Towards Sociable Robots
description
Transcript of Towards Sociable Robots
Towards Sociable Robots
Cynthia BreazealMIT Media Lab
Robotic Presence Group
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Outline Brief survey of human-robot interaction
research domains Design issues as applied towards sociable
robots Ingredients/Grand challenges of sociable
robots
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Humans in Hazardous environments
Robots as critical systems Pre-curser missions to characterize
planet Set up infrastructure for astronauts Assistance on Mars (carry tools, etc.) Life support on Mars
Morphology Vehicular/mobile/carry payload Humanoid/space shuttle/use
astronaut tools Balance of control
Tele-operation, VR Supervised from within Supervised face-to-face
JSC
JPL
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Human supervised teams Single human commanding many robots Balance of control
Heterogeneous vs homogenous teams Hierarchical? Autocratic? Democratic? Load balancing and task allocation Cooperative & distributed conrol (USC) Scaling to (very) large numbers
Interface issues Usability of software for tactical scenarios
(GaTech) Communication/interaction
DARPA—Mixed initiative control of autonoma teams
UCB
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Robotic-augmentation of humans
Robot as an “extension” of your body Enhance ability of a surgeon Robotic prosthetic, wheelchair Robotic exoskeleton
Interface issues Brain-machine interface (CalTech, Duke) Bio-mimetic robots
DARPA—Bio:Info:Micro
Intuitive Surgical MIT iBOT
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Robots in the human environment
Robots in the home, office, etc… Domestic assistants, healthcare,“smart” appliances,
entertainment, education… Robots that are a part of your everyday life
Autonomy in human social environment On the job learning Untrained users of different gender, age, culture, etc. Long-term relationship
Sony NEC
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Human-Robot Relationships
Smart tool (surgical robots) Complete independence (vacuum cleaner robot) Extension of you (robotic prosthetic) Commander/troops Pet owner/pet Master/servant Peer/colleague
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
A Question of Interface (HCI)
Intuitive, natural interface for untrained users (Reeves&Nass) Humans are experts in social interaction
Humans automatically and unconsciously respond socially and naturally to technology.
If technology adheres to human social expectations, people find interaction enjoyable and feel empowered and competent
Holds for specialists and lay people
How does age, gender, culture, etc. impact this? How to measure, evaluate?
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
What is a sociable robot?
To build robots that have a “living” presence, that people can interact with, communicate with, understand, and teach in human terms. Robots that support human social intelligence Robots that are socially intelligent themselves Self-motivated, pro-active creature, not appliance
Process of synthesis and iteration to come to a deeper scientific understanding of human sociability
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Design issues for sociable robots:Morphology
Match morphology to the task and environment Humanoid form
Send and receive human social cues in similar modalities Gaze direction Gesture Vocalizations/speech Facial expressions
Human engineered environment tailored to human morphology
CMU NEC Sony Sony
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Design issues for sociable robots:Appearance
Establish suitable social expectations Organic human faces difficult to achieve Balance familiarity vs “too plug-compatible” Biases interaction (dog-like, human-like, etc) Implied abilities (physical, cognitive, etc.)
Mechanical “cartoon” Anthropomorphic but creaturish Appeal and to portray youth
KSRP Waseda MIT SUT
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Design issues for sociable robots:Personality
Should the robot have a designed personality? Compatible with person’s personality, culture…(HCI) Encourages creature rather than tool-like interactions Encourage infant-caregiver interactions
Portrays youth and curiosity Simplest human-style interaction between human and robot Study in social development---humans must engage robot socially Benefits robot’s perceptual/behavioral limitations Benefits learning scenarios
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Design Issues for Sociable RobotsPsychological, etc. modeling
Science can guide design of perceptual, motivational (“drives” & “emotions”), cognitive, behavioral, and motor systems.
Match to human counterparts Find same things salient Perceive behaviorally relevant cues Recognizable behavior, expressions Predictable, understandable behavior, etc.
Creature-like autonomy, robustness, flexibility, adaptability
Understand natural systems (animals, people)
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Wolfe’s model, VGS2.0
Provides locus of attention to organize behavior Human and robot both find stimuli interesting Gaze direction is feedback cue to human
inh
ibit
rese
t
Frame Grabber
Eye Motor Control
Top down,task-driveninfluences
w w w w
skin tone habituationmotioncolor
attention
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Examples
5.856Overall
3.08face
5.08hand
6.58pink cupskin toned and movement
5.08black&white cowmovement only
6.08green cylinder
6.58multi-colored block
change in visual
behavior,
face reaction,
body posture
motion across
centerline,
shaking,
bringing object close
8.58yellow dinosaurcolor and movement
commonly read cues
commonly used cues
average time (s)
presentationsstimulusstimulus category
Matched to human Readable Understandable
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Design issues for sociable robots:Managing Interaction Complexity
Robots have limited perceptual, cognitive, behavioral abilities compared to people Imbalance in social sophistication between human and robot Tightly coupled and contingent interactions Mutually regulated Regulate interaction between robot and human
Role of “emotions” and “drives” with expressive feedback Modulate intensity of interaction Turn-taking with para-linguistic envelope displays Entrainment
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Video of turn-taking with envelope displays
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Entrainment and Regulation
Naive subjects Age from 25 to 28 All young professionals. No prior experience with
Kismet Video recorded
Turn-taking performance 82% “clean” turn transitions 11% interruptions 7% delays followed by
prompting Evidence for entrainment
Use shorter phrases Wait longer for response Wait for multiple phrases
37+8:06 – 8:43end @ 8:43
447:18 – 8:02
216:54 – 7:15
76:43 – 6:50start @ 6:43subject 2
37+17:30 – 18:07end @ 18:07
7016:20 – 17:25
1915:56 – 16:15
2115:37 – 15:54
1315:20 – 15:33start @ 15:20subject 1
subject 3
80+9:20 – 10:40end @ 10:40
458:25 – 9:10
587:18 – 8:16
186:58 – 7:16
536:00 – 6:53
245:30 – 5:54
155:08 – 5:23
104:52 – 4:58start @ 4:52
seconds between
disturbances
time stamp (min:sec)
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Need a multi-disciplinary community!
HCISCIENCE
ROBOTICS & AI
• Guide design of robot
• Understand human side
• Advance scientific understanding of both
• Human-centered design
• Measurements and Evaluation
• Usability• Teach-ability• Variation with
gender, age, culture, etc.
• Robotic design• Real-world autonomy• Task performance• Perception, Decision making,
Knowledge, Learning, Emotion, Personality, etc.
DARPA/NSF Study on Human-Robot Ineraction
Ingredients & challenges of sociable robots Life-like behavior
Real-world Autonomy Believability Commonsense
Human aware Perceiving people
Speech, gesture, expression,etc. Understanding people
ToM, empathy, story-based, BDI, etc. Being understood
Self understanding ToM, autobiographic memory, etc.
Readable Adhere to human ToM of robot
Socially situated learning Tutelage, imitation, goal emulation, training,
etc. Evaluation criteria Human psychology Ethics