scholarly journals Dynamic semantic ontology generation: a proposal for social robots

2021 ◽  
pp. 557-564
Author(s):  
Javier Sevilla Salcedo ◽  
M. A. Quispe-Flores ◽  
Sara Carrasco-Martínez ◽  
Jaime González-Jiménez ◽  
José Carlos Castillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Semantic Meaning ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Dynamic Semantic ◽  
Ontology Generation ◽  
Semantic Associations ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Semantic Ontology

During a human-robot interaction by dialogue/voice, the robot cannot extract semantic meaning from the words used, limiting the intervention itself. Semantic knowledge could be a solution by structuring information according to its meaning and its semantic associations. Applied to social robotics, it could lead to a natural and fluid human-robot interaction. Ontologies are useful representations of semantic knowledge, as they capture the relationships between objects and entities. This paper presents new ideas for ontology generation using already generated ontologies as feedback in an iterative way to do it dynamically. This paper also collects and describes the concepts applied in the proposed methodology and discusses the challenges to be overcome.

scholarly journals Four-Features Evaluation of Text to Speech Systems for Three Social Robots

Electronics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Fernando Alonso Martin ◽  
María Malfaz ◽  
Álvaro Castro-González ◽  
José Carlos Castillo ◽  
Miguel Ángel Salichs
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Social Robots ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Text To Speech ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Speech Synthesizer ◽  
Human Voice ◽  
Research Questions

The success of social robotics is directly linked to their ability of interacting with people. Humans possess verbal and non-verbal communication skills, and, therefore, both are essential for social robots to get a natural human–robot interaction. This work focuses on the first of them since the majority of social robots implement an interaction system endowed with verbal capacities. In order to do this implementation, we must equip social robots with an artificial voice system. In robotics, a Text to Speech (TTS) system is the most common speech synthesizer technique. The performance of a speech synthesizer is mainly evaluated by its similarity to the human voice in relation to its intelligibility and expressiveness. In this paper, we present a comparative study of eight off-the-shelf TTS systems used in social robots. In order to carry out the study, 125 participants evaluated the performance of the following TTS systems: Google, Microsoft, Ivona, Loquendo, Espeak, Pico, AT&T, and Nuance. The evaluation was performed after observing videos where a social robot communicates verbally using one TTS system. The participants completed a questionnaire to rate each TTS system in relation to four features: intelligibility, expressiveness, artificiality, and suitability. In this study, four research questions were posed to determine whether it is possible to present a ranking of TTS systems in relation to each evaluated feature, or, on the contrary, there are no significant differences between them. Our study shows that participants found differences between the TTS systems evaluated in terms of intelligibility, expressiveness, and artificiality. The experiments also indicated that there was a relationship between the physical appearance of the robots (embodiment) and the suitability of TTS systems.

The Artificial Nature of Social Robots: A Phenomenological Interpretation of Two Conflicting Tendencies in Human-Robot Interaction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Remmers
Keyword(s):  
Phenomenological Theory ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Social Robots ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Ontological Category ◽  
Image Perception ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Phenomenological Interpretation ◽  
Artificial Nature

Effects of anthropomorphism or zoomorphism in social robotics motivate two opposing tendencies in the philosophy and ethics of robots: a ‘rational’ tendency that discourages excessive anthropomorphism because it is based on an illusion and a ‘visionary’ tendency that promotes the relational reality of human-robot interaction. I argue for two claims: First, the opposition between these tendencies cannot be resolved and leads to a kind of technological antinomy. Second, we can deal with this antinomy by way of an analogy between our treatment of robots as social interactors and the perception of objects in pictures according to a phenomenological theory of image perception. Following this analogy, human- or animal-likeness in social robots is interpreted neither as a psychological illusion, nor as a relational reality. Instead, robots belong to a special ontological category shaped by perception and interaction, similar to objects in images.

scholarly journals What Does It Mean to Empathise with a Robot?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna K. Malinowska
Keyword(s):  
Social Relationships ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Robot Interaction

AbstractGiven that empathy allows people to form and maintain satisfying social relationships with other subjects, it is no surprise that this is one of the most studied phenomena in the area of human–robot interaction (HRI). But the fact that the term ‘empathy’ has strong social connotations raises a question: can it be applied to robots? Can we actually use social terms and explanations in relation to these inanimate machines? In this article, I analyse the range of uses of the term empathy in the field of HRI studies and social robotics, and consider the substantial, functional and relational positions on this issue. I focus on the relational (cooperational) perspective presented by Luisa Damiano and Paul Dumouchel, who interpret emotions (together with empathy) as being the result of affective coordination. I also reflect on the criteria that should be used to determine when, in such relations, we are dealing with actual empathy.

scholarly journals Social robotics and the modulation of social perception and bias

2019 ◽  
Vol 374 (1771) ◽  
pp. 20180037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Skewes ◽  
David M. Amodio ◽  
Johanna Seibt
Keyword(s):  
Social Cognition ◽  
Impression Formation ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Social Robots ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
The Social ◽  
Identity Based

The field of social robotics offers an unprecedented opportunity to probe the process of impression formation and the effects of identity-based stereotypes (e.g. about gender or race) on social judgements and interactions. We present the concept of fair proxy communication—a form of robot-mediated communication that proceeds in the absence of potentially biasing identity cues—and describe how this application of social robotics may be used to illuminate implicit bias in social cognition and inform novel interventions to reduce bias. We discuss key questions and challenges for the use of robots in research on the social cognition of bias and offer some practical recommendations. We conclude by discussing boundary conditions of this new form of interaction and by raising some ethical concerns about the inclusion of social robots in psychological research and interventions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘From social brains to social robots: applying neurocognitive insights to human–robot interaction’.

scholarly journals The Instance Task: how to measure the mentalistic bias in human-robot interaction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Spatola ◽  
Serena Marchesi ◽  
Agnieszka Wykowska
Keyword(s):  
Mental States ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Intentional Stance ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Interindividual Differences

In human-robot interactions, people tend to attribute them mental states such as intentionality to make sense of their behaviour:the intentional stance. These inferences deeply influence how one will consider, engage and behave towards robots. However,people highly differ in their likelihood to adopt this intentional stance. Therefore it seems crucial to assess these interindividualdifferences to better evaluate and understand human-robot interactions. In two studies we developed and validated the structureof a task aiming at evaluating to what extent people adopt the intentional stance toward robots. The method consists in a taskthat probes participants’ stance by requiring them to choose the likelihood of an explanation (mentalistic vs. mechanistic) ofbehaviour of a robot depicted in a naturalistic scenario. Results showed a reliable psychometric structure of the present task toevaluate the mentalistic bias of participants as a proxy of the intentional stance. We further discuss the importance of consideringthese interindividual differences in human-robot interactions studies and social robotics

Context-Awareness for Social Robots

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena A. Frijns ◽  
Oliver Schürer
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Context Awareness ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Cognitive Component ◽  
Engineering Approach ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Human Centred Design

In the present work, we provide a short literature review of three different ways of approaching the topics of context and context-awareness and relate these to developments in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) and social robotics. We distinguish an engineering approach to context-awareness, the study of social context in human-centred design, and a view of context as a cognitive component in interaction. We propose a revised definition of context to capture these three views and discuss implications.

Social Models for Social Robotics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Clodic ◽  
Frank Dignum ◽  
Víctor Fernández Castro ◽  
Raul Hakli
Keyword(s):  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Social Robotics ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Cultural Impact ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Social Agents ◽  
Cultural Perspectives ◽  
Research Areas

Social robotics is one of the most important emerging technologies, with potentially profound socio-cultural impact. However, the current interdisciplinary research areas of “social robotics” and “Human-Robot Interaction” (HRI) are not yet equipped with the necessary conceptual tools in order to design interactions between humans and robots. New approaches for effective yet context-adequate social interactions are needed, that observe overarching ethical principles and take larger socio-cultural perspectives into account. With this workshop, we aim to clarify questions arising with this new technology. How far can robots go—now and in the future—to fulfill the requirements of full-blown social agents? How and where do ethical requirements dovetail with the elements (conditions, principles, and procedures) for social agency? This workshop will be part of the “Toward a Framework for Joint Action” series (fja.sciencesconf.org).

scholarly journals Social robots and the risks to reciprocity

AI & Society ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee van Wynsberghe
Keyword(s):  
Social Robotics ◽  
Social Robots ◽  
Human Robot Interaction ◽  
Macro Level ◽  
Robot Interaction ◽  
Care Givers ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Just Society ◽  
Human Care ◽  
Mutual Care

AbstractA growing body of research can be found in which roboticists are designing for reciprocity as a key construct for successful human–robot interaction (HRI). Given the centrality of reciprocity as a component for our moral lives (for moral development and maintaining the just society), this paper confronts the possibility of what things would look like if the benchmark to achieve perceived reciprocity were accomplished. Through an analysis of the value of reciprocity from the care ethics tradition the richness of reciprocity as an inherent value is revealed: on the micro-level, as mutual care for immediate care givers, and on the macro-level, as foundational for a just society. Taking this understanding of reciprocity into consideration, it becomes clear that HRI cannot achieve this bidirectional value of reciprocity; a robot must deceive users into believing it is capable of reciprocating to humans or is deserving of reciprocation from humans. Moreover, on the macro-level, designing social robots for reciprocity threatens the ability and willingness to reciprocate to human care workers across society. Because of these concerns, I suggest re-thinking the goals of reciprocity in social robotics. Designing for reciprocity in social robotics should be dedicated to the design of robots to enhance the ability to mutually care for those that provide us with care, as opposed to designing for reciprocity between human and robot.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document