The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The role of expectations and situations in human-robot interaction
Abstract
In human-robot interaction, the behaviour of the robot is usually predefined and can easily be predicted. However, this is not true for the behaviour of the users. Throughout the interaction, users employ various behaviours which often cannot be foreseen intuitively. Therefore, theoretical models need to be developed to predict and explain the users’ behaviour in order to enable the robot to better understand its interaction partner. The current work suggests such a model which is based on the concepts of situations and expectations. It claims that both concepts support the prediction of user behaviour in the interaction and demonstrates the usefulness of the model in a case study based on data from human-robot interaction in a home tour situation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“echoing previous findings in human–robot interaction where the social robot triggered users’ mental models and expectations of human–human interaction (Lohse, 2011).”
From Using Different Error Handling Strategies to Facilitate Older Users' Interaction With Chatbots in Learning Information and Communication Technologies (2021) · cites this paper as Lohse, 2011
Citations
Cited by
To err is robot: how humans assess and act toward an erroneous social robot
Mirnig, N., Stollnberger, G., Miksch, M., Stadler, S., Giuliani, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2017) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2017.00021 · Cited by 244
“While the errors in the study of Ragni et al. (2016) were based on errors from HHI, the errors we used were modeled based on data from HRI.”
BackgroundA Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction ProfessionPreprint
Riek, L. D., & Howard, D. A. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 110
Experience in System Design for Human-Robot Teaming in Urban Search and Rescue
Kruijff, G.-J., Janíček, M., Keshavdas, S., Larochelle, B., Zender, H., Smets, N. J. J. M., Mioch, T., Neerincx, M. A., van Diggelen, J., Colas, F., et al. (2013) · Springer tracts in advanced robotics · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40686-7_8 · Cited by 102
“A gap between these expectations, and what actually happens, can seriously affect the interaction [23, 17].”
Towards a typology of meaningful signals and cues in social robotics
Hegel, F., Gieselmann, S., Peters, A., Holthaus, P., & Wrede, B. (2011) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/roman.2011.6005246 · Cited by 61
Previous Experience Matters: An in-Person Investigation of Expectations in Human–Robot Interaction
Rosén, J., Lindblom, J., Lamb, M., & Billing, E. (2024) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-024-01107-3 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Lohse, M.
- Affiliations
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lohse, Manja
- Venue
- Advances in interaction studies
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2011-11-30
- Pages
- 35-56
- ISSN
- 1879-873X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W17867060
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 8.68
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Advances in interaction studies (publishedVersion)
- PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
- Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- human-robot interaction, user behavior prediction, expectations, situation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
