Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article explores how visually impaired people (VIP) navigate around (a) stationary people and (b) moving people, when guided by the Boston Dynamics’ robotic “dog” and its human operator. By focusing on the micro-spatial dimensions of human mobility while being guided by a mobile robot, the paper argues that the VIP+robodog+operator is in situ emerging as a socio-material assemblage in which agency, perception, and trust gets distributed and that this distribution enables the accomplishment of navigation. The article is based on ethnomethodology and multimodal conversation analysis (EMCA) and a video ethnographic methodology. It contributes to studies in perception, agency, human–robot interaction, space and culture, and distributed co-operative action in socio-material settings.

Keywords

video ethnography ethnomethodology conversation analysis visual impairment robots navigation space assemblages

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamson

Flood

V. J.

Miele

J. A.

Siu

Y.-T.

(2019). Enactivism and ethnomethodological conversation analysis as tools for expanding universal design for learning: The case of visually impaired mathematics students. ZDM, 51(2), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0998-1

Albert

Housley

Stokoe

(2019). In case of emergency, order pizza: An urgent case of action formation and recognition. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, 15, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342800

Antaki

(1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. SAGE.

Avital

Streeck

(2011). Terra incognita: Social interaction among blind children. In Streeck

Goodwin

LeBaron

C. D.

(Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 169–181). Cambridge University Press.

Barad

(2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning (2nd printing ed.). Duke University.

Boudouraki

Fischer

J. E.

Reeves

Rintel

(2021). “I can’t get round”: Recruiting assistance in mobile robotic telepresence. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3), 248:1–248:21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432947

Broth

Mondada

(2019). Delaying moving away: Place, mobility, and the multimodal organization of activities. Journal of Pragmatics, 148, 44–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.013

Brown

(2017). The social life of autonomous cars. Computer, 50(2), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.59

Cekaite

Mondada

(2020). Touch in social interaction: Touch, language, and body. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003026631

10.

Cetina

K. K.

(2009). The synthetic situation: Interactionism for a global world. Symbolic Interaction, 32(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2009.32.1.61

11.

Cooren

(2020). Beyond entanglement: (Socio-) materiality and organization studies. Organization Theory, 1(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720954444

12.

Coulter

Parsons

E. D.

(1990). The praxiology of perception: Visual orientations and practical action. Inquiry, 33(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201749008602223

13.

Courtine

Schieppati

. (2003). Human walking along a curved path. I. Body trajectory, segment orientation and the effect of vision. European Journal of Neuroscience, 18(1), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02736.x

14.

Cresswell

(2011). Mobilities I: Catching up. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510383348

15.

Dant

(2004). The driver-car. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4–5), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046061

16.

De Stefani

Broth

Deppermann

. (2019). On the road: Communicating traffic. Language & Communication, 65, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.009

17.

Due

B. L

. (in press). Situated socio-material assemblages. Human Communication Research.

18.

Due

B. L.

(2019, September 8–11). Laughing at the robot: Incongruent robot actions as laughables [Conference session]. Mensch Und Computer: Neue Digitale Realitäten, Hamborg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2019-ws-640

19.

Due

B. L.

(2021a). Distributed perception: Co-operation between sense-able, actionable, and accountable semiotic agents. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 134–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.538

20.

Due

B. L.

(2021b). RoboDoc: Semiotic resources for achieving face-to-screenface formation with a telepresence robot. Semiotica, 238, 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0148

21.

Due

B. L.

(2023a). Guide dog versus robot dog: Assembling visually impaired people with non-human agents and achieving assisted mobility through distributed co-constructed perception. Mobilities, 18(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2022.2086059

22.

Due

B. L.

(2023b). Interspecies intercorporeality and mediated haptic sociality: Distributing perception with a guide dog. Visual Studies, 38(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2021.1951620

23.

Due

B. L.

Kupers

Lange

S. B.

Ptito

(2017). Technology enhanced vision in blind and visually impaired individuals. Synoptik Foundation research project. Circd Working Papers in Social Interaction, 3(1), 1–31.

24.

Due

B. L.

Lange

S. B.

(2018a). Semiotic resources for navigation: A video ethnographic study of blind people’s uses of the white cane and a guide dog for navigating in urban areas. Semiotica, 2018(222), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0196

25.

Due

B. L.

Lange

S. B.

(2018b). The Moses effect: The spatial hierarchy and joint accomplishment of a blind person navigating. Space and Culture, 21(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331217734541

26.

Due

B. L.

Lange

S. B.

(2018c). Troublesome objects: Unpacking ocular-centrism in urban environments by studying blind navigation using video ethnography and ethnomethodology. Sociological Research Online, 24(4), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780418811963

27.

Enfield

N. J.

(2017). Distribution of agency. In Enfield

N. J.

Kockelman

(Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 9–14). Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.001.0001/acprof-9780190457204-chapter-2

28.

Estrada

(2016). Visually impaired: Assistive technologies, challenges and coping strategies. Nova Science.

29.

Fischer

J. E.

Reeves

Porcheron

Sikveland

R. O.

(2019). Progressivity for voice interface design. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, 26, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342788

30.

Folmer

(2015). Exploring the use of an aerial robot to guide blind runners. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 112, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/2809915.2809916

31.

Fortunati

Taipale

(2017). Mobilities and the network of personal technologies: Refining the understanding of mobility structure. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 560–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.09.011

32.

Garfinkel

(1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.

33.

Garfinkel

(1988). Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. In and as of the essential quiddity of immortal ordinary society, (I of IV): An announcement of studies. Sociological Theory, 6(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/201918

34.

Garfinkel

(1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, methods, etc. In and of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I)—An announcement of studies. In Button

(Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10–19). Cambridge University Press.

35.

Garfinkel

(2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield.

36.

Garfinkel

Sacks

H. L.

(1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney

J. C.

Tiryakian

E. A.

(Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). Appleton Century Crofts.

37.

Gehle

Pitsch

Dankert

Wrede

(2017). How to open an interaction between robot and museum visitor? Strategies to establish a focused encounter in HRI. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020219

38.

Glöss

Tuncer

Brown

Laurier

Pink

Fors

Vinkhuyzen

Strömberg

(2020). New mobilities: A workshop on mobility beyond the car. Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3375169

39.

Goffman

(1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of Gathering. Free Press of Glencoe.

40.

Goffman

(1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

41.

Goffman

(1978). Response cries. Language, 54(4), 787–815.

42.

Goode

(2007). Playing with my dog Katie: An ethnomethodological study of dog-human interaction. Purdue University Press.

43.

Goodwin

(1993). The blackness of Black. Color categories as situated practice. In Resnick

L. B.

Säljö

Pontecorvo

Burge

(Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111–140). Springer.

44.

Goodwin

(1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

45.

Goodwin

(1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 237–274.

46.

Goodwin

(2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–74.

47.

Goodwin

(2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003

48.

Goodwin

(2017). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.

49.

Goodwin

M. H.

(2017). Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive constitution of intimacy through touch. In Meyer

Streeck

Jordan

J. S.

(Eds.), Intercorporeality emerging socialities in interaction (pp. 73–102). Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.001.0001/acprof-9780190210465-chapter-4

50.

Grondin

(2016). Psychology of perception. Springer.

51.

Guerreiro

Sato

Asakawa

Dong

Kitani

K. M.

Asakawa

(2019). CaBot: Designing and evaluating an autonomous navigation robot for blind people. The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353771

52.

Haddington

(2019). Leave-taking as multiactivity: Coordinating conversational closings with driving in cars. Language & Communication, 65, 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.003

53.

Hall

E. T.

(1976). Beyond culture. Anchor. http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Culture-Edward-T-Hall/dp/0385124740

54.

Hirvonen

M. I.

Schmitt

(2018). Blindheit als Ressource: Zur professionellen Kompetenz eines blinden Teammitglieds bei der gemeinsamen Anfertigung einer Audiodeskription [Blindness as a resource: On the professional competence of a blind team member in the joint preparation of an audio description]. Gesprächsforschung, 19, 449–477.

55.

Ingold

Vergunst

J. L.

(2008). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot. Ashgate.

56.

Iwatsuka

Yamamoto

Kato

(2004). Development of a guide dog system for the blind people with character recognition ability. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 1, 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2004.1334161

57.

Jay

(1994). Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought. University of California Press.

58.

Jordan

J. S.

Mays

(2017). Wild meaning: The intercorporeal nature of objects, bodies, and words. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.001.0001/acprof-9780190210465-chapter-14

59.

Kerepesi

Kubinyi

Jonsson

G. K.

Magnusson

M. S.

Miklósi

. (2006). Behavioural comparison of human–animal (dog) and human–robot (AIBO) interactions. Behavioural Processes, 73(1), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.04.001

60.

Kockelman

(2017). Semiotic agency. In Enfield

N. J.

Kockelman

(Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 25–38). Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.001.0001/acprof-9780190457204-chapter-4

61.

Kreplak

Mondémé

(2014). Artworks as touchable objects. In Nevile

Haddington

Heinemann

Rauniomaa

(Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 295–318). John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/z.186.13kre/details

62.

Krummheuer

A. L.

(2016). Who am I? What are you? Identity construction in encounters between a teleoperated robot and people with acquired brain injury. In Agah

Cabibihan

J. J.

Howard

Salichs

(Eds.), Social robotics: 8th international conference (ICSR2016, pp. 880–889). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_86

63.

Laurier

Maze

Lundin

(2006). Putting the dog back in the park: Animal and human mind-in-action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1301_2

64.

Lee

J. R. E.

Watson

(1993). Interaction in public space: Final report to the plan urbain. Plan Urbain.

65.

Liberman

(2013). More studies in ethnomethodology. SUNY Press.

66.

Liberman

(2019). A study at 30th street. Language & Communication, 65, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.001

67.

Macpherson

(2009). The intercorporeal emergence of landscape: Negotiating sight, blindness, and ideas of landscape in the British countryside. Environment and Planning A, 41(5), 1042–1054.

68.

Mair

Brooker

Dutton

Sormani

(2021). Just what are we doing when we’re describing AI? Harvey Sacks, the commentator machine, and the descriptive politics of the new artificial intelligence. Qualitative Research, 21, 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120975988

69.

Manduchi

Kurniawan

(2018). Assistive technology for blindness and low vision. CRC Press.

70.

McIlvenny

Broth

Haddington

(2009). Communicating place, space and mobility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1879–1886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.014

71.

McIlvenny

Broth

Haddington

(2014). Moving together mobile formations in interaction. Space and Culture, 17(2), 104–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331213508679

72.

Merlino

Mondada

(2019). Crossing the street: How pedestrians interact with cars. Language & Communication, 65, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.004

73.

Meyer

Streeck

Jordan

J. S.

(2017). Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford University Press.

74.

Mondada

(2017). Walking and talking together: Questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits. Social Science Information, 56(2), 220–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417694777

75.

Mondada

(2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016

76.

Mondada

(2020). Membership categorization and the sequential multimodal organization of action: Walking, perceiving, and talking in material-spatial ecologies. In Smith

R. J.

Fitzgerald

Housley

(Eds.), On sacks. Methodology, materials, and inspirations (pp. 101–117). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429024849-9

77.

Mondémé

(2011). Dog-human sociality as mutual orientation (IIEMCA 2011). https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/en/publications/dog-human-sociality-as-mutual-orientation

78.

Mondémé

(2013). Formes d’interactions sociales entre hommes et chiens Une approche praxéologique des relations interspécifiques [Forms of social interactions between humans and dogs A praxeological approach to interspecific relationships] [Thèse de doctorat, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon Ecole Doctorale Lettres, Langues, Linguistique et Arts (ED 484) Laboratoire ICAR (UMR 5191)—Interactions, Corpus, Apprentissage, Représentation].

79.

Mondémé

(2017, May). Moving as an interspecies unit: Accounting for im-mobility. MOBSIN workshop (Telecom ParisTech). https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/en/publications/moving-as-an-interspecies-unit-accounting-for-im-mobility

80.

Mondémé

(2020). La socialité interspécifique: Une analyse multimodale des interactions homme-chien [Interspecific sociality: A multimodal analysis of human-dog interactions]. Lambert-Lucas.

81.

Morel

Relieu

(2011). Locating mobility in orientation sequences. Nottingham French Studies, 50, 94–113. https://doi.org/10.3366/nfs.2011-2.005

82.

Muhle

Bock

(2019, September 8–11). Intuitive interfaces? Interface design and its impact on human-robot interaction [Conference session] Mensch Und Computer—Workshopband. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2019-ws-641

83.

Nishizaka

(2000). Seeing what one sees: Perception, emotion, and activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2000.9677650

84.

Nishizaka

(2011). The embodied organization of a real-time fetus: The visible and the invisible in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Social Studies of Science, 41, 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710386842

85.

Nishizaka

(2014). Instructed perception in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613515354

86.

Nishizaka

(2017). The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(2), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1296465

87.

Nishizaka

(2020a). Appearance and action: The sequential organization of instructions in Japanese calligraphy lessons. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(3), 295–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739428

88.

Nishizaka

(2020b). Multi-sensory perception during palpation in Japanese midwifery practice. Social Interaction. Video-based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120256

89.

Opfermann

J. D.

Leonard

Decker

R. S.

Uebele

N. A.

Bayne

C. E.

Joshi

A. S.

Krieger

(2017). Semi-autonomous electrosurgery for tumor resection using a multi-degree of freedom electrosurgical tool and visual servoing. 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 3653–3660. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2017.8206210

90.

Pelikan

H. R. M.

Broth

(2016). Why that Nao?: How humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot in taking turns-at-talk. Proceedings of the 2016 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4921–4932. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858478

91.

Pelikan

H. R. M.

Broth

Keevallik

(2022). When a robot comes to life: The interactional achievement of agency as a transient phenomenon. Social Interaction: Video-based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i3.129915

92.

Pitsch

(2016). Limits and opportunities for mathematizing communicational conduct for social robotics in the real world? Toward enabling a robot to make use of the human’s competences. AI & SOCIETY, 31(4), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0629-0

93.

Pitsch

(2019). Interacting with robots and virtual agents? Robotic systems in situated action and social encounters. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2019-ws-217

94.

Pitsch

(2020). Answering a robot’s questions: Participation dynamics of adult-child-groups in encounters with a museum guide robot. Reseaux, 220–221(2), 113–150.

95.

Porcheron

Fischer

J. E.

Reeves

(2021). Pulling back the curtain on the wizards of Oz. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432942

96.

Porcheron

Fischer

J. E.

Reeves

Sharples

(2018). Voice interfaces in everyday life. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 640, 1–12.

97.

Psathas

(1976). Mobility, orientation, and navigation: Conceptual and theoretical considerations. New Outlook for the Blind, 70(9), 385–391.

98.

Psathas

(1992). The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In Watson

Seiler

R. M.

(Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 99–122). SAGE.

99.

Quéré

Relieu

(2001). Modes de locomotion et inscription spatiale des inégalités. Les déplacements des personnes atteintes de handicaps visuels et moteurs dans l’esplace public. https://docplayer.fr/21393339-Louis-quere-marc-relieu-modes-de-locomotion-et-inscription-spatiale-des-inegalites.html

100.

Rawls

A. W.

Whitehead

K. A.

Duck

(Eds.). (2020). Black lives matter—Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies of race and systemic racism in everyday interaction. Routledge.

101.

Reeves

(2019). How UX practitioners produce findings in usability testing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3299096

102.

Reeves

Porcheron

Fischer

(2018). “This is not what we wanted”: Designing for conversation with voice interfaces. Interactions, 26(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3296699

103.

Relieu

(1994). Les catégories dans l’action. L’apprentissage des traversées de rue par des non-voyants [Categories in action. Blind persons learning to cross the street]. Raisons Pratiques. L’enquête Sur Les Categories, 5, 185–218.

104.

Reyes-Cruz

(2021). Designing to support and extend the competencies of people with visual impairments. In Kitamura

Quigley

Isbister

Igarashi

(Eds.), Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems no 68 (pp. 1–6). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3443425

105.

Reyes-Cruz

Fischer

Reeves

(2019). An ethnographic study of visual impairments for voice user interface design. ArXiv:1904.06123 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.06123

106.

Reyes-Cruz

Fischer

J. E.

Reeves

(2020). Reframing disability as competency: Unpacking everyday technology practices of people with visual impairments. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376767

107.

Reyes-Cruz

Fischer

J. E.

Reeves

(2022). Demonstrating interaction: The case of assistive technology. ACM Transactions on Computer-human Interaction, 29, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514236

108.

Ruíz

J. H.

Aristizabal

K. Z.

Isaza

(2019). The inclusion of children with total visual impairment in learning activities of daily living, especially the act of eating independently. In Di Bucchianico

(Ed.), Advances in design for inclusion (pp. 192–200). Springer.

109.

Ryave

L. A.

Schenkein

J. N.

(1974). Notes on the art of walking. In Turner

(Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 265–278). Penguin Books. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246980780_Notes_on_the_Art_of_Walking

110.

Ryle

(1949). The concept of mind. Chicago Press.

111.

Saerberg

(2010). “Just go straight ahead.” The Senses and Society, 5(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.2752/174589210X12753842356124

112.

Scheflen

A. E.

(1975). Micro-territories in human interaction. In Kendon

Harris

R. M.

Key

M. R.

(Eds.), Organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction (pp. 159–174). De Gruyter Mouton.

113.

Schegloff

E. A.

(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.

114.

Seemungal

Glasauer

Gresty

Bronstein

(2007). Vestibular perception and navigation in the congenitally blind. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 4341–4356. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01321.2006

115.

Sharrock

Coulter

(1998). On what we can see. Theory & Psychology, 8(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398082001

116.

Sharrock

Turner

(1980). Observation, esoteric knowledge, and automobiles. Human Studies, 3(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02331798

117.

Simone

Galatolo

(2020). Climbing as a pair: Instructions and instructed body movements in indoor climbing with visually impaired athletes. Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.008

118.

Simone

Galatolo

(2021). Timing and prosody of lexical repetition: How repeated instructions assist visually impaired athletes’ navigation in sport climbing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(4), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1974742

119.

Suchman

(2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press.

120.

Tachi

Tanie

Komoriya

Hosoda

Abe

(1981). Guide dog robot—Its basic plan and some experiments with Meldog Mark I. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 16(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-114X(81)90046-X

121.

Tuncer

Laurier

Brown

Licoppe

(2020). Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space. Journal of Transport Geography, 85, Article 102702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102702

122.

Urry

(2007). Mobilities. Polity.

123.

vom Lehn. (2010). Discovering ‘Experience-ables’: Socially including visually impaired people in art museums. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672571003780155

124.

Wilkinson

Kitzinger

(2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900203

125.

Wittgenstein

(1953). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.

126.

Yamazaki

Arano

Saito

Iiyama

Fukuda

Kobayashi

Kuno

(2019). Interacting with wheelchair mounted navigator robot. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2019-ws-651

A Walk in the Park With Robodog: Navigating Around Pedestrians Using a Spot Robot as a “Guide Dog”

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References