skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on December 31, 2022

Title: What Happens When Robots Punish? Evaluating Human Task Performance During Robot-Initiated Punishment
This article examines how people respond to robot-administered verbal and physical punishments. Human participants were tasked with sorting colored chips under time pressure and were punished by a robot when they made mistakes, such as inaccurate sorting or sorting too slowly. Participants were either punished verbally by being told to stop sorting for a fixed time, or physically, by restraining their ability to sort with an in-house crafted robotic exoskeleton. Either a human experimenter or the robot exoskeleton administered punishments, with participant task performance and subjective perceptions of their interaction with the robot recorded. The results indicate that participants made more mistakes on the task when under the threat of robot-administered punishment. Participants also tended to comply with robot-administered punishments at a lesser rate than human-administered punishments, which suggests that humans may not afford a robot the social authority to administer punishments. This study also contributes to our understanding of compliance with a robot and whether people accept a robot’s authority to punish. The results may influence the design of robots placed in authoritative roles and promote discussion of the ethical ramifications of robot-administered punishment.
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1849068
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10309910
Journal Name:
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
Volume:
10
Issue:
4
ISSN:
2573-9522
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Objective

    This study examined the interaction of gait-synchronized vibrotactile cues with an active ankle exoskeleton that provides plantarflexion assistance.

    Background

    An exoskeleton that augments gait may support collaboration through feedback to the user about the state of the exoskeleton or characteristics of the task.

    Methods

    Participants ( N = 16) were provided combinations of torque assistance and vibrotactile cues at pre-specified time points in late swing and early stance while walking on a self-paced treadmill. Participants were either given explicit instructions ( N = 8) or were allowed to freely interpret (N=8) how to coordinate with cues.

    Results

    For the free interpretation group, the data support an 8% increase in stride length and 14% increase in speed with exoskeleton torque across cue timing, as well as a 5% increase in stride length and 7% increase in speed with only vibrotactile cues. When given explicit instructions, participants modulated speed according to cue timing—increasing speed by 17% at cues in late swing and decreasing speed 11% at cues in early stance compared to no cue when exoskeleton torque was off. When torque was on, participants with explicit instructions had reduced changes in speed.

    Conclusion

    These findings support that the presence of torque mitigates how cues were usedmore »and highlights the importance of explicit instructions for haptic cuing. Interpreting cues while walking with an exoskeleton may increase cognitive load, influencing overall human-exoskeleton performance for novice users.

    Application

    Interactions between haptic feedback and exoskeleton use during gait can inform future feedback designs to support coordination between users and exoskeletons.

    « less
  2. Regular exercise provides many mental and physical health benefits. However, when exercises are done incorrectly, it can lead to injuries. Because the COVID-19 pandemic made it challenging to exercise in communal spaces, the growth of virtual fitness programs was accelerated, putting people at risk of sustaining exercise-related injuries as they received little to no feedback on their exercising techniques. Colocated robots could be one potential enhancement to virtual training programs as they can cause higher learning gains, more compliance, and more enjoyment than non-co-located robots. In this study, we compare the effects of a physically present robot by having a person exercise either with a robot (robot condition) or a video of a robot displayed on a tablet (tablet condition). Participants (N=25) had an exercise system in their homes for two weeks. Participants who exercised with the colocated robot made fewer mistakes than those who exercised with the video-displayed robot. Furthermore, participants in the robot condition reported a higher fitness increase and more motivation to exercise than participants in the tablet condition.
  3. Collaborative robots that work alongside humans will experience service breakdowns and make mistakes. These robotic failures can cause a degradation of trust between the robot and the community being served. A loss of trust may impact whether a user continues to rely on the robot for assistance. In order to improve the teaming capabilities between humans and robots, forms of communication that aid in developing and maintaining trust need to be investigated. In our study, we identify four forms of communication which dictate the timing of information given and type of initiation used by a robot. We investigate the effect that these forms of communication have on trust with and without robot mistakes during a cooperative task. Participants played a memory task game with the help of a humanoid robot that was designed to make mistakes after a certain amount of time passed. The results showed that participants' trust in the robot was better preserved when that robot offered advice only upon request as opposed to when the robot took initiative to give advice.
  4. Physical human–robot collaboration is becoming more common, both in industrial and service robotics. Cooperative execution of a task requires intuitive and efficient interaction between both actors. For humans, this means being able to predict and adapt to robot movements. Given that natural human movement exhibits several robust features, we examined whether human–robot physical interaction is facilitated when these features are considered in robot control. The present study investigated how humans adapt to biological and nonbiological velocity patterns in robot movements. Participants held the end-effector of a robot that traced an elliptic path with either biological (twothirds power law) or nonbiological velocity profiles. Participants were instructed to minimize the force applied on the robot endeffector. Results showed that the applied force was significantly lower when the robot moved with a biological velocity pattern. With extensive practice and enhanced feedback, participants were able to decrease their force when following a nonbiological velocity pattern, but never reached forces below those obtained with the 2/3 power law profile. These results suggest that some robust features observed in natural human movements are also a strong preference in guided movements. Therefore, such features should be considered in human–robot physical collaboration.
  5. As teams of people increasingly incorporate robot members, it is essential to consider how a robot's actions may influence the team's social dynamics and interactions. In this work, we investigated the effects of verbal support from a robot (e.g., “ good idea Salim ,” “ yeah ”) on human team members' interactions related to psychological safety and inclusion. We conducted a between-subjects experiment ( N = 39 groups, 117 participants) where the robot team member either (A) gave verbal support or (B) did not give verbal support to the human team members of a human-robot team comprised of 2 human ingroup members, 1 human outgroup member, and 1 robot. We found that targeted support from the robot (e.g., “ good idea George ”) had a positive effect on outgroup members, who increased their verbal participation after receiving targeted support from the robot. When comparing groups that did and did not have verbal support from the robot, we found that outgroup members received fewer verbal backchannels from ingroup members if their group had robot verbal support. These results suggest that verbal support from a robot may have some direct benefits to outgroup members but may also reduce the obligation ingroup membersmore »feel to support the verbal contributions of outgroup members.« less