Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Course SHS Program in Cognitive Psychology Spring 2007 Human-Robot Interaction User-centred.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Course SHS Program in Cognitive Psychology Spring 2007 Human-Robot Interaction User-centred."— Presentation transcript:

1 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Course SHS Program in Cognitive Psychology Spring 2007 Human-Robot Interaction User-centred design of social robots Aude G Billard Learning Algorithms and Systems Laboratory - LASA EPFL, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Switzerland

2 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Body Why is Aesthetic important?

3 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Body It is a truism that people will be more inclined to interact with “attractive” faces than with “unattractive” ones. Typical appealing features are large eyes, symmetric and round faces, pink cheeks and big eyelashes. Dolls’ faces versus Monster’s faces? C. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, and S. Kiesler. All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In Proc. Designing Interactive Systems, pages 321: 326, 2002.

4 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Body 19 th -20 th Century: Automata (Automated toys) Mimicking the body and behavior of an animals Only one single behavior Completely preprogrammed in the mechanics The aesthetic was very important – pieces of art

5 SDR-3X, Sony Dream Robot 50cm, 5 Kg, 24 DOFs OS: Aperios, OPEN-R, 16MB memory stick CCD Color Camera, Microphone (x2), IR distance, Acceleration, Touch Detection (x8), Speaker Walking Speed, 15m per minute HOAP-1 Fujitsu Laboratory Ltd. 48 cm, 6 kg, 20 DOF, OS: RT-Linux USB 1.0 (12Mbps) PINO Kitano ERATO Project, Tokyo Sound and Vision Mini-Humanoids

6 Baby Robots My Real Baby (2000) IRobot Corp, Boston, USA Robota ( ) Univ. of Edinburgh , EPFL (Switzerland) DIDEL SA (Switzerland) CSI, Paris, France USC, Los Angeles,

7 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Body "uncanny valley"[Mori 1970]

8 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Face Surprisingly, however, many of the humanoid robots developed so far have more in common with monsters than with dolls. Maverick, 2001 RIKEN & USC Berthoc, 2006 Univ. Bielefeld

9 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Face Another set of attempts University of Pisa & Jet Propulsion Lab Kobayashi / Ishiguro’s Lab Science University of Tokyo, 2001

10 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Human-like body BiPed Locomotion Kawato Erato Project, ATR, Kyoto, Japan YFX Studios, Japan, USA Binocular Vision Anthropomorphic Hands Anthropomorphic Arms University of Karslruhe, Germany BIP 2000, CRNS, France Anthropomorphic Head

11 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Body Repliee R1: Ishiguro’s lab, Osaka Univ. This android has 9 degree of freedom in her head. She can move her eyes, eyelids, mouth, and neck. Its body is covered with silicone, so the skin feels humanlike. And it has 4 high sensitivity skin sensors under the skin.

12 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Body Repliee R2: Ishiguro’s lab, Osaka Univ. Facial expressions of the adult android: 13 of the 42 actuators are used in the head. Humanlike facial expressions are realized by the motion of the eyes and mouth.

13 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Body Together with the company Kokoro, Ishiguro’s lab at Osaka Univ has developed a new life-like android called Actroid DER2. This android looks very human and talks and moves its head, arms, hands, and body. This android is available for rental now at the rate of $3,500 for 5 days.

14 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Face And, finally, he cloned himself! Geminoid, Ishiguro’s Lab, Osaka University Hiroshi Ishiguro would say that his Geminoid is like a twin!

15 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Face The realism of the facial expressions are as important as the overall aesthetic of the face

16 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Expressing Emotions The Kismet Robot, C. Breazael, MIT, 1999 Sad Happy Surprised Designing Robot’s Faces

17 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Expressing Emotions Feelix robot by L. Canamero, MIT, 1999 From left to right and top to bottom: neutral, anger, sadness, fear, happiness, and surprise. Designing Robot’s Faces L. Canamero, J Fredslund, I show you how I like you-can you read it in my face, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A,, 2001

18 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Designing Robot’s Faces Mike Blow, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Andrew Appleby, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, David Lee, The Art of Designing Robot Faces - Dimensions for Human-Robot Interaction, Proc. AMC/IEEE HRI06, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2006, pp The Art of Designing Robot Faces - Dimensions for Human-Robot Interaction Kaspar has 8DOF head and two 6DOF arms. Rational behind the development of Kaspar is: consistency of appearance and complexity between the head, body and hands to aid natural interaction minimal expressive features to create the impression of sociability

19 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Aesthetic of the Face Mike Blow, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Andrew Appleby, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, David Lee, The Art of Designing Robot Faces - Dimensions for Human-Robot Interaction, Proc. AMC/IEEE HRI06, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2006, pp The Art of Designing Robot Faces - Dimensions for Human-Robot Interaction

20 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Designing Robot’s Faces Mike Blow, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Andrew Appleby, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, David Lee, The Art of Designing Robot Faces - Dimensions for Human-Robot Interaction, Proc. AMC/IEEE HRI06, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2006, pp The Art of Designing Robot Faces - Dimensions for Human-Robot Interaction e.g. a Photograph e.g. Comics faces e.g. Picasso’s cubic faces

21 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Expressive Body Movements Keepon (Kozima’s group, CRL, Japan): Very simple but powerful design to convey joint attention and turn taking behavior

22 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Keepon's kinematic mechanism. Two gimbals are connected by four wires; the lower gimbal is driven by two motors. Another motor rotates the whole inner-structure; yet another drives the skull downward for bobbing. Expressive Body Movements

23 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Attentive action Directing the head up/down and left/right so as to orient Keepon's face/body to a certain target in the environment. Keepon seems to be perceiving the target. This action includes eye-contact and joint attention. Emotive action Keeping its attention in a certain direction, Keepon rocks its body from side to side and/or bobs its body up and down. Keepon seems to express emotions (like pleasure and excitement) about the target. Expressive Body Movements

24 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Robota: Educational and Therapeutic Toy Designing Robot Toys

25 SDR-3X, Sony Price: Luxury car (>$100’000.-) Robota, DIDEL SA Price: $2’800.- My Real Baby, IRobot Corp Price: $100.- Robota fills a gap in the market: It is an affordable humanoid robot Teaching toy: It provides a nice basis for child-robot interaction Education: It has development software, you can have several robots in a class room What is the use of Robota?

26 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Design Issues behind Robota Robota’s Body:  Cuteness  Human-likeness, i.e. respecting the body proportion of a young child (between 16 and 20 months old),  Naturalness of the motions, i.e. the robot’s motions should be human- like. Robota’s Capabilities: Provided with capabilities for interactions that a child of this age would display:  To recognize human faces and direct its gaze towards the user,  To understand and learn a restricted vocabulary  Simple imitation of the user’s motion Designing Robot Toys

27 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 First Prototype Univ of Edinburgh, 1998 Designing Robot Toys

28 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Learning Dance Movements Univ of Edinburgh, 1998 First Prototype Designing Robot Toys

29 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 LAMI - EPFL, 1999 In collaboration with Jean-Daniel Nicoud and Andre Guignard Second Prototype Designing Robot Toys

30 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Second Prototype Billard, A.Billard, A. (2003) Robota: Clever Toy and Educational Tool. Robotics & Autonomous Systems, 42, Designing Robot Toys

31 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 PDA - Pocket-PC 400MHz, 64Mb Windows CE Embedded C++ Speech Processing CONVERSAY synthesis + recognition Touch Switches Kinesthetic – Haptic Potentiometers Face and Motion Tracking CMOS FlyCam camera Robota – The Product Designing Robot Toys

32 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Robota – The Product Since 1999, Robota is a commercial product sold by DIDEL SA, Switzerland Designing Robot Toys

33 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Three degrees of freedom: - 1 for horizontal binocular motion - 2 for vertical motion (separate blinking) Aesthetic: all components within the head ROBOTA’S EYES Pongas, D., Guenter, F., Guignard, A. and Billard, A. (2004) Development of a Miniature Pair of Eyes With Camera for the Humanoid Robot Robota. IEEE-RAS/RSJ International Conference on Humanoid Robots.Guenter, F.Billard, A. Designing Robot Toys

34 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 ROBOTA’S EYES Designing Robot Toys

35 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring USB Cameras VGA (640X480) 15 frames per second Robota’s eyes IEEE Conf. In Humanoid Robotics, HUMANOIDS’04 Designing Robot Toys

36 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Body and Brain must Match It is fundamental that the robot’s cognitive capabilities match its physical appearance. An “adult-like” humanoid robot will be expected to produce adult-like capabilities (understanding of speech and complex manipulation capabilities). Conversely, if one interacts with a baby-like robot, one will probably have lower expectations on the robot’s speech and manipulation capabilities.

37 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Designing the body and the brain of a robot Why are the key criteria? The robot’s body creates expectations in terms of the robot’s capabilities. If these do not match, the robot loses some of its believability and of its appeal. What are the main challenges?  To manage to endow the robot with complex facial and body expressions, while not loosing the aesthetic of the robot.  To better understand the complex and subtle effects that each of these features have on human-robot interaction.

38 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The importance of having human-like motions Ishiguro’s Android driven by sinusoid-like motions Real-time mapping of human motion on the Android

39 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The Kindness of the Behaviour Ri-Man robot from Riken

40 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Goal: Creates gaze contact and change gaze directionality with focus of interest Development: Oculo-motor control, eye-head coordination, visuo-audio control Infanoid, CSL, ATR, KyotoRobita, Waseda University Human-like behavior

41 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Goal: Teaching the robot through imitation Development: From recognizing to categorizing, learning and reproducing gestures gestures Human-like behavior Darrin Bentivegna, ATR, KyotoInfanoid, CSL, ATR, Kyoto

42 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring different scenarios were studied in the trials where a robot approached the subject who was located in the living room: 1) Seated on a chair in the middle of an open space. 2) Standing in the middle of an open space. 3) Seated at a table in the middle of an open space. 4) Standing with their back against a wall. Human-like behavior Subject seated on a chairSubject standing against a wall Sarah Naomi Woods, Michael Leonard Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, Kerstin Dautenhahn (2006) Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video-Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials. Proc. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN06).Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video-Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials

43 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 The main findings were: Humans strongly did not like a direct frontal approach by a robot, especially while sitting (even at a table) or while standing with their back to a wall. An approach from the front left or front right was preferred. When standing in an open space a frontal approach was more acceptable and although a rear approach was not usually most preferred, it was generally acceptable to subjects if physically more convenient. Human-like behavior Sarah Naomi Woods, Michael Leonard Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, Kerstin Dautenhahn (2006) Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video-Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials. Proc. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN06).Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video-Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials

44 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 M. L. Walters, K. Dautenhahn, K. L. Koay, C. Kaouri, R. te Boekhorst, C. L. Nehaniv, I. Werry, D. Lee (2005) Close encounters: Spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. Proc. IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids2005), pp The child groups showed a dominant response to prefer the ‘social zone’ distance, comparable to distances people adopt when talking to other humans. From the single adult studies a small majority preferred the ‘personal zone’, reserved for talking to friends. However, significant minorities deviate from this pattern. Human-like behavior

45 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Summary The robot’s face must be appealing to enhance the interaction It must be able to express emotions to which humans can relate Brain and body must match  the robot’s capabilities must match the expectations raised by its body features Simple designs can sometimes be more effective than highly complex and realistic ones The robot must be endowed with basic social behaviors: Joint attention, imitation, keep a desired distance.

46 A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 CONTEST Team of 3 Draw the most appealing robot 15 minutes


Download ppt "A.G. Billard, Autonomous Robots Class Spring 2007 Course SHS Program in Cognitive Psychology Spring 2007 Human-Robot Interaction User-centred."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google