Difference between revisions of "PelikanBroth2016"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Hannah R. M. Pelikan; Mathias Broth;
 
|Author(s)=Hannah R. M. Pelikan; Mathias Broth;
 
|Title=Why that Nao?: how humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot in taking turns-at-talk
 
|Title=Why that Nao?: how humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot in taking turns-at-talk
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; human-robot interaction; recipient design; sequence organization; turn-taking
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; human-robot interaction; recipient design; sequence organization; turn-taking; AI reference list
 
|Key=PelikanBroth2016
 
|Key=PelikanBroth2016
 
|Publisher=ACM
 
|Publisher=ACM

Latest revision as of 00:59, 24 February 2021

PelikanBroth2016
BibType INPROCEEDINGS
Key PelikanBroth2016
Author(s) Hannah R. M. Pelikan, Mathias Broth
Title Why that Nao?: how humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot in taking turns-at-talk
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, conversation analysis, human-robot interaction, recipient design, sequence organization, turn-taking, AI reference list
Publisher ACM
Year 2016
Language English
City New York, NY, USA
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages 4921–4932
URL Link
DOI 10.1145/2858036.2858478
ISBN 978-1-4503-3362-7
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title CHI'16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This paper explores how humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot. Video data of participants playing a charade game with a Nao robot were analyzed from a multimodal conversation analysis perspective. Participants soon adjust aspects of turn-design such as word selection, turn length and prosody, thereby adapting to the robot's limited perceptive abilities as they become apparent in the interaction. However, coordination of turns-at-talk remains troublesome throughout the encounter, as evidenced by overlapping turns and lengthy silences around possible turn endings. The study discusses how the robot design can be improved to support the problematic taking of turns-at-talk with humans. Two programming strategies to address the identified problems are presented: 1. to program the robot so that it will be systematically receptive at the equivalence to transition relevance places in human-human interaction, and 2. to make the robot preferably produce verbal actions that require a response in a conditional way, rather than making a response only possible.

Notes