对多用户交错任务机器人的看法

IF 4.2 Q2 ROBOTICS
Elizabeth J. Carter, Peerat Vichivanives, Ruijia Xing, Laura M. Hiatt, Stephanie Rosenthal
{"title":"对多用户交错任务机器人的看法","authors":"Elizabeth J. Carter, Peerat Vichivanives, Ruijia Xing, Laura M. Hiatt, Stephanie Rosenthal","doi":"10.1145/3663486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When robots have multiple tasks to perform, they must determine the order in which to complete them. Interleaving tasks is efficient for the robot trying to finish its to-do list, but it may be less satisfying for a human whose request was delayed in favor of schedule efficiency. Following online research that examined delays with various motivations [4, 27], we created two in-person studies in which participants’ tasks were impacted by the robot’s other tasks. In the first, participants either requested a task for the robot to complete on their behalf or watched the robot performing tasks for other people. We measured how their opinions changed depending on whether their task’s completion was delayed due to another participant’s task or they were observing without a task of their own. In the second, participants had a robot walk them to an office and became delayed as the robot detoured to another location. We measured how opinions of the robot changed depending on who requested the detour task and the length of the detour. Overall, participants positively viewed task interleaving as long as the delay and inconvenience imposed by someone else’s task were small and the task was well-justified. Also, observers often had lower opinions of the robot than participants who requested tasks, highlighting a concern for online research.","PeriodicalId":36515,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of a Robot that Interleaves Tasks for Multiple Users\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth J. Carter, Peerat Vichivanives, Ruijia Xing, Laura M. Hiatt, Stephanie Rosenthal\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3663486\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When robots have multiple tasks to perform, they must determine the order in which to complete them. Interleaving tasks is efficient for the robot trying to finish its to-do list, but it may be less satisfying for a human whose request was delayed in favor of schedule efficiency. Following online research that examined delays with various motivations [4, 27], we created two in-person studies in which participants’ tasks were impacted by the robot’s other tasks. In the first, participants either requested a task for the robot to complete on their behalf or watched the robot performing tasks for other people. We measured how their opinions changed depending on whether their task’s completion was delayed due to another participant’s task or they were observing without a task of their own. In the second, participants had a robot walk them to an office and became delayed as the robot detoured to another location. We measured how opinions of the robot changed depending on who requested the detour task and the length of the detour. Overall, participants positively viewed task interleaving as long as the delay and inconvenience imposed by someone else’s task were small and the task was well-justified. Also, observers often had lower opinions of the robot than participants who requested tasks, highlighting a concern for online research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3663486\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ROBOTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3663486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ROBOTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当机器人需要执行多项任务时,它们必须确定完成任务的顺序。对于试图完成待办事项清单的机器人来说,交错完成任务是高效的,但对于为了提高日程效率而延迟完成任务的人类来说,这可能就不那么令人满意了。根据对各种延迟动机的在线研究[4, 27],我们进行了两项面对面的研究,在这些研究中,参与者的任务会受到机器人其他任务的影响。在第一项研究中,参与者要么要求机器人代表他们完成一项任务,要么观看机器人为其他人执行任务。我们根据参与者的任务是否因其他参与者的任务而延迟完成,或者他们是在没有自己的任务的情况下进行观察,来衡量他们的意见是如何变化的。在第二项任务中,参与者让机器人送他们去办公室,但由于机器人绕道到了另一个地方,他们的时间被耽搁了。我们根据要求绕道任务的人和绕道时间的长短来衡量参与者对机器人看法的变化。总的来说,只要别人的任务造成的延误和不便较小,而且任务理由充分,参与者就会积极看待任务交错。此外,观察者对机器人的评价往往低于提出任务要求的参与者,这也是在线研究中需要关注的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceptions of a Robot that Interleaves Tasks for Multiple Users
When robots have multiple tasks to perform, they must determine the order in which to complete them. Interleaving tasks is efficient for the robot trying to finish its to-do list, but it may be less satisfying for a human whose request was delayed in favor of schedule efficiency. Following online research that examined delays with various motivations [4, 27], we created two in-person studies in which participants’ tasks were impacted by the robot’s other tasks. In the first, participants either requested a task for the robot to complete on their behalf or watched the robot performing tasks for other people. We measured how their opinions changed depending on whether their task’s completion was delayed due to another participant’s task or they were observing without a task of their own. In the second, participants had a robot walk them to an office and became delayed as the robot detoured to another location. We measured how opinions of the robot changed depending on who requested the detour task and the length of the detour. Overall, participants positively viewed task interleaving as long as the delay and inconvenience imposed by someone else’s task were small and the task was well-justified. Also, observers often had lower opinions of the robot than participants who requested tasks, highlighting a concern for online research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction Computer Science-Artificial Intelligence
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) is a prestigious Gold Open Access journal that aspires to lead the field of human-robot interaction as a top-tier, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary publication. The journal prioritizes articles that significantly contribute to the current state of the art, enhance overall knowledge, have a broad appeal, and are accessible to a diverse audience. Submissions are expected to meet a high scholarly standard, and authors are encouraged to ensure their research is well-presented, advancing the understanding of human-robot interaction, adding cutting-edge or general insights to the field, or challenging current perspectives in this research domain. THRI warmly invites well-crafted paper submissions from a variety of disciplines, encompassing robotics, computer science, engineering, design, and the behavioral and social sciences. The scholarly articles published in THRI may cover a range of topics such as the nature of human interactions with robots and robotic technologies, methods to enhance or enable novel forms of interaction, and the societal or organizational impacts of these interactions. The editorial team is also keen on receiving proposals for special issues that focus on specific technical challenges or that apply human-robot interaction research to further areas like social computing, consumer behavior, health, and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信