Design of Effective Robotic Gaze-Based Social Cueing for Users in Task-Oriented Situations: How to Overcome In-Attentional Blindness?
Source abstract
Abstract
Robotic eye-gaze-based cueing has been studied and proved to be effective, in controlled environments, in achieving social functions as humans gaze. However, its dynamic adaptability in various real interactions has not been explored in-depth. This paper addresses a case where a simplistic robotic gaze fails to achieve effective social cueing in human–robot communication, primarily due to in-attentional blindness (IB), and presents a method that enables the robot to deliver gaze-based social signals adequately. To understand the implications of IB and figure out ways to overcome any limitations from IB, which frequently arise in task-oriented situations, we designed a set of 1-on-1 communication experiments consisting of a robotic tutor and human learners participating in multiple-choice quiz sessions (task-oriented situation). Here, multimedia contents were utilized alongside the robot as visual stimuli competing for the human’s attention. We hypothesized that quiz scores would increase when humans successfully recognize the robot’s gaze-based cue signals hinting answers. We compared the impacts of two different cueing methods: oblique cueing (OC), where cues were straightforwardly provided regardless of whether participants were potentially experiencing IB or not, and leading cueing (LC), where cueing procedures were led through achieving eye contact and securing the participants’ attention before signaling the cue. By comparing participants’ test scores achieved by the control group with no cueing (NC) and two experimental groups of OC and LC, respectively, we found that there was a significant increase in test scores only when the LC method was utilized. This experiment illustrates the importance of proactively guiding a user’s attention through sophisticated interaction design in effectively attaining a user’s attention and successfully delivering cues. In future studies, we aim to evaluate different methods by which a social robot can intentionally shift a human’s attention, such as incorporating stimuli from various multi-modal human communication channels.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology · Face Recognition and Perception · Social Robot Interaction and HRI
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Handong Global University, Pohang 37554, Korea
Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Robots in Education & Entertainment Lab., Hansung University, Seoul 02876, Korea
Division of IT Convergence Engineering, Hansung University, Seoul 02876, Korea
Funding
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. A review of eye gaze in virtual agents, social robotics and hci: Behaviour generation, user interaction and perception10.1111/cgf.12603 ↗
2. Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics10.1080/08351810903296499 ↗
3. Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction: A review10.5898/JHRI.6.1.Admoni ↗
4. Impacts of robot head gaze on robot-to-human handovers10.1007/s12369-015-0305-z ↗
5. Sidner, C.L., Kidd, C.D., Lee, C., and Lesh, N. (, January January). Where to look: A study of human-robot engagement. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal.
6. Mutlu, B., Shiwa, T., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N. (2009, January 9–13). Footing in human-robot conversations: How robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, La Jolla, CA, USA.10.1145/1514095.1514109 ↗
7. Srinivasan, V., and Murphy, R.R. (2011, January 6–9). A survey of social gaze. Proceedings of the 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Lausanne, Switzerland.10.1145/1957656.1957757 ↗
8. Satake, S., Kanda, T., Glas, D.F., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N. (2009, January 9–13). How to approach humans? Strategies for social robots to initiate interaction. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, La Jolla, CA, USA.10.1145/1514095.1514117 ↗
9. Designing and evaluating a social gaze-control system for a humanoid robot10.1109/THMS.2014.2303083 ↗
10. Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J., and Hodgins, J. (2006, January 4–6). A storytelling robot: Modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior. Proceedings of the 2006 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Genova, Italy.10.1109/ICHR.2006.321322 ↗
11. Fischer, K., Jensen, L.C., Kirstein, F., Stabinger, S., Erkent, Ö., Shukla, D., and Piater, J. (2015). The effects of social gaze in human-robot collaborative assembly. International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_21 ↗
12. Admoni, H., Bank, C., Tan, J., Toneva, M., and Scassellati, B. (2011, January 20–23). Robot gaze does not reflexively cue human attention. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, USA.
13. “Social” robots are psychological agents for infants: A test of gaze following10.1016/j.neunet.2010.09.005 ↗
14. The iCub humanoid robot: An open-systems platform for research in cognitive development10.1016/j.neunet.2010.08.010 ↗
15. A comparison of learning strategies for biologically constrained development of gaze control on an icub robot10.1007/s10514-013-9378-4 ↗
16. Can robotic interaction improve joint attention skills?10.1007/s10803-013-1918-4 ↗
17. Eye-tracking as a measure of responsiveness to joint attention in infants at risk for autism10.1111/j.1532-7078.2011.00082.x ↗
18. Patterns of gaze behavior during an eye-tracking measure of joint attention in typically developing children and children with autism spectrum disorder10.1016/j.rasd.2013.05.007 ↗
19. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events10.1068/p281059 ↗
20. The invisible gorilla strikes again: Sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers10.1177/0956797613479386 ↗
21. Mehlmann, G., Häring, M., Janowski, K., Baur, T., Gebhard, P., and André, E. (2014, January 12–16). Exploring a model of gaze for grounding in multimodal HRI. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Istanbul, Turkey.10.1145/2663204.2663275 ↗
22. Yoshikawa, Y., Shinozawa, K., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N., and Miyamoto, T. (2006). Responsive Robot Gaze to Interaction Partner. Robotics: Science and Systems, University of Pennsylvania.10.15607/RSS.2006.II.037 ↗
23. Palinko, O., Rea, F., Sandini, G., and Sciutti, A. (2016, January 9–14). Robot reading human gaze: Why eye tracking is better than head tracking for human-robot collaboration. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, Korea.10.1109/IROS.2016.7759741 ↗
24. Atienza, R., and Zelinsky, A. (2005). Intuitive human-robot interaction through active 3d gaze tracking. Robotics Research. The Eleventh International Symposium, Springer.10.1007/11008941_19 ↗
25. Miyauchi, D., Sakurai, A., Nakamura, A., and Kuno, Y. (2004). Active eye contact for human-robot communication. CHI’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM.10.1145/985921.985998 ↗
26. I reach faster when I see you look: Gaze effects in human–human and human–robot face-to-face cooperation10.3389/fnbot.2012.00003 ↗
27. Fischer, K., Lohan, K.S., Nehaniv, C., and Lehmann, H. (2013). Effects of different kinds of robot feedback. International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_26 ↗
28. Fischer, K., Soto, B., Pantofaru, C., and Takayama, L. (2014, January 25–29). The effects of social framing on people’s responses to robots’ requests for help. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robot-Human Interactive Communication–Ro-Man’14, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
29. Admoni, H., Dragan, A., Srinivasa, S.S., and Scassellati, B. (2014, January 3–6). Deliberate delays during robot-to-human handovers improve compliance with gaze communication. Proceedings of the 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Bielefeld, Germany.10.1145/2559636.2559682 ↗
30. Lee, D.H., Jang, S., and Cho, H.K. (2019, January 11–14). MOCCA Studio: A Graphical Tool for High-Level Programming of Human-Robot Social Interaction. Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Daegu, Korea.10.1109/HRI.2019.8673211 ↗
31. Familiarity accentuates gaze cuing in women but not men10.1098/rsbl.2006.0564 ↗
32. Analysis of User’s Eye Gaze Distribution while Interacting with a Robotic Character10.7746/jkros.2019.14.1.074 ↗
33. Mutlu, B., Yamaoka, F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N. (2009, January 9–13). Nonverbal leakage in robots: Communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, La Jolla, CA, USA.10.1145/1514095.1514110 ↗
34. Directing Attention Through Gaze Hints Improves Task Solving in Human—Humanoid Interaction10.1007/s12369-018-0473-8 ↗
35. Morgan, E.J., Freeth, M., and Smith, D.T. (2018). Mental state attributions mediate the gaze cueing effect. Vision, 2.10.3390/vision2010011 ↗