We describe an approach examining multi-level collaboration challenges by integrating social, organizational, and cultural factors for human-robot teams operating in the real world. We discuss the research at three levels of social interaction: within a team, within a social environment, and within a culture. We first describe research exploring psychologically and biologically inspired models of behavior to extend the capabilities of heterogeneous multi-human, multi-robot teams. We then discuss research issues that must be addressed to provide insights on how robots can correctly vary actions in response to cultural populations and geospatial environments by recognizing and properly interpreting human configurations, cultural artifacts and behaviors. The goal is to make it possible for robots to function effectively within dynamic operational and social situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArkinR.C.FujitaM.TakagiT.HasagawaR. (2003). An ethological & emotional basis for human-robot interaction. Robotics & Autonomous Systems. 42(3-4):191–201.
2.
ByunM.BadlerN. (2002). FacEMOTE: Qualitative parametric modifiers for facial animations. In Proc. 2002 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation, San Antonio, TX, July 2002, pages 65–71.
3.
CampbellA.WuA.GarfieldK.ShumakerR.LukeS.De JongK. (2006). Empirical study on the effects of synthetic social structures on teams of autonomous vehicles. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing, & Control, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 23-25, 2006.
4.
ClarkH. H.Wilkes-GibbsD. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
5.
CrandallJ.W.GoodrichM.A.OlsenD.R.NielsenC.W. (2005). Validating Human-Robot Interaction schemes in multi-tasking environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics – Part A: Systems & Humans. 35 (4):438–449.
6.
FioreS. M.JentschF.RehfeldS.FinkelsteinN. (2005). Situation Awareness and Human-Agent Teams: Integrating Socio-cognitive Theories with the Practice of Human Agent-Teamwork. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
7.
FussellS.KraussR. (1989). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203-219.
8.
GoodrichM.A.McLainT.W.ersonJ.D.SunJ.CrallJ.W. (2007). Managing autonomy in robot teams: observations from four experiments. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI/SIGART IEEE RAS Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, March 2007, Arlington, Virginia.
9.
GraesserA. C.SingerM.TrabassoT. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
10.
GuE.BadlerN. (2006). Visual attention & eye gaze during multipartite conversations with distractions. Intelligent Virtual Agents,. Marina del Rey, CA.
KendonA. (1988). How gestures can become like words. Cross-cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication, pages 131–141. Editor PoyatosF.Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe.
13.
KriegerM.BilleterJ-B (2000). The call of duty: Self-organise task allocation in a population of up to twelve mobile robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 30, 65-84.
LiangD.MorelandR.ArgoteL. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating factor of transactive memory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384-393.
16.
McKoonG.RatcliffR. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
17.
PelechanoN.AllbeckJ.BadlerN. (2008). Virtual Crowds: Methods, Simulation, and Control. Claypool: San Rafael.
18.
PowersA.KieslerS. (2006). The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In Proc. 2006 ACM Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 218–25. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
19.
RavaryF.LecouteyE.KaminskiG.ChalineN.JaissonP. (2007). Individual experience alone can generate lasting division of labor in ants. Current Biology17, 1308-1312.
20.
SchurrN.MareckiJ.TambeM.ScerriP. (2005). Towards flexible coordination of human-agent teams. Int. Jour. of Multiagent & Grid Systems. 1(1):3–16.
21.
SofgeD.TraftonG.CassimatisN.PerzanowskiD.BugajskaM.AdamsW.SchultzA. (2004). Human-robot collaboration & cognition with an autonomous mobile robot. In Proc. 8th Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-8), March 2004, pages 80–87.
22.
SycaraK.LewisM. (2004). Integrating Intelligent Agents into Human Teams. In SalasE.FioreS. M. (Eds.), Team Cognition: Understanding the factors driving process and performance (pp. 203-231). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23.
VelagapudiP.ProkopyevO.SycaraK.ScerriP. (2009). Analyzing the performance of randomized information sharing. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Budapest, Hungary.
24.
WeidenmullerA. (2004). The control of nest climate in bumblebee (bombus terrestris) colonies: interindividual variability & self reinforcement in fanning response. Behavioral Ecology. 15(1):120–28.
25.
WhettenJ. M.GoodrichM. A.GuoY. (2010). Beyond robot fan-out: Towards multi-operator supervisory control. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Istanbul.
26.
ZhaoL.BadlerN. (2005). Acquiring & validating motion qualities from live limb gestures. Graphical Models. 67(1):1–16.
