Difference between revisions of "PelikanBroth2016"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
|||
| 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 23:59, 23 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 | |
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
