The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
“The first five seconds”: Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in HRI
Abstract
If robot systems are being deployed in real world settings with untrained users who happen to accidentally pass by or could leave at any moment in time, then this places specific demands on the robot system: it needs to secure and maintain the user's engagement. In this, a common and critical problem consists of entering into a `focused encounter'. It requires each interactional partner to closely react upon the other's actions on a very fine-grained level engaging in a stepwise and dynamic process of mutual adjustments. We report initial findings from a study in which we have developed a preliminary, simple solution to this problem inspired by work from Conversation Analysis. Using this as an instrument to explore the impact of a `contingent' (CE) vs. `non-contingent entry' (NCE), we find that users who enter into the interaction in a dynamic and contingent manner show a significantly different way of interacting with the robot than the NCE group.
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?
A robot that restarts its sentence when it loses the addressee's gaze is more successful in getting their attention and thus opening the interaction.
“For example, a robot that restarts its sentence when it loses the addressee's gaze is more successful in getting their attention and thus opening the interaction (Pitsch et al. 2009).”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Pitsch et al. 2009
The papers concerning openings mostly address how a robot can get the user's attention in the first place, providing findings and suggestions as to what makes certain practices work.
“Conversely, the papers concerning openings mostly address how a robot can get the user's attention in the first place, providing findings and suggestions as to what makes certain practices work (e.g., Gehle et al. 2017; Iwasaki et al. 2019; Pitsch et al. 2009; Sahin et al. 2017).”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Pitsch et al. 2009
In HRI, participants accomplish openings with gaze playing an important role, similar to openings in human interaction.
“In HRI, participants accomplish openings with gaze playing an important role, similar to openings in human interaction (Gehle et al. 2017; Pitsch et al. 2009).”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Pitsch et al. 2009
Gaze and its timing are critical nonverbal interactional resources for managing mutual attention.
“suggests that gaze and its timing are critical nonverbal interactional resources for managing mutual attention (see also Fischer et al. 2015).”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Pitsch et al. 2009
A robot sensitive to human gaze is more successful at securing human attention.
“showing that a robot sensitive to human gaze is more successful at securing human attention, Pitsch et al. 2009”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Pitsch et al. 2009
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 19 · Cited by 64
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- schegloff, 2007, Sequence Organisation in Interaction, A Primer in Conversation Analysis
- 10.1080/09540090701371519 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_1 · DOI
- sacks, 1992, Lectures on conversation
- 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_10 · DOI
- mutlu, 2006, A storytelling robot Modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior HUMANOIDS 2006, 518
- kendon, 1990, Spatial Organization in Social Encouters The F-Formation System, 209
- 10.1145/1228716.1228733 · DOI
- 10.1145/1518701.1518919 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.artint.2005.03.005 · DOI
- kuzuoka, 2008, Effects of Restarts and Pauses on Achieving a State of Mutual Gaze between a Human and a Robot, CSCW 2008, 201
- 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x · DOI
- schegloff, 1967, The First Five Seconds, The Order of Conversational Openings
- 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00146-006-0053-6 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573603 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Pitsch, K., Kuzuoka, H., Suzuki, Y., Sussenbach, L., Luff, P., & Heath, C.
- Affiliations
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- University of Tsukuba (JP)
- King's College London (GB)
- Venue
- RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2009-09
- Pages
- 985-991
- ISSN
- 1944-9437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2167390354
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.38
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE RO-MAN (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (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 engagement, conversation analysis, untrained users
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
