The Application and Extension of the Human-Animal Team Model to Better Understand Human-Robot Interaction: Recommendations for Further Research

Abstract

In order to create effective human-robot teams, robots must possess social capabilities that match the expectations of their human teammates. However the ability of robots to approximate human capacities is limited due to technological constraints. Human-animal teams have thus been suggested as a suitable analog for modeling teaming between humans and non-humans. Due to the limited capacity for animals to express their intentions, it follows that human-animal relationships can provide a basic framework for understanding how humans interpret information from teammates with limited social faculties. The purpose of this paper is provide research recommendations to identify specific areas in which human-animal teams can be used to model human-robot teams and to provide suggestions for investigating this model empirically in the context of social interaction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y.

Kocsis

Barrera

Cook

Ferrer

Hancock

P. A.

(2012). Human-animal trust as an analog for human-robot trust: A review of current evidence (No. ARL-TR-5949). University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Breazeal

Kidd

C. D.

Thomaz

A. L.

Hoffman

Berlin

(2005, August). Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005. (IROS 2005). 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference (pp. 708-713). Edmonton, AB, Canada: IEEE.

Bockelman Morrow

Fiore

S. M

. (2012). Supporting Human-Robot Teams in Social Dynamicism: An overview of the Metaphoric Inference Framework. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1718-1722). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

Cannon-Bowers

J.A.

Tannenbaum

S.I.

Salas

Volpe

C.E.

(1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Guzzo

Salas (Eds.), In Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dragan

A. D.

Lee

K. C. T.

Srinivasa

S. S.

(2013). Legibility and predictability of robot motion. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 301-308). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

Fiore

S. M.

Ross

Jentsch

(2012). A Team Cognitive Readiness Framework for Small Unit Training. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(3), 325-349.

Fiore

S. M.

Wiltshire

T. J.

Lobato

E. J.

Jentsch

F. G.

Huang

W. H.

Axelrod

(2013). Toward understanding social cues and signals in human–robot interaction: effects of robot gaze and proxemic behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 4(859), 1-15.

Gallagher

(2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535-543.

Gallagher

Varga

(2014). Social constraints on the direct perception of emotions and intentions. Topoi, 33(1), 185-199.

10.

Hancock

P. A.

Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E.

(2011). Can You Trust Your Robot? Ergonomics in Design, 19, 24–29.

11.

Harms

Biocca

(2004). Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds measure of social presence.

12.

Kiesler

Goetz

(2002). Mental models of robotic assistants. CHI ’02 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 576-577).

13.

Lackey

Barber

Reinerman

Badler

N. I.

Hudson

(2011). Defining next-generation multi-modal communication in human robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 55^th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 461-464). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

14.

Lee

Kiesler

Lau

Chiu

(2005). Human mental models of humanoid robots. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2767-2772.

15.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.

16.

Lee

Kiesler

Lau

Chiu

(2005). Human mental models of humanoid robots. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2767-2772.

17.

Lobato

E. J.

Warta

S. F.

Wiltshire

T. J.

Fiore

S. M.

(2015). Varying Social Cue Constellations Results in Different Attributed Social Signals in a Simulated Surveillance Task. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual FLAIRS Conference (pp. 61-66). Key Largo, FL: FLAIRS.

18.

MacMillan

Entin

E. E.

Serfaty

(2004). Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In Salas

Fiore

S. M.

(Eds.), Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Process and Performance (pp. 61-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

19.

Murphy

R. R.

(2004). Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions, 34(2), 138-153.

20.

Olsson

Ochsner

K. N.

(2008). The role of social cognition in emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 65-71.

21.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39 (2), 230-253.

22.

Phillips

Ososky

Swigert

Jentsch

(2012). Human-animal teams as an analog for future human-robot teams. Proceedings of the 56th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, (p. 1553-1557). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

23.

Phillips

Ososky

Grove

Jentsch

(2011). From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1481–1485). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

24.

Phillips

Schaefer

K.E.

Billings

D.R.

Jentsch

Hancock

P.A.

(2016). Human –animal teams as an analog for future human-robot teams: Influencing design and fostering trust. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 5(1), 100–125.

25.

Reeves

Nass

C. I.

(1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Chicago, IL, US: Center for the Study of Language and Information; New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Salas

Sims

D. E.

Burke

C. S.

(2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork?. Small group research, 36(5), 555-599.

27.

Saulnier

Sharlin

Greenberg

(2011, July). Exploring minimal nonverbal interruption in HRI. In RO-MAN, 2011 IEEE (pp. 79-86). IEEE.

28.

Sims

V.K.

Chin

M.G.

Sushil

D.J.

Barber

D.J.

Ballion

Clark

B.R.

Dolezal

M. J.

Schumaker

Finkelstein

(2005). Anthropomorphism of robotic forms: A response to affordances? Proceedings of the 48^th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, (pp. 602-605). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

29.

Sullins

(2006). When is a robot a moral agent? International Journal of Information Ethics, 6, 12. Retrieved from:; http://www.i-r-i-e.net/inhalt/006/006_Sullins.pdf.

30.

Talone

A. B.

Phillips

Ososky

Jentsch

(2015, September). An Evaluation of Human Mental Models of Tactical Robot Movement. In Proceedings of the 59^th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, (pp.1558-1562). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

31.

Törnqvist

Somppi

Koskela

Krause

C. M.

Vainio

Kujala

M. V.

(2015). Comparison of dogs and humans in visual scanning of social interaction. Royal Society open science, 2(9).

32.

Torrey

Fussell

S.R.

Keisler

(2013). How a robot should give advice. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human—Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp.275-282). Tokyo, Japan: IEEE.

33.

Wiese

Wykowska

Zwickel

Müller

H. J.

(2012). I see what you mean: how attentional selection is shaped by ascribing intentions to others. PloS one, 7(9).

34.

Wiltshire

T.J.

Lobato

E.J.C.

McConnell

D.S.

Fiore

S.M.

(2014). Prospects for direct social perception: A multi-theoretical integration to further the science of social cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 8:1007.

35.

Wiltshire

T. J.

Snow

S. L.

Lobato

E. J.

Fiore

S. M.

(2014). Leveraging social judgment theory to examine the relationship between social cues and signals in human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1336-1340). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

36.

Wiltshire

T. J.

Lobato

E. J. C.

Garcia

D. R.

Fiore

S. M.

Jentsch

F. G.

Huang

Axelrod

(2015). Effects of robotic social cues on interpersonal attributions and assessments of robot interaction behaviors. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 801-805). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.