Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Pairs in the humanlike group follow the player-first protocol. After the lifting mo-
tion, the player sometimes skipped to check the movement of the robot when they
rotated a block and placed it. Confirmation by the robot is sent after the placement in
this case. The manipulator usually confirmed every movement of the player. In eight
pairs of the humanlike group, the manipulator first pointed the target, the player sub-
sequently pointed the same target, and then the robot confirmed. The failed pair
skipped first pointing and it caused more misses. They spent their entire 300 s and the
task failed. The recorded video also shows that almost player used turn-taking style
strategies because the player watched the robot periodically.
In contrast, the pairs in the head-fixed group follow the robot-first protocol. The
manipulator in the head-fixed group sometimes omitted the before-confirmation. In
this case, when the robot pointed to a block and the player took it, the player moved
the block while observing and following the movement of the robot's arms without
any confirmation. The manipulator also omitted the after-confirmation and moved on
to the next block. However, omission is happened more in before-confirmation than
in after-confirmation. The recorded video also supports that they used following the
robot strategy because the player carefully watched the robot during the lifting time.
The manipulation time including lifting time significantly increased in the head-
fixed group more than the humanlike group. Based on the video recording, this result
suggests that each manipulation time increased in the head-fixed group because they
watched the robot motion and followed it. The insignificant difference on the lifting
action suggests that the assembling order process is not influenced by the change of
modalities. These two results suggest that the change in the head modality did not
drastically change the entire communication strategy only the manipulation strategy
from the turn-taking style to following the robot style.
These findings support our hypothesis that the turn-taking strategy changed in the
head-fixed group. In the head-fixed group, they used robot-leading strategies. We
estimate that the limited confirmation modalities forced the pairs to use robot-leading
interaction.
7.2
Discussion about the Design Process
The entire design process discussed in Section 3 supports the fact that we can have an
alternative communication strategy for nonhumanlike robots using the Possessed
Robot method.
The Possessed Robot method shows the potential power of the human computation
in robot design. The human brain is the most intelligent computer we can access. It
has the most flexible learning and most sophisticated communication algorithms. It
can provide the most appropriate response to unpredicted situations. For example, we
estimated that the manipulator needed a lot of calibration time even for the motion-
capturing system. However, the manipulator quickly customized to the robot body
and could behave as if she/he was robot.
We also made variations of design process by different usage of human resources.
Participants' free-writings in the questionnaire suggests that swapping the manipulator
and the player during the design process will reduce the thinking time. The question-
naire from the manipulator also suggests that usage of a third person who does not
know the purpose will increase the generality of the strategy.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search