Human-robot interaction (HRI) researchers have been researching the social robot designs which intrigue engagement among users. Previous work has been mainly focused on the appearance of robots for user engagement. With voice being one of the common methods for interaction, it is important to understand how different embodiment and social cues can intrigue the engagement in voice-based interaction. This paper reports the controlled-lab study with 36 participants who completed an interactive session involving humanoid robot and voice user interface (VUI). Participants were randomly assigned to interact with one of three research conditions. We hypothesized that participants who interacted with social robot embedded with VUI and gestures would highly engage in the communication. However, the actual results indicate that voice-based interaction intrigued engagement among participants regardless of the embodiment. The findings suggest that the robot’s ability to have an interpersonal and natural conversation has stronger impacts on social engagement.
AnzaloneS. M.BoucennaS.IvaldiS.ChetouaniM. (2015). Evaluating the engagement with social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 465–478.
2.
AronA.MelinatE.AronE. N.ValloneR. D.BatorR. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377.
3.
BartneckC.CroftE.KulicD. (2008). Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots [Paper presentation]. Metrics for HRI Workshop, Technical Report (Vol. 471, pp. 37–44).
4.
BrondiS.PivettiM.Di BattistaS.SarricaM. (2021). What do we expect from robots? Social representations, attitudes and evaluations of robots in daily life. Technology in Society, 66, 101663.
5.
CrowellC. R.DeskaJ. C.VillanoM.ZenkJ.Roddy JrJ. T. (2019). Anthropomorphism of robots: Study of appearance and agency. JMIR Human Factors, 6(2), e12629.
6.
DengE.MutluB.MataricM. J. (2019). Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, 7(4), 251–356.
7.
ErolB. A.WallaceC.BenavidezP.JamshidiM. (2018, June 3-6). Voice activation and control to improve human robot interactions with IOT perspectives [Conference session]. 2018 World Automation Congress (WAC), Stevenson, WA, United States (pp. 1–5). Springer.
8.
EysselF.WullenkordR.NitschV. (2017, August 28-31). The role of self-disclosure in human-robot interaction [Symposium]. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Portugal (pp. 922–927). IEEE.
9.
HegelF.MuhlC.WredeB.Hielscher-FastabendM.SagererG. (2009, February 1-7). Understanding social robots [Conference session]. 2009 Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, Cancun, Mexico (pp. 169–174). IEEE.
10.
HoffmanG.JuW. (2014). Designing robots with movement in mind. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(1), 91–122.
11.
LuriaM.HoffmanG.ZuckermanO. (2017, May 6-11). Comparing social robot, screen and voice interfaces for smart-home control [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, United States (pp. 580–628). IEEE.
12.
MedicherlaH.SekmenA. (2007). Human–robot interaction via voice-controllable intelligent user interface. Robotica, 25(5), 521–527.
13.
MoshkinaL.TrickettS.TraftonJ. G. (2014, March 3-6). Social engagement in public places: A tale of one robot [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany (pp. 382–389). ACM Press/IEEE.
14.
MuradC.CandelloH.MunteanuC. (2023, July 19-21). What’s the talk on VUI guidelines? A meta-analysis of guidelines for voice user interface design [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, Eindhoven, Netherlands (pp. 1–16). IEEE.
15.
O’BrienH. L.TomsE. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955.
16.
OstrowskiA. K.ZygourasV.ParkH. W.BreazealC. (2021, March 8-11). Small group interactions with voice-user interfaces: Exploring social embodiment, rapport, and engagement [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boulder, CO, United States (pp. 322–331). ACM Press/IEEE.
PorcheronM.FischerJ. E.ReevesS.SharplesS. (2018, April 21-26). Voice interfaces in everyday life [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2018 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada (p. 640). Springer.
19.
PowersA.KieslerS.FussellS.FussellS.TorreyC. (2007, March 9-11). Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot [Conference session]. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Arlington, VA, United States (pp. 145–152). ACM Press/IEEE.
20.
RossiS.StaffaM.TamburroA. (2018). Socially assistive robot for providing recommendations: Comparing a humanoid robot with a mobile application. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(2), 265–278.
21.
SeabornK.MiyakeN. P.PennefatherP.Otake-MatsuuraM. (2021). Voice in human–agent interaction: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(4), 1–43.
22.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
23.
YamaneK.MuraiA. (2019). A comparative study between humans and humanoid robots. In GoswamiA.VadakkepatP. (Eds.), Humanoid robotics: A reference (pp. 873–892). Springer.
