Cited by 99Social Robot Interaction and HRISpeech and dialogue systemsLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Learning-based modeling of multimodal behaviors for humanlike robots

Huang, Chien-Ming, Mutlu, Bilge·2014·Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction

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

Crossref · 10.1145/2559636.2559668

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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