[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Factors for Personalization and Localization to Optimize Human–Robot Interaction: A Literature Review

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social service robots are becoming increasingly pervasive in our everyday lives, including in healthcare, education and customer service settings. It is known that different cultures and individuals have an array of diverse expectations when interacting with robots. These expectations influence acceptability and willingness to engage with them. However, previous research in this field mostly focuses on a sole human-related factor that may impact interaction and the acceptability of robots both within and across groups of people. This review aims to synthesize the existing literature on human factors to consider when designing robots that can be personalized or localized (transferred to other cultures). The literature review highlights key studies in this area and synthesizes them into four overarching factors: (1) communication and language, (2) behavior and service, (3) proxemics, and (4) interface design. The review shows that personalization and localization in robotics needs to move beyond catering to simple language preferences or accents. Instead, this encompasses the intricate details of interface design, service expectations, proxemics and individual and cultural communication styles and cultural values that users may possess. This study consequently highlights key considerations when attempting to optimize human–robot interaction across individuals and cultures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Federation of Robotics. Service Robots. 2020; Available from: https://ifr.org/service-robots/

  2. Keizer S, Foster M, Wang Z, Lemon O (2014) Machine learning for social multiparty human–robot interaction. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 4(3):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Giuliani M, Petrick R, Foster M, Gaschler A, Lsard A, Pateraki M, Sigalas M (2013) Comparing task-based and socially intelligent behaviour in a robot bartender. In: 15th International conference on multimodal interaction (ICMI 2013)

  4. Portugal D, Santos L, Alvito P, Dias J, Samaras G, Christodoulou E (2015) SocialRobot: an interactive mobile robot for elderly home care. In: IEEE/SICE International symposium on system integration

  5. Coşar S, Fernandez-Carmona M, Agrigoroaie R, Pages J, Ferland F, Zhao F, Yue S, Bellotto N, Tapus A (2020) ENRICHME: perception and interaction of an assistive robot for the elderly at home. Int J Soc Robot 12:779–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clabaugh C, Mahajan K, Jain S, Pakkar R, Becerra D, Shi Z, Deng E, Lee R, Ragusa G, Mataric M (2019) Long-term personalization of an in-home socially assistive robot for children with autism spectrum disorders. Front Robot AI 6(10):110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bazzano F, Lamberti F (2018) Human–robot interfaces for interactive receptionist systems and wayfinding applications. Robotics 7(3):56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gross H, Boehme H, Schroeter C, Mueller S, Koenig A, Einhorn E, Martin C, Merten M, Bley A (2009) TOOMAS: interactive shopping guide robots in everyday use—final implementation and experiences from long-term field trials. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems

  9. Shi C, Satake S, Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2016) How would store managers employ social robots? In: IEEE, pp 519–520

  10. Henkemans O, Bierman B, Janssen J, Neerincx M, Looije R, van der Bosch H, van der Giessen J (2013) Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns 92:174–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee M, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S, Rybski P, Antanitis J, Savetsila S (2012) Personalization in HRI: a longitudinal field experiment. In: HRI’12. ACM, Boston

  12. Di Nuovo A, Broz F, Wang N, Belpaeme T, Cangelosi A, Jones R, Esposito R, Cavallo F, Dario P (2018) The multi-modal interface of robot-era multi-robot services tailored for the elderly. Intell Serv Robot 11:109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofstede G, Hofstede G, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, vol 3. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. O’Neill-Brown P (1997) Setting the stage for the culturally adaptive agent. In: AAAI technical report FS-97-02

  15. Samani H, Saadatian E, Pang N, Polydorou D, Fernando O, Nakatsu R, Koh J (2013) Cultural robotics: the culture of robotics and robotics in culture. Int J Adv Robot Syst 10:400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hüttenrauch H, Eklundh K, Green A, Topp E (2006) Investigating spatial relationships in human–robot interactions. In: IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems

  17. Walters M, Dautenhahn K, Koay K, Kauori C, Boekhorst R, Nehaniv C, Werry I, Lee D (2005) Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. In: IEEE-RAS International conference on humanoid robots. IEEE

  18. Cortellessa G, Svedberg G, Scopelliti M, Loutfi A, Tiberio L, Percora F (2008) A cross-cultural evaluation of domestic assistive robots. In: Association for the advancement of artificial intelligence

  19. Lee H, Šabanović S (2014) Culturally variable preferences for robot design and use in South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. In: HRI’14. ACM

  20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med 6(7):e1000097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kennsuke K (2005) A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. In: HCI International, Las Vegas

  22. Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bartneck C (2008) Who like androids more: Japanese or US Americans? In: 17th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE

  24. Butler J, Agah A (2001) Psychological effects of behavior patterns of a mobile personal robot. Auton Robot 10:185–202

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Destephe M, Brandao M, Kishi T, Zecca M, Hashimoto K, Takanishi A (2015) Walking in the uncanny valley: importance of the attractiveness on the acceptance of a robot as a working partner. Front Psychol 6(204):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  26. Eresha G, Haring M, Endrass B, Andre E, Obaid M (2013) Investigating the influence of culture on proxemic behaviors for humanoid robots. In: IEEE RO-MAN: the 22nd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication

  27. Evers V, Maldonado H, Brodecki T, Hinds P (2008) Relational versus group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in HRI. In: HRI. ACM, Amsterdam, pp 1–8

  28. Haring K, Silvera-Tawil D, Matsumoto Y, Velonaki M, Watanabe K (2014) Perception of an android robot in Japan and Australia: a cross-cultural comparison. In: Beetz M (ed) ICSR’14. Springer, Bern, pp 166–174

  29. Haring K, Mougenot C, Ono F, Watanabe K (2014) Cultural differences in perception and attitude towards robots. Int J Affect Eng 13(3):149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haring K, Silvera-Tawil D, Watanabe K, Velonaki M (2016) The influence of robot appearance and interactive ability in HRI: a cross-cultural study. In: ICSR’16. Springer

  31. Hegel F, Lohse M, Wrede B (2009) Effects of visual appearance on the attribution of applications in social robotics. In: 18th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 64–71

  32. Joosse M, Poppe R, Lohse M, Evers V (2014) Cultural differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach a group of people. In: CABS’14

  33. Lin W, Yueh H (2016) The relationship between robot appearance and interaction with child users: how distance matters. In: Rau P (ed) CCD. Springer, Bern, pp 229–236

  34. Mavridis N, Katsaiti M, Naef S, Falasi A, Nuaimi A, Araifi H, Kitbi A (2012) Opinions and attitudes toward humanoid robots in the Middle East. AI Soc 27:517–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Neerincx A, Kaptein R, Oleari E, Sacchitello F, van der Pal S, Neerincx M (2016) Child’s culture-related experiences with a social robot at diabetes camps. In: IEEE, pp 485–486

  36. Nomura T, Syrdal D, Dautenhahn K (2015) Differences on social acceptance of humanoid robots between Japan and the UK. In: 4th International symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction

  37. Rau P, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25:587–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang L, Rau P, Evers V, Robinson B, Hinds P (2010) When in Rome: the role of culture and context in adherence to robot recommendations. In: 5th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE

  39. Rızvanoğlu K, Öztürk Ö, Adıyaman Ö (2014) The impact of human likeness on the older adults’ perceptions and preferences of humanoid robot appearance. In: Marcus A (ed) DUXU’14. Springer, Bern, pp 164–172

  40. Salem M, Ziadee M, Sakr M (2014) Marhaba, how may I help you? Effects of politeness and culture on robot acceptance and anthropomorphization. In: HRI’14. ACM

  41. Syrdal D, Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Walters M, Koay K (2006) Doing the right thing wrong—personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN06). Hatfield

  42. Syrdal D, Koay K, Walters M, Dautenhahn K (2007) A personalized robot companion?—The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. In: 16th IEEE International conference on robot and human interactive communication, pp 1143–1148

  43. Syrdal D, Dautenhahn K, Walters M, Koay K (2008) Sharing spaces with robots in a home scenario—anthropomorphic attributions and their effect on proxemic expectations and evaluations in a live HRI trial. In: AAAI fall symposium

  44. Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the intelligent robotic systems. IROS, St. Louis, pp 5495–5502

  45. Takayama L, Ju W, Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: what everyday people think robots should do. In: HRI’08. ACM, Amsterdam

  46. Trovato G, Zecca M, Sessa S, Jamone L, Ham J, Hashimoto K, Takanishi A (2013) Cross-cultural study on human–robot greeting interaction: acceptance and discomfort by Egyptians and Japanese. Paladyn J Behav Robot 42(2):83–93

    Google Scholar 

  47. Trovato G, Ham J, Hashimoto K, Ishii H, Takanishi A (2015) Investigating the effect of relative cultural distance on the acceptance of robots. In: Tapus A (ed) ICSR’15. Springer, Bern, pp 664–673

  48. Walters M, Dautenhahn K, Boekhorst R, Koay K, Kauori C, Woods S, Nehaniv C, Lee D, Werry I (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment. In: IEEE

  49. Walters M, Syrdal D, Koay K, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R (2008) Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In: The 17th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication

  50. Złotowski J, Khalil A, Abdallah S (2019) One robot doesn’t fit all: aligning social robot appearance and job suitability from a Middle Eastern perspective. AI Soc 35:485–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ho Y, Sato-Shimokawara E, Yamaguchi T, Tagawa N (2013) Interaction robot system considering culture differences. In: IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts

  52. Shahid S, Krahmer E, Swerts M, Mubin O (2011) Who is more expressive during child–robot interaction: Pakistani or Dutch children? In: The 6th international conference on human–robot interaction

  53. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Han J, Shin N, Burke J, Kato K (2007) Implications on humanoid robots in pedagogical applications from cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the USA. In: The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE

  54. Li H, Milani S, Krishnamoorthy V, Lewis M, Sycara K (2019) Perceptions of domestic robots' normative behavior across cultures. In: The 2019 AAAI/ACM conference

  55. Andrist S, Ziadee M, Boukaram H, Mutlu B, Sakr M (2015) Effects of culture on the credibility of robot speech: a comparison between English and Arabic. In: HRI’15, Portland, pp 157–164

  56. Sanoubari E, Young J (2018) Explicit, neutral, or implicit: a cross-cultural exploration of communication-style preferences in human robot interaction. In: HRI '18: companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 237–238

  57. Makenova R, Karsybayeva R, Sandygulova A (2018) Exploring cross-cultural differences in persuasive robotics. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference

  58. Lee H, Kang H, Kwak S, Lee J, Kim M, Kwon J (2015) How people perceive human- and product-like robots: cross-cultural analysis between Japan and Korea. In: HAI '15: proceedings of the 3rd international conference on human–agent interaction, pp 315–318

  59. Trovato G, Zecca M, Do M, Terlemez O, Kuramochi M, Waibel A, Asfour T, Takanishi A (2015) A novel greeting selection system for a culture-adaptive humanoid robot. Int J Adv Robot Syst 12:34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hall E (1966) The hidden dimension. Anchor Books, Garden City

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gillespie D, Leffler A (1983) Theories of nonverbal behavior: a critical review of proxemics research. Sociol Theory 1:120–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35

    Google Scholar 

  63. DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: The 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques

  64. Foster M, Craenen B, Deshmukh A, Lemon O, Bastianelli E, Dondrup C, Papaioannou I, Vanzo A, Odobez J-M, Canévet O, Cao Y, He W, Martínez-González A, Motlicek P, Siegfried R, Alami R, Belhassein K, Buisan G, Clodic A, Mayima A, Sallami Y, Sarthou G, Singamaneni P-T, Waldhart J, Mazel A, Caniot M, Niemelä M, Heikkilä P, Lammi H, Tammela A (2019) MuMMER: socially intelligent human–robot interaction in public spaces. arXiv.org

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Institute for Information and Communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2020-0-00842, Development of Cloud Robot Intelligence for Continual Adaptation to User Reactions in Real Service Environments).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Norina Gasteiger

  2. School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Norina Gasteiger

  3. Département d’Informatique, Facultés des Sciences et Ingénieries, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Mehdi Hellou

  4. Department of Electrical, Computer and Software Engineering, CARES, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Mehdi Hellou & Ho Seok Ahn

Authors
  1. Norina Gasteiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehdi Hellou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ho Seok Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HS conceived the initial idea as the principal investigator of this project. NG and MH located and synthesized the literature. NG drafted the manuscript and designed the figures. All authors discussed the results and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ho Seok Ahn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gasteiger, N., Hellou, M. & Ahn, H.S. Factors for Personalization and Localization to Optimize Human–Robot Interaction: A Literature Review. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 689–701 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00811-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00811-8

Keywords