近年，ロボットは人間にとってより身近な存在になっ てきており，特に人の生活の場に入りこむコミュニケー ションロボットの開発が盛んに行われている．現在研 究されているコミュニケーションロボットは人からの アクションに対してリアクションを行うものが多い．しかし，消極的な人やロボットに関わったことのない人がコミュニケーションロボットにアクションを起こすことは困難である．そのため，人がロボットにアクションしやすくする必要がある．そ こでロボットに人のアクションを誘発する機能を付与 する．

1. Awareness Motion and It's Timing
to Induce User's Action
Airi Yokochi, Shohei Kato
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
Nagoya Institute of Techinology

2. Outline
Conclusion
Ex Survey
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
Preceding Study
Introduction

3. Outline
Conclusion
Ex Survey
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
Preceding Study
Introduction

4. Introduction
• There are many researches on communication robots have been
undertaken, where they mainly focused on robot's performing reaction
for the action received from the user.
• It is necessary for the person to perform an action towards the robot to
have an appropriate reaction
The motion is performed when the robot is aware on someone’s action and
respond to him according to the action performed.
A usual approach for starting the communicating between two people is
considered as awareness motion.[1]
Awareness Motion
induce the user’s action
[1]Takafumi Sakamoto and Yugo Takeuchi: Model of Agency Cognition through Embodied Interaction
The 29th Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, pp.201--297, 2015.

5. Awareness Motion
• The robot’s motion is induced when the person’s (who views the robot)
visual line is detected.
Awareness
Motion
２
• It is important for user and robot in order to communicate smoothly.

6. Outline
Conclusion
Ex Survey
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
Preceding Study
Introduction

7. • Approach (using awareness motion)[1]
Robot turns around to the user (Awareness Motion).
Giving an impression to robot to make the conversation easy and familiarity.
Considering the angle of turn around motion.
• Problem： The timing of motion was not considered in this approach
It is known that, concerning the appropriate timing[2] can improve the
impression to the robot
[1] Kentaro KOBUKI, Hirotada UEDA, “A conversation robot which
makes eye contact when a user's gaze is felt,” CVIM, vol. 2012, No.8,
pp. 1-6, 2012.
we conducted an experiment
on sensitivity evaluation to investigate the appropriate timing
until the robot react after user watched it.
Our proposal
Preceding Study [2] Toshiyuki SHIWA, Takayuki KANDA, Michita IMAI, Hiroshi
ISHIGURO, Norihiro HAGITA and Yuichiro ANZAI, “How Quickly
Should Communication Robots Respond?,” Journal of the Robotics
Society of Japan, vol. 27, No.1, pp. 87-95, 2009.

8. Outline
Conclusion
Ex Survey
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
Preceding Study
Introduction

9. Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
（1/5）Outline
Experimental method
Control the awareness motion timing after a subject stares a
robot
Subject evaluates the impression of robot
Subjects
15 persons (11 men, 4 woman)
22 to 26 years old
Robot
Humanoid robot Nao
Perform awareness motion as "to put up the right hand side,
and to take down“ ４

10. Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
（2/5） ～experimental conditions ～
Induce awareness motion（7 conditions ）
TS：changed from 0.0[sec] up to 3.0[sec] at interval of 0.5[sec].
Not induce awareness motion（1 condition ）
The moment people and robot’s eye meet
５
Total 8 conditions
1セット×8回
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

11. Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
（3/5） Details
Workspace
Space is assumed as user`s room
To judge the timing that subject see the eyes of robot
To measure actual awareness motion timing(Ts)
by the video camera located behind a robot
Description, Experiment and questionnaire
We made the subject enter the room and read a book
After finishing the reading, we made the subject turn
right, and see robot
The contents of talking is subject’s wish
図2:The space for the
experiment
６

12. Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
（3/5） Details
Workspace
自室を想定したスペース
被験者がロボットと目を合わせる瞬間の判定
手上げ動作タイミングの実測値Tsを測定
１台のビデオカメラを設置
被験者への説明、実験、および質問紙への回答
自宅で本を読むシチュエーション
読み終わったら右を振り向きロボットをみる
話しかけ内容は自由 図2:実験配置図
６
1. This experiment is performed in the situation
where the subject is present in a room
2. We made the subject enter the room, sit on a
chair and read a book.
3. After finishing the reading, we made the subject
turn right, and see robot
4. We made subject talk to the robot until a signal is
given; in order to confirm the speech
establishment.
5. The experiments are performed eight times

13. 1. Seven-steps of evaluation from 1 to 7
Make subject to evaluate each set by using questionnaire
Evaluation of easiness to talk
Difficult to talk(1点) － Flexible to talk (7点)
Evaluation of robot’s intentions
Robot doesn’t have any (1点) － Robot has some intensions(7点)
Doesn’t seems to listen(1点) － Robot seems to listen(7点)
Adjective pairs
Dislike(1点) － Like (7点)
Not Thoughtful (1点) － Thoughtful (7点)
Cold (1点) － Warm (7点)
Awkward (1点) － Smart (7点)
Insecure (1点) － Secure (7点)
Overbearing (1点) － Kind (7点)
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
（4/5） ～Impression Evaluation～
７

14. 1. Record reaction of subjects against to awareness motion by video.
2. Free description about the impression to robot
1. Made subjects to descript about impression to robot after the experiment
has done.
2. Made subjects to evaluate the intension observed from the robot.
Average and dispersion of each impression among subjects
Analysis
• Compare the impressions performed to ensure the robot’s awareness motion.
• Differentiation of the awareness motion timings recorded by the impressions
towards the robot.
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
（5/5） ～ Impression Evaluation ～
８

15. Results
(IMPRESSION EVALUATION EXPERIMENT)
The general impression
values were high near to
1.0[sec]
Focus on user’s
easiness to talk
We analyzed the result
based on actual Ts by
video.
９

16. The difference of “easiness to talk”
by doing or not doing awareness motion
Dunnett's test • Compare means between not doing and doing
awareness motion by each timing
• Distinct mean of doing motion each timing is higher
than that of NOT doing motion
Perform awareness motion until 0[sec] to 3[sec]
Significantly easy to talk.
Motion
Timing
0[sec] 0.5[sec] 1[sec] 1.5[sec] 2[sec] 2.5[sec] 3[sec] 3.5[sec]
５％
significa
nt
１％
significan
t
１％
significa
nt
１％
significant
１％
significa
nt
１％
significan
t
１％
significa
nt
no
significant
difference
Table： The difference of “easiness to talk” by doing or not doing awareness motion
10

17. The difference of “easiness to talk”
by each timing
Turkey-Kramer method
We were not able to confirm significant differences
Compare the means of every timing and
every other timing.
（sec＼sec）
Awareness Motion Timing
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
AwarenessMotionTiming
0.5 0.9849
1 0.4054 0.9560
1.5 1.0000 0.9697 0.2645
2 0.9994 0.9998 0.6226 0.9979
2.5 0.9909 1.0000 0.9020 0.9798 1.0000
3 1.0000 0.9936 0.4172 1.0000 0.9999 0.9968
3.5 0.9991 0.8567 0.1937 0.9992 0.9526 0.8794 0.9934
Table： P-value of Easiness to talk by each motion timing
If p<0.05,
the significance level is 5%
If p<0.01,
the significance level is 1%
P<0.25
P<0.50

18. The difference of ”Easiness to talk”
by subject groups
Graph: ”Easiness to talk” value by each subject groups
”Easiness to talk” is
changed by timing and
also changed by subjects
12
The easiness timing is
differ from subjects

19. Free describe～the impression to robot～
Not induce “the robot looks like ornament”（Type M）
“it is difficult to talking to the robot” （Type lower）
Induce
Awareness
Motion
1.0[sec] “The robot induce to talk if I hesitate to talking to” （Type lower）
“robot rises a hand before I started to talk”. （Type M）
1.5[sec] “it doesn’t make sense the relation between user’s action and robot’s
motion” （Type M）
2.5[sec] “the robot responses when I talk with it”, （Type higher）
“the robot induced to talk even I didn’t start talking”. （Type higher）
3.5[sec] “the timing is too slow”, “it is hard to talk”, （Type higher）
“robot interpret user’s talk” （Type higher）
13

20. Conclusion～Sensitivity Evaluation～
Dennett‘s test
Become easy to users to talk to the robot by using awareness motion
1.0[sec] ： user feel that a robot was induced to talk
It supports the study of previous research which “the impression about robot’s response time in
an interaction between human and robot become the highest when robot response 1 second
later, and the result doesn’t decrease monotonic”[2]
3.5[sec] ：the motion timing is so delayed that user doesn’t feel the motion as an
awareness motion
[2] Toshiyuki SHIWA, Takayuki KANDA, Michita IMAI, Hiroshi
ISHIGURO, Norihiro HAGITA and Yuichiro ANZAI, “How Quickly
Should Communication Robots Respond?,” Journal of the Robotics
Society of Japan, vol. 27, No.1, pp. 87-95, 2009.
Free description ：When subjects evaluate the impression, they set a
standard timing as the timing that they start to talk.
We investigate the relationship between the time subject start to talk
and their easiness to talk to robot

21. Outline
Conclusion
Ex Survey
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
Preceding Study
Introduction

22. Ex Survey
Proposal :Calculate the timing that subject start to talking to robot
It is difficult to measure this timing objectively （e.g. interjection）
Method :Show a video to subjects during the
experiment
Subjects :The subjects of experimental sensitivity evaluation were
15 persons (11 men, 4 woman)
• The relationship between awareness motion timing and the
timing subject start to talk
• The relationship between the time subject start to talk and
easiness to talk
Survey Contents
15

23. Ex Survey
(2/2)~term for “time subject start to talk”~
 We made Subjects talk to the robot (with the intension of talking)
 The subject’s feeling is decided from the first word spoken. It is
decided as, whether the subject is willing to “talk to robot or not’’
which is depends on subject’s first word spoken.
e.g. interjection 「aa」
Talk to
greet the
robot
aa
konnichiwa
16

24. aa…
konnichiwa
Thinking…
what to talk
Ex Survey
(2/2)~term for “time subject start to talk”~
 We made Subjects talk to the robot (with the intension of talking)
 The subject’s feeling is decided from the first word spoken. It is
decided as, whether the subject is willing to “talk to robot or not’’
which is depends on subject’s first word spoken.
e.g. interjection 「aa」

25. Ex Survey
Proposal :calculate the timing that subject start to talking to robot
It is difficult to measure the timing objectively （e.g. interjection）
Method :Show video to subjects during the
experiment
Subjects :The subjects of experimental sensitivity evaluation were
15 persons (11 men, 4 woman)
• The relationship between awareness motion timing and the
timing subject start to talk
• The relationship between the time subject start to talk and
easiness to talk
Survey Contents
15

26. Result ~the timing of talk and awareness
motion~
The period between
awareness motion to start
to talk time is short when
robot’s motion start late
回帰直線
17

27. Result~the timing of talk and easiness to talk~
The period between
awareness motion to start
to talk time is short when
value of easiness to talk is
high
Easiness to talk, become
higher when subject’s start to
talk and awareness motion is
closer回帰直線
18

28. Outline
Conclusion
Ex Survey
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
Preceding Study
Introduction

29. Conclusion
We have investigated an appropriate timing of robot’s
awareness motion, as the first step, to the development of a
robot which induce user’s action.
Experimental Sensitivity Evaluation
We have identified that user feel easy to talk to robot if the robot
performed 1.0 second after user see the robot by an experimental
sensitivity evaluation
Appropriate timing may differ by each user.
Future work
We intend to analyze by user’s attribute such as social roles and
personality
19

31. How Quickly
Should Communication Robots Respond?
Method ：Make subject talk with robot
Robot ：Robovie
Conditions ：Control robot’s reaction time（０sec,1sec,2sec,3sec）
Evaluation ：Subject’s Like（1. very bad～7.very good）
： questionnaire
Result
The impression about robot’s response time in
an interaction between human and robot become
the highest when robot response 1 second later
The impression decrease monotonic
more than 2 second later
Subject’sLike
[2] Toshiyuki SHIWA, Takayuki KANDA, Michita IMAI, Hiroshi ISHIGURO, Norihiro HAGITA and Yuichiro ANZAI,
“How Quickly Should Communication Robots Respond?,” Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, vol. 27, No.1, pp. 87-95, 2009.
Robovie[2]

32. The importance that robot induce action of
people
Problem：It is necessary for people to have an action for robot’s
appropriate reaction.
The factors interfere action of people
Appearance of robot (e.g. It doesn’t seem to working)
Characteristic of people (e.g. people who is passive, who never have
communicated with any robot.)
Avoid the interfere action of people by physical interaction without
changing of robot’s appearance［1］
[1]Takafumi Sakamoto and Yugo Takeuchi: Model of Agency Cognition through Embodied Interaction The 29th Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for
Artificial Intelligence, pp.201--297, 2015.

33. 事後調査-被験者アンケート(15名)
話しかけやすい/好き なタイミングは何回目ですか
話しかけやすい/好き なタイミングは違いますか
同じ(11名) -9名が評価実験での評価と一致(プラス1名は次点)
異なる(3名)-2名が評価実験での評価と一致
-印象評価値に反映されていたのは好き1名/話し1名
一致しなかった2名の被験者は全ての評価値が低い
被験者に実験中の映像をみせ評価させる
実験中の映像は自由に何度でも見返すことが可能

34. 事後調査考察
被験者が各自にとって最適なタイミングがある可能性
印象評価値で有用な結果は得られなかった．