I Can See It in Your Eyes: Gaze as an Implicit Cue of Uncanniness and Task Performance in Repeated Interactions With Robots

Over the past years, extensive research has been dedicated to developing robust platforms and data-driven dialog models to support long-term human-robot interactions. However, little is known about how people's perception of robots and engagement with them develop over time and how these can be accurately assessed through implicit and continuous measurement techniques. In this paper, we explore this by involving participants in three interaction sessions with multiple days of zero exposure in between. Each session consists of a joint task with a robot as well as two short social chats with it before and after the task. We measure participants' gaze patterns with a wearable eye-tracker and gauge their perception of the robot and engagement with it and the joint task using questionnaires. Results disclose that aversion of gaze in a social chat is an indicator of a robot's uncanniness and that the more people gaze at the robot in a joint task, the worse they perform. In contrast with most HRI literature, our results show that gaze toward an object of shared attention, rather than gaze toward a robotic partner, is the most meaningful predictor of engagement in a joint task. Furthermore, the analyses of gaze patterns in repeated interactions disclose that people's mutual gaze in a social chat develops congruently with their perceptions of the robot over time. These are key findings for the HRI community as they entail that gaze behavior can be used as an implicit measure of people's perception of robots in a social chat and of their engagement and task performance in a joint task.

Download Full-text

When co-action eliminates the Simon effect: disentangling the impact of co-actor's presence and task sharing on joint-task performance

Frontiers in Psychology ◽

10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00844 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Roberta Sellaro ◽

Barbara Treccani ◽

Sandro Rubichi ◽

Roberto Cubelli

Keyword(s):

Task Performance ◽

Simon Effect ◽

Task Sharing ◽

Joint Task ◽

The Impact ◽

And Task

Download Full-text

On the link between mind wandering and task performance over time

Consciousness and Cognition ◽

10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.001 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 27 ◽

pp. 14-26 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

David R. Thomson ◽

Paul Seli ◽

Derek Besner ◽

Daniel Smilek

Keyword(s):

Task Performance ◽

Mind Wandering ◽

Over Time ◽

And Task

Download Full-text

Mind wandering, motivation, and task performance over time: Evidence that motivation insulates people from the negative effects of mind wandering.

Psychology of Consciousness Theory Research and Practice ◽

10.1037/cns0000263 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nicholaus P. Brosowsky ◽

Joseph DeGutis ◽

Mike Esterman ◽

Daniel Smilek ◽

Paul Seli

Keyword(s):

Task Performance ◽

Mind Wandering ◽

Negative Effects ◽

Over Time ◽

And Task

Download Full-text

An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x12003196 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 36 (6) ◽

pp. 661-679 ◽

Cited By ~ 489

Author(s):

Robert Kurzban ◽

Angela Duckworth ◽

Joseph W. Kable ◽

Justus Myers

Keyword(s):

Task Performance ◽

Opportunity Cost ◽

Subjective Experience ◽

Alternative Explanation ◽

Mental Representations ◽

Cost Model ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Costs And Benefits ◽

Over Time ◽

And Task

AbstractWhy does performing certain tasks cause the aversive experience of mental effort and concomitant deterioration in task performance? One explanation posits a physical resource that is depleted over time. We propose an alternative explanation that centers on mental representations of the costs and benefits associated with task performance. Specifically, certain computational mechanisms, especially those associated with executive function, can be deployed for only a limited number of simultaneous tasks at any given moment. Consequently, the deployment of these computational mechanisms carries an opportunity cost – that is, the next-best use to which these systems might be put. We argue that the phenomenology of effort can be understood as the felt output of these cost/benefit computations. In turn, the subjective experience of effort motivates reduced deployment of these computational mechanisms in the service of the present task. These opportunity cost representations, then, together with other cost/benefit calculations, determine effort expended and, everything else equal, result in performance reductions. In making our case for this position, we review alternative explanations for both the phenomenology of effort associated with these tasks and for performance reductions over time. Likewise, we review the broad range of relevant empirical results from across sub-disciplines, especially psychology and neuroscience. We hope that our proposal will help to build links among the diverse fields that have been addressing similar questions from different perspectives, and we emphasize ways in which alternative models might be empirically distinguished.

Download Full-text

Do aligned bodies align minds? The partners’ body alignment as a constraint on spatial perspective use.

10.31234/osf.io/c9h25 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Alexia Galati ◽

Angelina Symeonidou ◽

Marios N Avraamides

Keyword(s):

Task Performance ◽

Spatial Ability ◽

Language Use ◽

Spatial Language ◽

Mutual Understanding ◽

Route Description ◽

High Level ◽

East West ◽

Over Time ◽

And Task

In a direction-giving task, we examine whether a high-level constraint–the task partners’ relative body alignment–influences spatial language use and task accuracy. In 32 pairs, task partners interacted in two conditions: for one route description, direction givers (DGs) and direction followers (DFs) sat side-by-side (aligned condition), and for another they sat opposite one another (counter-aligned condition). After each description, DFs drew the route on a map. When pairs were counter-aligned (vs. aligned), DGs increased their use of expressions from a survey perspective, using more frequently terms such as east-west. When counter-aligned, DFs also used more words per conversational turn, which was taken to reflect the increased difficulty of coordinating in that condition. Still, in terms of task performance, the accuracy of DFs’ drawings was unaffected by the partners’ body alignment or spatial language use; it was only predicted by the DGs’ spatial ability. We argue that, because direction-giving emphasizes accuracy, task partners invest in strategies that contribute to mutual understanding (e.g., recaps of the route by the DF at the end, evidenced by shifts in language use over time). Thus, body alignment in direction-giving impacts coordination difficulty and spatial language use, but it does not singularly influence task performance.

Download Full-text