=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2068/symcollab3
|storemode=property
|title=Moral Interaction with Robots: an Example with a Tour Guide Robot
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2068/symcollab3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2068
|authors=Satoru Satake,Takayuki Kanda
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iui/SatakeK18
}}
==Moral Interaction with Robots: an Example with a Tour Guide Robot==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2068/symcollab3.pdf
Moral Interaction with Robots: an Example with a Tour
Guide Robot
Satoru Satake Takayuki Kanda
ATR, IRC ATR, IRC
Kyoto, Japan Kyoto, Japan
satoru@atr.jp kanda@atr.jp
Author Keywords
Moral Interaction; preventing children’s interruptions;
robotic tour guide; talk while moving
ACM Classification Keywords
Human-centered computing ➝ Empirical studies in interaction
design •Computing methodologies → Robotic planning child
(a) Robot explained a shop (b) Child approached during its
explanation
As we expect more robots to operate in our daily life, we
start to observe scenes where people obstruct or interrupt
services provided by robots; hence, we believe that we need
to develop a series of interaction technique for ‘moral
interaction’. As a start, we report an example of situation
where an activity a robot is offering is interrupted by
children. (c) Tour interrupted by girl (d) Initial participants left tour,
who blocked robot’s path and she did not follow it too
In this study, we specifically focus on a tour guide, which is
one promising application for social robots. Although there Figure 1. An example of a failure of tour
are some precedents in which social robots were reported to
behavior blocks its motion and discourages tour participants
be in success of use, interestingly, it is also reported that the
from interacting with the robot. On the other hand, people
tours led by the robots often fail in the middle. We also
are less tempted to stop in front of it when a robot continues
witnessed that robotic tour failed in the middle.
to move. If a group is following the robot, it is illogical for
Fig. 1 shows one such scene. A group of family accepted a a second group to stay in front of such a flow of people.
tour. While the robot explained a shop at a stop (Fig. 1-a), a Even children do not usually behave in such a way. Thus,
child (not part of the tour) noticed the robot and approached we expect to reduce the chances of interruption with this
it from its right (Fig. 1-b). Since she remained in front of it, talk-while-moving pattern.
the robot was not able to move to the next location (Fig. 1-
We implemented an autonomous robot system that keeps
c). The family briefly watched and then left (Fig. 1-d).
the robot moving without stopping. The robot controls its
Since the new girl did not follow the tour, it became empty.
path due to the length of explanation of the tour for keeping
The tour failed.
its movement: our system not select the shortest path if
We analyzed why they failed and found that the tours fail necessary. We conducted a field trial and its experimental
because often other visitors (mostly children) interrupted result confirmed that our proposed talk-while-moving
them. Because of the interruptions, the original participants pattern raised the success rate of the tours (Fig. 2).
of the tour often left the tour, and these new visitors who
interrupted it typically did not join. Thus, the tour failed in
the middle because it suddenly had no participants.
As the analyzing the failure of interruption, we noticed that
children tended to follow the robot when it moves, but
blocked it when it moved slowly or stopped. Thus, Stop-to-
talk patterns (the robot stops to explain an exhibit) invite
such interruptions. Some people naturally want to stay in
front of a stopping robot to interact with it; however, such Figure 2. Ratio of tour success
© 2018. Copyright for the individual papers remains with the authors. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Copying permitted for private and academic purposes. SymCollab '18,
March 11, Tokyo, Japan.
This work was supported by JST, CREST