Learning-based modeling of multimodal behaviors for humanlike robots
Abstract
In order to communicate with their users in a natural and effective manner, humanlike robots must seamlessly integrate behaviors across multiple modalities, including speech, gaze, and gestures. While researchers and designers have successfully drawn on studies of human interactions to build models of humanlike behavior and to achieve such integration in robot behavior, the development of such models involves a laborious process of inspecting data to identify patterns within each modality or across modalities of behavior and to represent these patterns as "rules" or heuristics that can be used to control the behaviors of a robot, but provides little support for validation, extensibility, and learning. In this paper, we explore how a learning-based approach to modeling multimodal behaviors might address these limitations. We demonstrate the use of a dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) for modeling how humans coordinate speech, gaze, and gesture behaviors in narration and for achieving such coordination with robots. The evaluation of this approach in a human-robot interaction study shows that this learning-based approach is comparable to conventional modeling approaches in enabling effective robot behaviors while reducing the effort involved in identifying behavioral patterns and providing a probabilistic representation of the dynamics of human behavior. We discuss the implications of this approach for designing natural, effective multimodal robot behaviors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Erratic behaviors of a robot can influence other attributes of a user's perception, such as perceived naturalness of the HRI experience.
“Additional to trust, other attributes of a user's perception can be influenced by erratic behaviors of a robot, such as perceived naturalness of the HRI experience [73].”
From A Taxonomy of Social Errors in Human-Robot Interaction (2021) · cites this paper as [73]
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 23,433 · see citing works
Understanding Equivalence and Noninferiority Testing
Walker, E., & Nowacki, A. S. (2011) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1513-8 · Cited by 751 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social robots for education: a review.
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018) · Science Robotics · doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954 · Cited by 1,558 · see citing works
A Taxonomy of Social Errors in Human-Robot Interaction
Tian, L., & Oviatt, S. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3439720 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
- Authors
- Huang, C.-M., & Mutlu, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-03-03
- Pages
- 57-64
- OpenAlex
- W2012844124
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 24.21
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- humanoid robots, dynamic Bayesian networks, human-robot interaction
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