Help, Anyone? A User Study For Modeling Robotic Behavior To Mitigate Malfunctions With The Help Of The User
Open accessAbstract
Service robots for the domestic environment are intended to autonomously provide support for their users. However, state-of-the-art robots still often get stuck in failure situations leading to breakdowns in the interaction flow from which the robot cannot recover alone. We performed a multi-user Wizard-of-Oz experiment in which we manipulated the robot's behavior in such a way that it appeared unexpected and malfunctioning, and asked participants to help the robot in order to restore the interaction flow. We examined how participants reacted to the robot's error, its subsequent request for help and how it changed their perception of the robot with respect to perceived intelligence, likability, and task contribution. As interaction scenario we used a game of building Lego models performed by user dyads. In total 38 participants interacted with the robot and helped in malfunctioning situations. We report two major findings: (1) in user dyads, the user who gave the last command followed by the user who is closer is more likely to help (2) malfunctions that can be actively fixed by the user seem not to negatively impact perceived intelligence and likability ratings. This work offers insights in how far user support can be a strategy for domestic service robots to recover from repeating malfunctions.
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?
In Bajones et al. (2016), the person who gave the last command was more likely to help, followed by the person who was closer.
“the person who gave the last command was more likely to help, followed by the person who was closer.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Bajones et al. (2016)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Honig, S., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00861 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies
Tolmeijer, S., Weiss, A., Hanheide, M., Lindner, F., Powers, T. M., Dixon, C., & Tielman, M. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3319502.3374793 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Bajones, M., Weiss, A., & Vincze, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1606.02547
- OpenAlex
- W2415624568
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- European Commission (610532, 288146)
- Austrian Science Fund (T 623)
- FP7 Information and Communication Technologies (288146)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- service robots, home robots, robot malfunction, human-robot interaction, user support, Wizard of Oz, perceived intelligence, robot likability
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