Human-Like Movements of Industrial Robots Positively Impact Observer Perception

IFR: Executive Summary WR 2021—Service Robots (2021). https://ifr.org/img/worldrobotics/Executive_Summary_WR_Service_Robots_2021.pdf IFR: Executive Summary WR 2021 Industrial Robots (2021). https://ifr.org/img/worldrobotics/Executive_Summary_WR_Industrial_Robots_2021.pdf Eimontaite I, Jaksic C, Fletcher S, Johnson T, Oostveen A-M (2020) Will operators work in close proximity to industrial robots? A study of acceptance using psychological and physiological responses. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3718020 Weiss A, Wortmeier AK, Kubicek B (2021) Cobots in Industry 4.0: a roadmap for future practice studies on human–robot collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3092684 Lotz V, Himmel S, Ziefle M (2019) You’re my mate-acceptance factors for human–robot collaboration in industry. In: International conference on competitive manufacturing. Stellenbosch, South Africa (February) Kuz S, Mayer MP, Müller S, Schlick CM (2013) Using anthropomorphism to improve the human–machine interaction in industrial environments (Part I). In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 8026. LNCS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39182-8_9 Elprama SA, Makrini IE, Vanderborght B, Jacobs A (2016) Acceptance of collaborative robots by factory workers: a pilot study on the importance of social cues of anthropomorphic robots. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN) Hostettler D (2022) Increasing the acceptance of industrial robots by adapting movement behavior to individual user differences, manuscript submitted for publication. In: CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503812 Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2013) To Err is human(-like): effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. Int J Soc Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0196-9 Admoni H, Scassellati B (2017) Social eye gaze in human–robot interaction: a review. J Hum Robot Interact 6(1):25. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.6.1.admoni Manzi F, Ishikawa M, Dio CD, Itakura S, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Massaro D, Marchetti A (2020) The understanding of congruent and incongruent referential gaze in 17-month-old infants: an eye-tracking study comparing human and robot. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69140-6 Kuz S, Heinicke A, Schwichtenhoevel D, Mayer MP, Schlick CM (2012) The effect of anthropomorphic movements of assembly robots on human prediction. In: Advances in ergonomics in manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12322 Brecher C, Müller S, Kuz S, Lohse W (2013) Towards anthropomorphic movements for industrial robots. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 8026. LNCS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39182-8_2 Dragan AD, Lee KCT, Srinivasa SS (2013) Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In: ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483603 Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media Klowait N (2018) The quest for appropriate models of human-likeness: anthropomorphism in media equation research. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0746-z Ruijten PAM, Bouten DHL, Rouschop DCJ, Ham J, Midden CJH (2014) Introducing a Rasch-type anthropomorphism scale. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559825 Airenti G (2018) The development of anthropomorphism in interaction: intersubjectivity, imagination, and theory of mind. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02136 Mohammad Y, Nishida T (2014) Human-like motion of a humanoid in a shadowing task. In: 2014 International conference on collaboration technologies and systems, CTS 2014 . https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2014.6867553 Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 Waytz A, Gray K, Epley N, Wegner DM (2010) Causes and consequences of mind perception. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475 Koda T, Maes P (1996) Agents with faces: the effect of personification. In: Robot and human communication—proceedings of the IEEE international workshop. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.1996.568812 Powers A, Kiesler S (2006) The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: HRI 2006: proceedings of the 2006 ACM conference on human–robot interaction, vol 2006 Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction in a collaborative task. Hum Comput Interact 19(1):151–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901 &2_7 Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2008) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’09. https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514158 Stern DN (2010) Forms of vitality: exploring dynamic experience in psychology, the arts, psychotherapy, and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199586066.001.0001 Di Cesare G, De Stefani E, Gentilucci M, De Marco D (2017) Vitality forms expressed by others modulate our own motor response: a kinematic study. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00565 Kupferberg A, Glasauer S, Huber M, Rickert M, Knoll A, Brandt T (2011) Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0314-2 Cesare G, Di Dio C, Rochat M, Sinigaglia C, Bruschweiler-Stern N, Stern D, Rizzolatti G (2013) The neural correlates of ‘vitality form’ recognition: an fMRI study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst068 Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 Manzi F, Peretti G, Dio CD, Cangelosi A, Itakura S, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Massaro D, Marchetti A (2020) A robot is not worth another: exploring children’s mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02011 Robert LP, Alahmad R, Esterwood C, Zhang Q (2020) A review of personality in human–robot interactions foundations and trends® in information systems. Found Trends® Inf Syst Onnasch L, Hildebrandt CL (2021) Impact of anthropomorphic robot design on trust and attention in industrial human–robot interaction. J Hum Robot Interact. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472224 Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics Autom Mag 19(2):98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 Marchetti A, Manzi F, Itakura S, Massaro D (2018) Theory of mind and humanoid robots from a lifespan perspective. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/J Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000326 Broadbent E, Kumar V, Li X, Sollers J, Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Wegner DM (2013) Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072589 Phillips E, Zhao X, Ullman D, Malle BF (2018) What is human-like?: decomposing robots’ human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) database. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171268 Pelachaud C (2009) Studies on gesture expressivity for a virtual agent. Speech Commun 51(7):630–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2008.04.009 Castro-González Á, Admoni H, Scassellati B (2016) Effects of form and motion on judgments of social robots’ animacy, likability, trustworthiness and unpleasantness. Int J Hum Comput Stud. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.02.004 Mainprice J, Sisbot E.A, Sim T (2010) Planning safe and legible hand-over motions for human–robot interaction. In: IARP, workshop on technical challenges for dependable robots in human environments Dehais F, Sisbot EA, Alami R, Causse M (2011) Physiological and subjective evaluation of a human–robot object hand-over task. Appl Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.12.005 Bestick A, Pandya R, Bajcsy R, Dragan AD (2018) Learning human ergonomic preferences for handovers. In: Proceedings—IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2018.8461216 Bortot D, Born M, Bengler K (2013) Directly or on detours? How should industrial robots approximate humans? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483515 Złotowski J, Sumioka H, Nishio S, Glas DF, Bartneck C, Ishiguro H (2016) Appearance of a robot affects the impact of its behaviour on perceived trustworthiness and empathy. Paladyn. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2016-0005 Zanatto D, Patacchiola M, Goslin J, Cangelosi A (2016) Priming anthropomorphism: can the credibility of humanlike robots be transferred to non-humanlike robots? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, vol 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451847 Wang X, Krumhuber EG (2018) Mind perception of robots varies with their economic versus social function. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01230 Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005 Sarsam SM, Al-Samarraie H (2018) Towards incorporating personality into the design of an interface: a method for facilitating users’ interaction with the display. User Model User Adapt Interact 28(1):75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9201-1 Ullrich D (2017) Robot personality insights. Designing suitable robot personalities for different domains. i-com 16(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2017-0003 Craenen BGW, Deshmukh A, Foster ME, Vinciarelli A (2018) Shaping gestures to shape personality: big-five traits, godspeed scores and the similarity-attraction effect. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. AAMAS’18. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, pp 2221–2223 Abatecola G, Mandarelli G, Poggesi S (2013) The personality factor: how top management teams make decisions. A literature review. J Manag Gov 17:1073–1100 Rossi A, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2018) The impact of peoples’ personal dispositions and personalities on their trust of robots in an emergency scenario. Paladyn J Behav Robotics 9(1):137–154. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2018-0010 Rossi S, Conti D, Garramone F, Santangelo G, Staffa M, Varrasi S, Di Nuovo A (2020) The role of personality factors and empathy in the acceptance and performance of a social robot for psychometric evaluations. Robotics 9(2):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/ROBOTICS9020039 Andriella A, Siqueira H, Fu D, Magg S, Barros P, Wermter S, Torras C, Alenyà G (2020) Do I Have a Personality? Endowing care robots with context-dependent personality traits. Int J Soc Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00690-5 Bishop L, Van Maris A, Dogramadzi S, Zook N (2019) Social robots: the influence of human and robot characteristics on acceptance. Paladyn. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0028 Abel M, Kuz S, Patel HJ, Petruck H, Schlick CM, Pellicano A, Binkofski FC (2020) Gender effects in observation of robotic and humanoid actions. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00797 Szczepanowski R, Cichoń E, Arent K, Sobecki J, Styrkowiec P, Florkowski M, Gakis M (2020) Education biases perception of social robots. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2020.100521 Dinet J, Vivian R (2014) Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Travail Humain. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.772.0105 Ivanov S, Webster C, Seyyedi P (2018) Consumers’ attitudes towards the introduction of robots in accommodation establishments. Tourism 63:302–317 Müller SL, Richert A (2018) The big-five personality dimensions and attitudes to-wards robots: a cross sectional study. In: Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments conference. PETRA’18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 405–408. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197768.3203178 Kuz S, Faber M, Bützler J, Mayer M, Schlick C (2014) Anthropomorphic design of human–robot interaction in assembly cells Walters M, Koay K, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2007) Robot to human approaches: preliminary results on comfortable distances and preferences, p 103 Riggio RE, Friedman HS (1986) Impression formation. The role of expressive behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(2):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.421 Neff M, Wang Y, Abbott R, Walker M (2010) Evaluating the effect of gesture and language on personality perception in conversational agents. In: Intelligent virtual agents, 10th international conference Windhouwer D (2012) The effects of the task context on the perceived personality of a Nao robot Charness G, Gneezy U, Kuhn MA (2012) Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J Econ Behav Organ 81(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009 Prati E, Peruzzini M, Pellicciari M, Raffaeli R (2021) How to include user experience in the design of human–robot interaction. Robotics Comput Integr Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102072 Weiss A, Wortmeier AK, Kubicek B (2021) Cobots in industry 4.0: a roadmap for future practice studies on human–robot collaboration. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3092684 The Manufacturing Institute, APICS Supply Chain Council, and Deloitte (2015): Minding the manufacturing gender gap—how manufacturers can get their fair share of talented women, retrieved Aug 08, 2022. Technical report, Deloitte (2015) Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3):425–478 Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robotics 2(4):361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5 Weiss A, Wien TU, Bernhaupt R, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) The USUS evaluation framework for human–robot interaction SmartWebGrid view project the USUS evaluation framework for human–robot interaction. In: Artificial intelligence and simulation of behaviour, pp 158–165