short-paper

Open access

Keep your Distance! Assessing Proxemics to Virtual Robots by Caregivers

Authors:

Linda OnnaschAuthors Info & Claims

HRI '23: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Pages 193 - 197

https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580070

Published: 13 March 2023 Publication History

Abstract

To maintain safety, ensure a positive user experience, and guarantee long-term use, robots must follow the established conventions of caregivers and residents in healthcare settings. To investigate which interpersonal distance conventions are expected from robots in care facilities, caregivers' perceptions and preferred robot distances were tested in a virtual environment. With a within-design the participants' position (sitting/standing) and the robot's speed (0.3/0.8/1.4 m/s) were varied. The slower the robot moved, the shorter the preferred distance of the robot was and the more comfortable and safer caregivers felt. In addition, the robot was allowed to move closer when participants were standing, but no subjective difference was found between sitting and standing conditions. Although control variables did not influence the preferred distances, results suggest that participants' height becomes relevant at higher speed conditions. This study can be used to derive concrete proximity regulations for the use of robots in care facilities.

References

[1]

Adrian Ball, David Rye, David Silvera-Tawil, and Mari Velonaki. 2015. Group Vs. Individual Comfort When a Robot Approaches. Int. Conf. Soc. Robot. (October 2015), 41--50.

Digital Library

[2]

Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kuli?, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 1 (January 2009), 71--81.

[3]

Tony Belpaeme, James Kennedy, Aditi Ramachandran, Brian Scassellati, and Fumihide Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review. Sci. Robot. 3, 21 (August 2018), eaat5954.

[4]

Christopher Brandl, Alexander Mertens, and Christopher M. Schlick. 2016. Human-Robot Interaction in Assisted Personal Services: Factors Influencing Distances That Humans Will Accept between Themselves and an Approaching Service Robot: Human-Robot Interaction in Assisted Personal Services. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 26, 6 (November 2016), 713--727.

Digital Library

[5]

J. Broekens, M. Heerink, and H. Rosendal. 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8, 2 (April 2009), 94--103.

[6]

John Travis Butler and Arvin Agah. 2001. Psychological Effects of Behavior Patterns of a Mobile Personal Robot. Auton. Robots 10, 2 (March 2001), 185--202.

Digital Library

[7]

Juan Miguel Garcia-Haro, Edwin Daniel Oña, Juan Hernandez-Vicen, Santiago Martinez, and Carlos Balaguer. 2021. Service Robots in Catering Applications: A Review and Future Challenges. Electronics 10, 1 (2021), 47.

[8]

Edward T. Hall. 1966. The hidden dimension. Anchor Books, New York.

[9]

Hans-Martin Hasselhorn (Ed.). 2005. Berufsausstieg bei Pflegepersonal: Arbeitsbedingungen und beabsichtigter Berufsausstieg bei Pflegepersonal in Deutschland und Europa. Wirtschaftsverl. NW, Bremerhaven.

[10]

Alfred Häussl, Eva Ehmann, Angelika Pacher, Katrin Knödl, Teresa Huber, Lydia Neundlinger, Asmir Osmanovic, Anja Plank?Straner, Petra Walter, Sandra Schüssler, and Daniela Schoberer. 2021. Psychological, physical, and social effects of the COVID?19 pandemic on hospital nurses. Int. Nurs. Rev. 68, 4 (December 2021), 482--492.

[11]

Helge Hüttenrauch, Kerstin Eklundh, Anders Green, and Elin Topp. 2006. Investigating Spatial Relationships in Human-Robot Interaction. In 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, Beijing, China, 5052--5059.

[12]

Zeashan Hameed Khan, Afifa Siddique, and Chang Won Lee. 2020. Robotics Utilization for Healthcare Digitization in Global COVID-19 Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 17, 11 (May 2020), 3819.

[13]

Kim Klüber and Linda Onnasch. 2022. When Robots Fail-A VR Investigation on Caregivers' Tolerance towards Communication and Processing Failures. Robotics 11, 5 (October 2022), 106.

[14]

Moritz Körber. 2018. Theoretical considerations and development of a questionnaire to measure trust in automation. In Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Springer, 13--30.

[15]

Rui Li, Marc van Almkerk, Sanne van Waveren, Elizabeth Carter, and Iolanda Leite. 2019. Comparing Human-Robot Proxemics Between Virtual Reality and the Real World. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, Daegu, Korea (South), 431--439.

[16]

Keith R. MacArthur, Kimberly Stowers, and P. A. Hancock. 2017. Human-Robot Interaction: Proximity and Speed-Slowly Back Away from the Robot! In Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, Pamela Savage-Knepshield and Jessie Chen (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 365--374.

[17]

Mohammad Obaid, Eduardo B. Sandoval, Jakub Zlotowski, Elena Moltchanova, Christina A. Basedow, and Christoph Bartneck. 2016. Stop! That is close enough. How body postures influence human-robot proximity. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 354--361.

Digital Library

[18]

Irena Papadopoulos, Christina Koulouglioti, and Sheila Ali. 2018. Views of nurses and other health and social care workers on the use of assistive humanoid and animal-like robots in health and social care: a scoping review. Contemp. Nurse 54, 4-5 (July 2018), 425--442.

[19]

Matteo Rubagotti, Inara Tusseyeva, Sara Baltabayeva, Danna Summers, and Anara Sandygulova. 2021. Perceived Safety in Physical Human Robot Interaction -- A Survey. Robot. Auton. Syst. (May 2021).

Digital Library

[20]

S. M. Bhagya P. Samarakoon, M. A. Viraj J. Muthugala, and A. G. Buddhika P. Jayasekara. 2022. A Review on Human--Robot Proxemics. Electronics 11, 16 (August 2022), 2490.

[21]

Thomas Schubert, Frank Friedmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2001. The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 10, 3 (June 2001), 266--281.

Digital Library

[22]

Statistisches Bundesamt. 2019. Pflegestatistik. Retrieved November 18, 2022 from https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/themen/pflege/pflegekraefte/beschaeftigte.html

[23]

Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, and Michael L Walters. 2009. The Negative Attitudes towards Robots Scale and Reactions to Robot Behaviour in a Live Human-Robot Interaction Study. Adapt. Emergent Behav. Complex Syst. (2009), 7.

[24]

M. L. Walters, D. S. Syrdal, K. L. Koay, K. Dautenhahn, and R. te Boekhorst. 2008. Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, Munich, Germany, 707--712.

[25]

Michael L Walters, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Chrystopher L Nehaniv. 2009. An Empirical Framework for Human-Robot Proxemics. Procs New Front. Hum.-Robot Interact. (2009), 6.

[26]

Michael L Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, Sarah N. Woods, Dag Sverre Syrdal, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Robot to Human Approaches: Preliminary Results on Comfortable Distances and Preferences. AAAI Spring Symp. Multidiscip. Collab. Socially Assist. Robot. (2007), 7.

[27]

M.L. Walters, K. Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, C. Kaouri, R. Boekhorst, C. Nehaniv, I. Werry, and D. Lee. 2005. Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. In 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2005., IEEE, San Diego, Cali, USA, 450--455.

[28]

Vincent Weistroffer, Alexis Paljic, Philippe Fuchs, Olivier Hugues, Jean-Paul Chodacki, Pascal Ligot, and Alexandre Morais. 2014. Assessing the acceptability of human-robot co-presence on assembly lines: A comparison between actual situations and their virtual reality counterparts. In The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, Edinburgh, UK, 377--384.

[29]

Jingxin Zhang, Omar Janeh, Nikolaos Katzakis, Dennis Krupke, and Frank Steinicke. 2019. Evaluation of Proxemics in Dynamic Interaction with a Mixed Reality Avatar Robot. ICAT-EGVE 2019 - Int. Conf. Artif. Real. Telexistence Eurographics Symp. Virtual Environ. (2019), 8 pages.

Cited By

Agrawal SWessels Mde Heuvel JKraus JBennewitz M(2024)Sound Matters: Auditory Detectability of Mobile Robots2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731238(2233-2239)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731238
Merdin-Uygur EOzturkcan S(2024)The robot saw it coming: physical human interference, deservingness, and self-efficacy in service robot failuresBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2024.2351195(1-20)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2351195
Brument HDe Pace FPodkosova I(2024)Does mixed reality influence joint action? Impact of the mixed reality setup on users’ behavior and spatial interactionJournal on Multimodal User Interfaces10.1007/s12193-024-00445-wOnline publication date: 6-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-024-00445-w
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Keep your Distance! Assessing Proxemics to Virtual Robots by Caregivers
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Interaction paradigms
      1. Virtual reality

Recommendations

Comparing human-robot proxemics between virtual reality and the real world
HRI '19: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Virtual Reality (VR) can greatly benefit Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) as a tool to effectively iterate across robot designs. However, possible system limitations of VR could influence the results such that they do not fully reflect real-life encounters ...
Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction
HRI '11: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction

To seamlessly integrate into the human physical and social environment, robots must display appropriate proxemic behavior - that is, follow societal norms in establishing their physical and psychological distancing with people. Social-scientific ...
The impact of intergroup bias on trust and approach behaviour towards a humanoid robot

As robots become commonplace, and for successful human-robot interaction to occur, people will need to trust them. Two experiments were conducted using the "minimal group paradigm" to explore whether social identity theory influences trust formation and ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

HRI '23: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 2023

612 pages

ISBN:9781450399708

DOI:10.1145/3568294

General Chairs:
Ginevra Castellano
Uppsala University, Sweden
,
Laurel Riek
University of California San Diego, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Maya Cakmak
University of Washington, USA
,
Iolanda Leite
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 March 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper

Funding Sources

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

Conference

HRI '23

Sponsor:

HRI '23: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 13 - 16, 2023

Stockholm, Sweden

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

HRI '25

Sponsor:
sigai
sigai

ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 4 - 6, 2025

Melbourne , VIC , Australia

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
268
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)132
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23

Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Agrawal SWessels Mde Heuvel JKraus JBennewitz M(2024)Sound Matters: Auditory Detectability of Mobile Robots2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731238(2233-2239)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731238
Merdin-Uygur EOzturkcan S(2024)The robot saw it coming: physical human interference, deservingness, and self-efficacy in service robot failuresBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2024.2351195(1-20)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2351195
Brument HDe Pace FPodkosova I(2024)Does mixed reality influence joint action? Impact of the mixed reality setup on users’ behavior and spatial interactionJournal on Multimodal User Interfaces10.1007/s12193-024-00445-wOnline publication date: 6-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-024-00445-w
Podkosova IDe Pace FBrument H(2023)Joint Action in Collaborative Mixed Reality: Effects of Immersion Type and Physical LocationProceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction10.1145/3607822.3614541(1-12)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3607822.3614541

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten