The Impact of Telepresence Robot Types on the Perceived Presence of a Remote Sender

Transcription

1 , pp The Impact of Telepresence Robot Types on the Perceived Presence of a Remote Sender Hyewon Lee, Jung Ju Choi and Sonya S. Kwak* Dept. of Industrial Design, Ewha Womans University sabrina.hyewon.lee@gmail.com, meloncreamm@naver.com *Corresponding Author: sonakwak@ewha.ac.kr Abstract As telepresence robots are developed for interpersonal communication between a remote sender and a receiver, conveying the presence of a remote sender to a receiver is an important issue. A telepresence robot could build its own presence unlike other media since it enables visual, auditory, and tactile communication having an in-space physical embodiment. Thus, in order to find effective ways to deliver the presence of a remote sender, we executed a 2 (Telepresence robot types: social medium vs. pure medium) within-participants experiment (N=30). In this study, two types of telepresence robots, a telepresence robot with high presence, a social medium, and that with low presence, a pure medium, provides the information of the conversation status to a receiver. The results show that participants felt more presence of a remote sender when interacting with a telepresence robot with high presence than a robot with low presence. Implications for design of a telepresence robot to increase the presence of a remote sender are discussed. Keywords: Copresence, Pure Medium, Social Medium, Sound Interface, Social Presence, Telepresence, Telepresence Robot 1. Introduction Robots have been classified into an autonomous robot and a tele-operated robot according to the levels of its autonomy [1]. Conversely, robots can be distinguished depending on the levels of human intervention required for controlling a robot. An autonomous robot has high autonomy level and low human intervention level whereas a tele-operated robot has low autonomy level and high human intervention level. While a tele-operated robot is developed for manipulating operation at a distance, a telepresence robot is developed for social communication at a distance. Generally, a teleoperated robot helps extend person s mechanical action beyond his reach. On the other hand, a telepresence robot provides interactive two-way audio and video communication with a remote sender and a receiver for promoting social communication between the two people [2]. Presence has been originally defined as a sense of social richness or the feeling one gets from social communication [3]. In social communication, an autonomous robot, a social agent, creates robotic presence by itself and directly communicates with a user while a telepresence robot, a mediator, delivers the presence of a remote sender and helps communication between a remote sender and a receiver at a distance. Thus, in the case of an autonomous robot, increasing presence of a robot is an important issue in social communication while in the case of a telepresence robot, delivering presence of a remote sender is an important issue. In the case of an autonomous robot, various studies have explored the factors which increase the presence of an autonomous robot. For example, Lee et al., [4] investigated the impact of personality of robots and humans on the presence of robots. Heerink et al., [5] explored the effect of perceived sociability of robots on the presence to increase ISSN: IJSEIA Copyright c 2015 SERSC

2 elders acceptance of robots. Moreover, Schermerhorn et al., [6] found the effect of participants gender on the presence of robots. On the other hand, in the case of a telepresence robot, various studies have explored the factors which increase the presence of a remote sender in robot mediated communication. For example, Sirkin and Ju [7] explored the impact of synchronized movement of a telepresence robot with a remote sender s movement on the comprehension of the message. Moreover, synchronized movement of a telepresence robot positively influenced perceptions of a remote sender. Kang et al., [9] also demonstrated that synchronized movement between a telepresence robot and a remote sender increased perceived presence of a remote sender and the enjoyment of the interaction. Although various studies have been done on increasing the presence of a remote sender, most of the studies are focused on delivering the message of a remote sender through a telepresence robot. A telepresence robot needs to deliver not only the presence of a remote sender but also the status of the communication to a receiver, such as notification of incoming call, call is on hold, or the call ends. As a telepresence robot enables visual, auditory and tactile communication having an in-space physical embodiment, they could build their own presence unlike other conventional media such as a telephone or a computer-based video chat. Thus, the objective of this study is to explore how the increased presence of a telepresence robot would affect the perceived presence of a remote sender when a telepresence robot provides the information of the conversation status to a receiver. 2. Related Works 2.1. Telepresence Robot In Yanco and Drury s study [1], robots could be classified into an autonomous robot and a tele-operated robot according to the robot s autonomy level. Degree of robot s autonomy could be measured by the amount of human intervention. An autonomous robot has higher level of autonomy and less amount of human intervention compared to a teleoperated robot. A tele-operated robot is mostly developed for helping remote operator to manipulate objects in order to complete task at a distance whereas a telepresence robot is mostly developed for helping a remote sender or a receiver to send his/her presence in order to communicate at a distance. Generally, a tele-operated robot helps extend a person s mechanical action beyond his reach. On the other hand, a telepresence robot delivers a person s presence to enhance interpersonal communication at distance by providing interactive two-way audio and video communication. Texai [10], Padbot [11] Hug [12] and Elfoid [13] are exemplary telepresence robots which have been developed for interpersonal social communication across distances conveying the presence of a remote sender. In social communication, an autonomous robot builds robotic presence and communicates with a user directly, whereas, a telepresence robot delivers the presence of a remote sender and helps a remote sender to communicate with a receiver at a distance. Thus, in the case of an autonomous robot, increasing the presence of a robot is important for enhancing social communication between a human and a robot. On the other hand, in the case of a telepresence robot, delivering presence of a remote sender is important for enriching social communication between a remote sender and a receiver at a distance Presence Lombard et al., [3] defined the presence as a sense of social richness or the feeling one gets from social interaction. To allow richer social interaction between a human and a robot, several studies have been done on increasing the presence of an autonomous robot. 108 Copyright c 2015 SERSC

3 Presence of the robot As presence plays a significant role when the users socially interact with a robot, several studies have explored the factors which increase the presence of an autonomous robot. For example, Lee et al., [4] demonstrated that personality of robots and humans has impact on the presence of robots. Heerink et al., [5] investigated the impact of perceived sociability of robots on the presence of robots for increasing social acceptance of the robots. The results showed that more people perceived the robots as sociable, people perceived them as having more presence. In addition, Softbank group developed a Pepper [14] which uses orientation and gaze for increasing the presence in social communication. Presence of the remote sender On the other hand, since a telepresence robot engages in the conversation as a mediator, conveying the presence of a remote sender is important for a telepresence robot in social communication. For example, Sirkin and Ju [7] explored the impact of a telepresence robot s synchronized gesture on the comprehension of the message and perception of a remote sender. Consistency between on-screen and in-space action improved observers interpretation of the action and perception of a remote sender compared to the case that the robot showed an on-screen action alone, without corresponding physical motions or an in-space action alone, without corresponding facial expressions. Kang et al., [8] demonstrated that synchronization between the remote sender s movement and the physical movement made by a telepresence robot increased perceived presence of a remote sender and the enjoyment of the interaction. In addition, Lee et al., [16] argued that a telepresence robot s anthropomorphic sound interface improves social communication facilitating a receiver to perceive more presence of a remote sender. Although various studies have been done on increasing presence of a remote sender, most of the studies are limited to increase the presence of a remote sender when delivering the message through a telepresence robot. However, a telepresence robot needs to deliver not only the presence of a remote sender, but also the status of the mediated communication to a receiver. For example, when they have an incoming call, the call is on hold, or the conversation ends etc., it is essential to provide the information of the conversation status as well as to convey the message from the counterparts. As a telepresence robot enables visual, auditory and tactile communication having an in-space physical embodiment, it could build its own presence unlike other conventional media such as a telephone or a computer-based video chat. Thus, it needs to be investigated how the increased presence of a telepresence robot would affect the perceived presence of a remote sender. When the presence of a telepresence robot is high, we call it social medium which delivers conversation status with its own presence in social communication. On the other hand, when the presence of a telepresence robot is low, we called it a pure medium which delivers conversation status without its presence in social communication. In the case of social medium, a telepresence robot acts as another social being between a receiver and a remote sender. When the message of a remote sender is delivered by a telepresence robot with high presence, it is expected that there would be less interruption in the communication as communicating with a social being is more natural to a human. Thus, we suggested a social medium hypothesis people would feel more presence of a remote sender when a telepresence robot has high presence. In the case of pure medium, since a telepresence robot plays a role of a communication mediator with low presence of itself, there could be less confusion which could be made in social medium. Thus, it is expected that there would be less interruption in the communication between a remote sender and a receiver if the conversation status is delivered by a telepresence robot having low presence. Kawamura et al., [15] demonstrated that more personality the telepresence robot has, the more distortion and confusion to a receiver in a robot mediated communication. Sirkin and Ju [7] and Lee et Copyright c 2015 SERSC 109

4 al., [4] also demonstrated that as a robot medium is developed for conveying or transferring the presence of a remote sender, its physical embodiment could yield confusion to a receiver. According to the analyses above, in contrast to the social medium hypothesis, we suggested a pure medium hypothesis people would feel more presence of a remote sender when a telepresence robot has low presence. 3. Study Design In order to examine the impact of the telepresence robot s presence level on the presence of a remote sender, we conducted a 2 (telepresence robot types: social medium vs. pure medium) within-participants experiment. All participants evaluated both conditions, a social medium which has high level of presence and a pure medium which has low level of presence Participants Twenty-eight people (14 male, 14 female) participated in the study. Participants ages ranged from 21 to 45. They were well educated, on average, with the college level. Most of the participants knew very few about robot technologies. Participants were given a $2 gift certificate as a reward Materials The robot we used in the experiment was a home service robot FURo-i Home (see Figure 1). The robot enables tele-communication with a video and audio streaming with a live chat. Figure 1. FURo-i Home We developed two types of medium: social medium and pure medium. In the condition of social medium, the robot had an anthropomorphic sound interface generating human-like female voice. On the other hand, pure medium had a non-anthropomorphic sound interface generating ringtones. Both sound interfaces were designed to provide the 110 Copyright c 2015 SERSC

5 information of the conversation status including when the phone is ringing, the call is on hold, and the call ended. The robot with the high level of presence had a human-like sound interface saying you have an incoming call, the call is on hold, and the call is ended. On the other hand, the robot with the low level of presence having a non-speech sound interface had an inanimate beep sound. The same information about the conversation status is displayed on the screen across the conditions. The robot was controlled via Wizard-of-Oz technique. (See Figure 2) 3.3. Procedure Figure 2. Stimuli Participants were welcomed to the lab by a researcher and shown two video-clips in random order. The robot showed the status of the video call with a visual notification on the screen. After the participants saw each stimulus, a questionnaire for each stimulus was administered and a post-interview was proceeded Measures On the post-experimental survey, participants evaluated each robot on 34 different Likert-types items which were combined into four scales. The four scales were selfreported copresence, perceived other s copresence, telepresence, and social presence, which were drawn from Nowak and Biocca [16] s study (See Table 1.). Copyright c 2015 SERSC 111

6 Table 1. Measurement Scales of Copresence, Telepresence and Social Presence Dependent Variable Self-reported copresence Perceived other s copresence Telepresence Social presence Items I did not want a deeper relationship with my interaction partner. I wanted to maintain a sense of distance between us. I was unwilling to share personal information with my interaction partner. I wanted to make the conversation more intimate. I tried to create a sense of closeness between us. I was interested in talking to my interaction partner. My interaction partner was intensely involved in our interaction. My interaction partner seemed to involved in our interaction stimulating. My interaction partner communicated coldness rather than warmth. My interaction partner created a sense of distance between us. My interaction partner seemed detached during our interaction. My interaction partner was unwilling to share personal information with me. My interaction partner made our conversation seem intimate. My interaction partner created a sense of distance between us. My interaction partner created a sense of closeness between us. My interaction partner acted bored by our conversation. My interaction partner was interested in talking to me. My interaction partner showed enthusiasm while talking to me. How involving was the experience? How intense was the experience? To what extent did you feel like you were inside the environment you saw/heard? To what extent did you feel immersed in the environment you saw/heard? To what extent did you feel surrounded by the environment you saw/heard? To what extent did you feel able to assess your partner s reactions to what you said? Able to assess reactions, not able to assess reactions. To what extent was this like a face-to-face meeting? A lot like face to face, not like face to face at all. Sliding scale To what extent was this like you were in the same room with your partner? A lot like being in the same room, not like being in the same room at all. To what extent did your partner seem real? Very real, not real at all. How likely is it that you would choose to use this system of interaction for a meeting in which you wanted to persuade others of something? Very likely, not likely at all. To what extent did you feel you could get to know someone that you met only through this system? Very well, not at all. 4. Results We investigated the effect of the telepresence robot types on self-reported copresence, perceived other s copresence, telepresence, and social presence. Statistical analyses were conducted using the paired t-test. As predicted by social medium hypothesis, a significant effect of the telepresence robot types on perceived copresence of robots was found, t=2.059, df=27 and p=.03 (one-tailed). The participants felt more self copresence when the robot had the high level of presence (M=3.37, SD=1.34) than when the robots had the low level of presence (M=3.99, SD=1.43). Perceived copresence of others was also significantly higher, t=2.501, df=27, p=.01 (one-tailed), when the robot played a role of the social medium (M=3.73, SD=1.52) than the pure medium (M=3.03, SD=1.20). There was no significant difference in telepresence and social presence. These results are described in Figure Copyright c 2015 SERSC

7 Figure 3. The Effect of Telepresence Robot types on Perceived Copresence 5. Discussion This study examined the impact of the telepresence robot types on the presence of a remote sender. Social medium hypothesis predicted that people would feel more presence of a remote sender when a telepresence robot has high presence and it was supported by the data. This implies that when a telepresence robot provides the information of the conversation status to a receiver, the telepresence robot with high presence, a social medium, could make the user be more involved in the interaction with a remote sender, and feel as his/her partner is more involved in interaction with the user than the telepresence with the low presence, a pure medium. In contrast to the social medium hypothesis, a pure medium hypothesis predicted that people would feel the presence of a remote sender more when a telepresence robot has low presence. The pure medium hypothesis was not supported by the data. According to the previous studies done by Kawamura et al., [15] and Lee et al., [4], a telepresence robot with its own identity leads confusion to a receiver since a telepresence robot is created as a mediator with physical embodiment. Although a telepresence robot with its own presence could yield confusion to a receiver when sending the message of a remote sender, the results of this study indicates that when a telepresence robot provides the information of the conversation status, a telepresence robot with high presence could be more effective to increase the copresence of a remote sender than a telepresence robot with low presence. The results of this study have implications for the design of a telepresence robot. The amount of a telepresence robot's presence should be determined by considering its roles. When delivering a conversation, the presence of a telepresence robot should be lowered in order to enhance the remote sender s presence as Kawamura et al. [15] demonstrated in their study. On the other hand, when informing a receiver about the conversation status, the presence of a telepresence robot should be increased so that the robot could play a role of a moderator in the communication. 6. Conclusion The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of telepresence robot types on presence of a remote sender. People perceived a telepresence robot with high presence, a social medium, as more effective on delivering the presence of a remote sender than that with low presence, a pure medium, when providing the information of the conversation Copyright c 2015 SERSC 113

8 status. These results provide a basis for designers that increasing the presence of a telepresence robot could be used as an effective way to deliver the presence of a remote sender in a robot mediated communication. Acknowledgements This work was supported by Industrial Technology Innovation Program (Design Technology Innovation Program) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE, Korea). (No ) References [1] H. A. Yanco and J. L. Drury, A taxonomy for human-robot interaction, Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Human-Robot Interaction, (2002). [2] K. M. Tsui, M. A. Desai, H. Yanco, H. Cramer and N. Kemper, Measuring attitudes towards telepresence robots, International journal of intelligent Control and Systems, vol. 16, (2011). [3] M. Lombard, B. Ditton, T. D. Crane, B. Davis, G. Gil-Egui, K. Horvath and S. Park, Measuring presence: A literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument, Third international workshop on presence, Delft, the Netherlands, (2000) March. [4] K. M. Lee, W. Peng, S. A. Jin and C. Yan, Can robots manifest personality?: An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human robot interaction, Journal of Communication, vol. 4, no. 56, (2006). [5] M. Heerink, B. Kröse, B., V. Evers and B. Wielinga, The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people, Journal of Physical Agents, vol. 2, no. 2, (2008). [6] P. Schermerhorn, M. Scheutz and C. R. Crowell, Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males?, Proceedings of the Human Robot Interaction, (2008). [7] D. Sirkin and W. Ju, Consistency in physical and on-screen action improves perceptions of telepresence robots, Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boston, USA, (2012) March 5-8. [8] H. Kang, J. J. Choi and S. S. Kwak, The Effect of Synchronized Movements of Telepresence Robot with Sender's Movements on Presence of a Sender and Enjoyment in Interaction, To be published in Archives of Design Research, vol. 114, (2015). [9] W. Garage, Inc. Texai, [10] Inbot Technology, Padbot, [11] C. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi and E. Montgomery, The Hug: an exploration of robotic form for intimate communication, Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), San Francisco, USA, (2003) October 31-November 2. [12] M. Takashi, S. Nishio, K. Ogawa and H. Ishiguro, Development of cellphone-type tele-operated android, Proceedings of the 10th Asia Pacific Conference on Computer Human Interaction (APCHI), Shimane, Japan, (2012) August [13] S. Brown and M. Pepper, The Emotion Reading Robot, TECHNOLOGY. Retrived from (2014). [14] K. Kuwamura, T. Minato, S. Nishio and H. Ishiguro, Personality Distortion in Communication through Teleoperated Robots, Proceedings of the 21th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Paris, France, (2012) September [15] K. Nowak and F. Biocca, The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments, Presence, vol. 12, no. 5, (2012). [16] H. Lee, J. J.Choi and S. S. Kwak, A Social Agent, or a Medium?: The Impact of Anthropomorphism of Tele-presence Robot s Sound Interface on Perceived Copresence, Telepresence and Social Presence, Proceedings of the seventh international workshops on the convergent Research Society among Humanities, Sociology, Science, and Technology, 2015, Jeju Island, Korea, (2012) August Copyright c 2015 SERSC

9 Authors Hyewon Lee, received the B.S. degree from the Department of Psychology, Social Science, Ewha Womans University in She is a M.A. candidate in the Department of Industrial Design at Ewha Womans University. Her research interests are humanrobot interaction design and intelligent product design. Jung Ju Choi, received the B.S. degree from the Department of Industrial Design, Ewha Womans University in She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Industrial Design at Ewha Womans University. Her research interests are human-robot interaction design and intelligent product design. Sonya S. Kwak, received the B.S. degree from the Department of Industrial Design, KAIST, South Korea, in She received the MS and Ph.D. degrees from KAIST, in 2003 and 2008, respectively. She is now an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industrial Design at Ewha Womans University. Her research interests are human robot interaction design and intelligent product design. Copyright c 2015 SERSC 115

10 116 Copyright c 2015 SERSC