Malte F. Jung
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Research on human-robot collaboration or human-robot teaming, has focused predominantly on understanding and enabling collaboration between a single robot and a single human. Extending human-robot collaboration research beyond the dyad, raises novel questions about how a robot should allocate resources among group members and about what the consequences of such allocation are for a group’s social dynamics and outcomes. Methodological advances are needed to answer these questions allow researchers to collect data about a robot’s impact not only on interactions with the robot but also on interactions of people with each other. This paper presents Robot Assisted Tower Construction, a novel task that allows researchers to examine the impact of a robot’s allocation behavior on the dynamics of a group or team collaborating on a task. By focusing on the question of whether and how a robot’s allocation of resources (wooden blocks required for a building task) affects collaboration dynamics and outcomes, a case is provided of how this task can be applied in a laboratory study with 124 participants to collect data about human robot collaboration that involves a group of people. We highlight the kinds of insights the task can yield and how it can be adapted to various human robot collaboration contexts.
- Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. 2020. Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy 128, 6 (2020), 2188--2244.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Henny Admoni, Anca Dragan, Siddhartha S. Srinivasa, and Brian Scassellati. 2014. Deliberate delays during robot-to-human handovers improve compliance with gaze communication. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 49–56.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arash Ajoudani, Andrea Maria Zanchettin, Serena Ivaldi, Alin Albu-Schäffer, Kazuhiro Kosuge, and Oussama Khatib. 2018. Progress and prospects of the human–robot collaboration. Autonomous Robots (2018), 1–19.Google Scholar
- Linda Argote and Paul S. Goodman. 1986. The organizational implications of robotics. In Implementing Advanced Technology, D. O. Davis (Ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 127--153.Google Scholar
- Linda Argote, Paul S. Goodman, and David Schkade. 1983. The human side of robotics: How worker’s react to a robot. In International Trends in Manufacturing Technology, T. H. Husband (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 19--32.Google Scholar
- Rajiv D. Banker, Joy M. Field, Roger G. Schroeder, and Kingshuk K. Sintia. 1996. Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal 39, 4 (1996), 867–890.Google Scholar
- Michael Barrett, Eivor Oborn, Wanda J. Orlikowski, and JoAnne Yates. 2012. Reconfiguring boundary relations: Robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organization Science 23, 5 (2012), 1448–1466.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrea Bauer, Dirk Wollherr, and Martin Buss. 2008. Human–robot collaboration: A survey. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 5, 1 (2008), 47–66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel J. Beal, Robin R. Cohen, Michael J. Burke, and Christy L. McLendon. 2003. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations.Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 6 (2003), 989.Google Scholar
- Cindy L. Bethel and Robin R. Murphy. 2010. Review of human studies methods in HRI and recommendations. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 4 (2010), 347–359.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cynthia Breazeal, Nick DePalma, Jeff Orkin, Sonia Chernova, and Malte Jung. 2013. Crowdsourcing human-robot interaction: New methods and system evaluation in a public environment. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 2, 1 (2013), 82–111.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarah F. Brosnan and Frans B. M. de Waal. 2014. Evolution of responses to (un) fairness. Science 346, 6207 (2014), 1251776.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Houston Claure, Yifang Chen, Jignesh Modi, Malte Jung, and Stefanos Nikolaidis. 2019. Reinforcement learning with fairness constraints for resource distribution in human-robot teams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00313 (2019).Google Scholar
- Susan G. Cohen and Diane E. Bailey. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management 23, 3 (1997), 239–290.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Filipa Correia, Samuel Mascarenhas, Rui Prada, Francisco S. Melo, and Ana Paiva. 2018. Group-based emotions in teams of humans and robots. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 261–269.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lewis A. Coser. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt P.Google Scholar
- Jared R. Curhan, Hillary Anger Elfenbein, and Heng Xu. 2006. What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 3 (2006), 493.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Methodology 8 themes of human-robot interaction: A growing research field. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 4, 1 (2007), 15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael A. DeVito, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Megan French, Jeremy Birnholtz, Judd Antin, Karrie Karahalios, Stephanie Tong, and Irina Shklovski. 2018. The algorithm and the user: How can HCI use lay understandings of algorithmic systems? In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, panel04.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lorin Dole. 2017. The influence of a robotâs mere presence on human communication. Ph.D. Dissertation (2017).Google Scholar
- Anca D. Dragan, Kenton C. T. Lee, and Siddhartha S. Srinivasa. 2013. Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 301–308.Google Scholar
- Jean-Pierre Durand, Paul Stewart, and Juan José Castillo. 1999. Teamwork in the Automobile Industry: Radical Change or Passing Fashion? Springer.Google Scholar
- Jodi Forlizzi and Carl DiSalvo. 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. ACM, 258–265.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moses H. Goldberg and Eleanor E. Maccoby. 1965. Children’s acquisition of skill in performing a group task under two conditions group formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 6 (1965), 898.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Hackman. 1987. R, 1987, The design of work teams. Handbook of Organizational Behavior (1987), 315–342.Google Scholar
- J. Richard Hackman and Charles G. Morris. 1975. Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 8. Elsevier, 45–99.Google Scholar
- Bradley Hayes and Brian Scassellati. 2014. Online development of assistive robot behaviors for collaborative manipulation and human-robot teamwork. In Proceedings of the Machine Learning for Interactive Systems (MLIS) Workshop at AAAI.Google Scholar
- Bradley Hayes and Brian Scassellati. 2015. Effective robot teammate behaviors for supporting sequential manipulation tasks. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’15). IEEE, 6374–6380.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bradley Hayes and Brian Scassellati. 2016. Autonomously constructing hierarchical task networks for planning and human-robot collaboration. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’16). IEEE, 5469–5476.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pamela J. Hinds, Teresa L. Roberts, and Hank Jones. 2004. Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 1 (2004), 151–181.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guy Hoffman and Cynthia Breazeal. 2007. Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 1–8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guy Hoffman and Wendy Ju. 2014. Designing robots with movement in mind. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 1 (2014), 91–122.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guy Hoffman, Oren Zuckerman, Gilad Hirschberger, Michal Luria, and Tal Shani Sherman. 2015. Design and evaluation of a peripheral robotic conversation companion. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 3–10.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chien-Ming Huang, Maya Cakmak, and Bilge Mutlu. 2015. Adaptive coordination strategies for human-robot handovers. In Robotics: Science and Systems.Google Scholar
- Tariq Iqbal, Samantha Rack, and Laurel D. Riek. 2016. Movement coordination in human–robot teams: A dynamical systems approach. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 32, 4 (2016), 909–919.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tariq Iqbal and Laurel D. Riek. 2017. Coordination dynamics in multihuman multirobot teams. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2, 3 (2017), 1712–1717.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malte Jung, Jan Chong, and Larry Leifer. 2012. Group hedonic balance and pair programming performance: Affective interaction dynamics as indicators of performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 829–838.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malte F. Jung. 2016. Coupling interactions and performance: Predicting team performance from thin slices of conflict. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 23, 3 (2016), 18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malte F. Jung, Jin Joo Lee, Nick DePalma, Sigurdur O. Adalgeirsson, Pamela J. Hinds, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2013. Engaging robots: Easing complex human-robot teamwork using backchanneling. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1555–1566.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malte F. Jung, Nikolas Martelaro, and Pamela J. Hinds. 2015. Using robots to moderate team conflict: The case of repairing violations. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 229–236.Google Scholar
- Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Zenta Miyashita, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2010. A communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 26, 5 (2010), 897–913.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oussama Khatib. 1999. Mobile manipulation: The robotic assistant. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 26, 2–3 (1999), 175–183.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ross A. Knepper, Christoforos I. Mavrogiannis, Julia Proft, and Claire Liang. 2017. Implicit communication in a joint action. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 283–292.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steve W. J. Kozlowski and Bradford S. Bell. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology (2003), 333–375.Google Scholar
- J. C. Lafferty, Patrick M. Eady, and J. Elmers. 1974. The desert survival problem. Experimental Learning Methods (1974).Google Scholar
- Harvey J. Langholtz, Antoinette T. Marty, Christopher T. Ball, and Eric C. Nolan. 2002. Resource-Allocation Behavior. Springer Science 8 Business Media.Google Scholar
- Przemyslaw A. Lasota, Terrence Fong, Julie A. Shah, et al. 2017. A survey of methods for safe human-robot interaction. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 5, 4 (2017), 261–349.Google Scholar
- Min Kyung Lee. 2018. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data 8 Society 5, 1 (2018), 2053951718756684.Google Scholar
- Min Kyung Lee and Su Baykal. 2017. Algorithmic mediation in group decisions: Fairness perceptions of algorithmically mediated vs. discussion-based social division. In CSCW. 1035–1048.Google Scholar
- Min Kyung Lee, Sara Kiesler, Jodi Forlizzi, and Paul Rybski. 2012. Ripple effects of an embedded social agent: A field study of a social robot in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 695–704.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yosuke Matsusaka, Shinya Fujie, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2001. Modeling of conversational strategy for the robot participating in the group conversation. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.Google Scholar
- Yoichi Matsuyama, Iwao Akiba, Shinya Fujie, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2015. Four-participant group conversation: A facilitation robot controlling engagement density as the fourth participant. Computer Speech 8 Language 33, 1 (2015), 1–24.Google Scholar
- Joseph Edward McGrath. 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Vol. 14. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- Joseph E. McGrath. 1991. Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research 22, 2 (1991), 147–174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Terence R. Mitchell and William S. Silver. 1990. Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, 2 (1990), 185.Google ScholarCross Ref
- AJung Moon, Daniel M. Troniak, Brian Gleeson, Matthew K. X. J. Pan, Minhua Zheng, Benjamin A. Blumer, Karon MacLean, and Elizabeth A. Croft. 2014. Meet me where I’m gazing: How shared attention gaze affects human-robot handover timing. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 334–341.Google Scholar
- Richard L. Moreland. 2010. Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research 41, 2 (2010), 251–267.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Masashiro Morioka and Shinsuke Sakakibara. 2010. A new cell production assembly system with human–robot cooperation. CIRP Annals 59, 1 (2010), 9–12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bilge Mutlu and Jodi Forlizzi. 2008. Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. ACM, 287–294.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bilge Mutlu, Toshiyuki Shiwa, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2009. Footing in human-robot conversations: How robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. ACM, 61–68.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stefanos Nikolaidis, Przemyslaw Lasota, Gregory Rossano, Carlos Martinez, Thomas Fuhlbrigge, and Julie Shah. 2013. Human-robot collaboration in manufacturing: Quantitative evaluation of predictable, convergent joint action. In Proceedings of the 44th International Symposium on Robotics (ISR’13). IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Taiichi Ohno. 1988. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Raquel Oliveira, Patrícia Arriaga, Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Filipa Correia, Sofia Petisca, and Ana Paiva. 2018. Friends or foes?: Socioemotional support and gaze behaviors in mixed groups of humans and robots. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 279–288.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raquel Oliveira, Patrıcia Arriaga, and Ana Paiva. 2019. Future trends in research methodologies for human-robot interactions in groups. (2019).Google Scholar
- Byron Reeves and Clifford Ivar Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurel D. Riek. 2012. Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: A systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 1, 1 (2012), 119–136.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nina Riether, Frank Hegel, Britta Wrede, and Gernot Horstmann. 2012. Social facilitation with social robots? In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 41–48.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Milton E. Rosenbaum, Danny L. Moore, John L. Cotton, Michael S. Cook, Rex A. Hieser, M. Nicki Shovar, and Morris J. Gray. 1980. Group productivity and process: Pure and mixed reward structures and task interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 4 (1980), 626.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Allison Sauppé and Bilge Mutlu. 2015. The social impact of a robot co-worker in industrial settings. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3613–3622.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian Scassellati, Henny Admoni, and Maja Matarić. 2012. Robots for use in autism research. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 14 (2012), 275–294.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Victor David Scheinman. 1969. Design of a Computer Controlled Manipulator. Technical Report. Stanford Univ. Calif. Dept of Computer Science.Google Scholar
- Matthias Scheutz, Paul Schermerhorn, and James Kramer. 2006. The utility of affect expression in natural language interactions in joint human-robot tasks. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 226–233.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norbert Schwarz and Gerald L. Clore. 1983. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 3 (1983), 513.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Norbert Schwarz and Gerald L. Clore. 2003. Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry 14, 3--4 (2003), 296–303.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julie Shah, James Wiken, Brian Williams, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2011. Improved human-robot team performance using Chaski, a human-inspired plan execution system. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-robot Interaction. ACM, 29–36.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julie A. Shah. 2017. Enhancing human capability with intelligent machine teammates. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 4–4.Google Scholar
- Solace Shen, Petr Slovak, and Malte F. Jung. 2018. Stop. I see a conflict happening.: A robot mediator for young children’s interpersonal conflict resolution. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 69–77.Google Scholar
- Elaine Schaertl Short, Katelyn Swift-Spong, Hyunju Shim, Kristi M. Wisniewski, Deanah Kim Zak, Shinyi Wu, Elizabeth Zelinski, and Maja J. Matarić. 2017. Understanding social interactions with socially assistive robotics in intergenerational family groups. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’17). IEEE, 236–241.Google Scholar
- Rosanne M. Siino and Pamela J. Hinds. 2005. Robots, gender 8 sensemaking: Sex segregation’s impact on workers making sense of a mobile autonomous robot. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’05). IEEE, 2773–2778.Google Scholar
- Garold Stasser and William Titus. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 6 (1985), 1467.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barry M. Staw. 1975. Attribution of the âcausesâ of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13, 3 (1975), 414–432.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aaron Steinfeld, Terrence Fong, David Kaber, Michael Lewis, Jean Scholtz, Alan Schultz, and Michael Goodrich. 2006. Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 33–40.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, Margaret Traeger, Malte Jung, and Brian Scassellati. 2018. The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot’s vulnerable behavior on trust in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 178–186.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristen Stubbs, Pamela J. Hinds, and David Wettergreen. 2007. Autonomy and common ground in human-robot interaction: A field study. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22, 2 (2007).Google Scholar
- Leila Takayama, Doug Dooley, and Wendy Ju. 2011. Expressing thought: Improving robot readability with animation principles. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’11). IEEE, 69–76.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hamish Tennent, Solace Shen, and Malte Jung. 2019. Micbot: A peripheral robotic object to shape conversational dynamics and team performance. In Proceedings of the 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 133–142.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Steven P. Vallas. 2003. Why teamwork fails: Obstacles to workplace change in four manufacturing plants. American Sociological Review 68, 2 (2003), 223.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marynel Vázquez, Elizabeth J. Carter, Braden McDorman, Jodi Forlizzi, Aaron Steinfeld, and Scott E. Hudson. 2017. Towards robot autonomy in group conversations: Understanding the effects of body orientation and gaze. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 42–52.Google Scholar
- Janet Vertesi. 2015. Seeing Like a Rover: How Robots, Teams, and Images Craft Knowledge of Mars. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Ruth Wageman. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly (1995), 145–180.Google Scholar
- Ronald Wilcox, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Julie Shah. 2012. Optimization of temporal dynamics for adaptive human-robot interaction in assembly manufacturing. In Proceedings of the Robotics Science and Systems. 441--448.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kipling D. Williams. 1997. Social ostracism. In Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors. Springer, 133–170.Google Scholar
- Kipling D. Williams. 2010. Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small Group Research 41, 2 (2010), 268–274.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2012. Seven research contributions in HCI. Studies 1, 1 (2012), 52–80.Google Scholar
- Jacob O. Wobbrock and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in human-computer interaction. Interactions 23, 3 (2016), 38–44.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Woods, Michael L.Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2006. Methodological issues in HRI: A comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anita Williams Woolley, Ishani Aggarwal, and Thomas W. Malone. 2015. Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24, 6 (2015), 420–424.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 5827 (2007), 1036–1039.Google Scholar
- Sangseok You and Lionel Robert. 2017. Emotional attachment, performance, and viability in teams collaborating with embodied physical action (EPA) robots. AIS.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Robot-Assisted Tower Construction—A Method to Study the Impact of a Robot’s Allocation Behavior on Interpersonal Dynamics and Collaboration in Groups
Recommendations
A Survey of Robot Learning Strategies for Human-Robot Collaboration in Industrial Settings
Highlights- Comprehensive review of development of adaptive collaborative robots.
- Novel ...
AbstractIncreased global competition has placed a premium on customer satisfaction, and there is a greater demand for manufacturers to be flexible with their products and services. This challenge is usually addressed with the introduction of ...
Improving Robot Controller Transparency Through Autonomous Policy Explanation
HRI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionShared expectations and mutual understanding are critical facets of teamwork. Achieving these in human-robot collaborative contexts can be especially challenging, as humans and robots are unlikely to share a common language to convey intentions, plans, ...
Human–robot collaboration and machine learning: A systematic review of recent research
AbstractTechnological progress increasingly envisions the use of robots interacting with people in everyday life. Human–robot collaboration (HRC) is the approach that explores the interaction between a human and a robot, during the completion ...
Highlights- Machine learning is assuming an important role in human–robot collaboration.
- ...
Graphical abstractDisplay Omitted
Comments