Attitude” to evaluate how the response of users being asked by the robot for help is influenced by the context of the interaction and by what they are doing (i.e., ongoing activity). We present the results of a first study, which confirms the influence of conventional factors (i.e., proxemics) on the Collaboration Attitude, while it suggests that the context (i.e., relaxing vs. working) may not be much relevant. Then, we present a second study, carried out to better assess the influence of the activity performed by the humans in our population, when (s)he is approached by the robot, as an additional and more compelling characterization of context (i.e., standing vs. sitting). While the experimental scenario takes into account a population with distinctive characteristics (i.e., academic staff and students), the overall findings of our studies suggest that the attitude of users towards robots in the setting of Symbiotic Autonomy is influenced by factors already known to influence robot acceptance while it is not significantly affected by the context of the interaction and by the human ongoing activity.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Study 2, the robot approaches the all the experimenters within the “Personal” Proxemics setting.

References

  1. Baraglia J, Cakmak M, Nagai Y, Rao RP, Asada M (2017) Efficient human-robot collaboration: when should a robot take initiative? Int J Robot Res 36(5–7):563–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364916688253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Coradeschi S, Saffiotti A (2006) Symbiotic robotic systems: humans, robots, and smart environments. IEEE Intell Syst 21(3):82–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Engel C (2011) Dictator games: a meta study. Exp Econ 14:583–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fischer K, Yang S, Mok B, Maheshwari R, Sirkin D, Ju W (2015) Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: a robotic trash can in the field. In: AAAI symposium on turn-taking and coordination in human–machine interaction, pp 10–16

  5. de Graaf MM, Ben Allouch S (2014) Expectation setting and personality attribution in hri. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, New York, NY, USA, HRI ’14, pp 144–145. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559796

  6. Hall ET (1966) The Hidden Dimension: man’s use of space in public and private. The Bodley Head Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Imre M, Oztop E, Nagai Y, Ugur E (2019) Affordance-based altruistic robotic architecture for human-robot collaboration. Adapt Behav 0(0):1059712318824,697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712318824697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Ashgari-Oskoei M, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2014) Social roles and baseline proxemic preferences for a domestic service robot. Int J Soc Robot 6:469–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitsunaga N, Smith C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) Adapting robot behavior for human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 24:911–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot Interaction, ACM, HRI ’11, pp 331–338

  11. Nikolaidis S, Ramakrishnan R, Gu K, Shah J (2015) Efficient model learning from joint-action demonstrations for human-robot collaborative tasks. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, HRI ’15, pp 189–196

  12. Riccio F, Vanzo A, Mirabella V, Catarci T, Nardi D (2016) Enabling symbiotic autonomy in short-term interactions: a user study. Springer, Berlin, pp 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_78

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Riek LD (2012) Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J Hum–Robot Interact 1(1):119–136. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenthal S, Veloso M (2012) Mobile robot planning to seek help with spatially-situated tasks. In: Proceedings of the 26th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI Press, AAAI’12, pp 2067–2073

  15. Rosenthal S, Biswas J, Veloso M (2010) An effective personal mobile robot agent through symbiotic human–robot interaction. In: International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2010), vol 1, pp 915–922

  16. Song H, Restivo M, van de Rijt A, Scarlatos LL, Tonjes D, Orlov A (2015) The hidden gender effect in online collaboration: an experimental study of team performance under anonymity. Comput Hum Behav 50:274–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2007) A personalized robot companion?—the role of individual differences on spatial preferences in hri scenarios. In: The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN 2007, pp 1143–1148

  18. Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2009, IROS 2009, pp 5495–5502

  19. Torta E, Cuijpers RH, Juola JF (2011) A model of the user’s proximity for bayesian inference. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, New York, NY, USA, HRI ’11, pp 273–274

  20. Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Nehaniv CL (2009) An empirical framework for human–robot proxemics. In: Proceedings of the symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction, Edinburgh, Scottland, pp 144–149

  21. Zanchettin A, Casalino A, Piroddi L, Rocco P (2018) Prediction of human activity patterns for human–robot collaborative assembly tasks. IEEE Trans Ind Inf. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2882741

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sapienza University of Rome, Via Ariosto 25, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Andrea Vanzo, Francesco Riccio, Mahmoud Sharf, Valeria Mirabella, Tiziana Catarci & Daniele Nardi

Authors
  1. Andrea Vanzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Riccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mahmoud Sharf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valeria Mirabella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tiziana Catarci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniele Nardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Vanzo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vanzo, A., Riccio, F., Sharf, M. et al. Who is Willing to Help Robots? A User Study on Collaboration Attitude. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 589–598 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00571-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00571-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation