Why That Nao?: How Humans Adapt to a Conventional Humanoid Robot in Taking Turns-at-Talk

In the citing paper

“For example, a user may first orient to human social norms for timing their responses but, when this leads to trouble (e.g., the robot continuing its turn and thus overlapping with the user), users will adapt the turn-taking system by, among other things, leaving longer gaps before responding (Pelikan and Broth 2016).”

In the citing paper

“This is especially true for robots which, despite perhaps drawing attention or curiosity by virtue of their appearance as robots, are not easily able to communicate their availability for interaction (see Pelikan and Broth 2016).”

In the citing paper

“users' talk often overlaps with these bleeps (e.g., Pelikan and Broth 2016)”

In the citing paper

“Pelikan et al. (2020) studied Cozmo, a robot that only uses non-verbal sounds, whereas the other studies discussed a Nao that took verbal turns (Pelikan and Broth 2016; Arend et al. 2017).”

In the citing paper

“gestures such as waves are sometimes mirrored by the user.”

In the citing paper

“On the one hand, more HCIoriented studies in our corpus offer design recommendations to improve a specific technology (e.g., Wallis 2008; Opfermann et al. 2017; Pelikan and Broth 2016), often drawing on-and contributing to-theories, methods, and findings from human interaction research (e.g., Pelikan et al. 2020; Krummheuer 2015b; Gehle et al. 2017).”

In the citing paper

“For example, studies of recipient design in talk to/with robots (Pelikan and Broth 2016; Avgustis et al. 2021; Tuncer et al. 2023) reveal users' assumptions about the interactional competence of their (robotic) co-participants, and demonstrate the methods they use to make themselves understood given those assumptions.”