We present a novel integration between a computational framework for modeling attention-driven perception and cognition (ARCADIA) with a cognitive robotic architecture (DIARC), demonstrating how this integration can be used to drive the gaze behavior of a robotic platform. Although some previous approaches to controlling gaze behavior in robots during human-robot interactions have relied either on models of human visual attention or human cognition, ARCADIA provides a novel framework with an attentional mechanism that bridges both lower-level visual and higher-level cognitive processes. We demonstrate how this approach can produce more natural and human-like robot gaze behavior. In particular, we focus on how our approach can control gaze during an interactive object learning task. We present results from a pilot crowdsourced evaluation that investigates whether the gaze behavior produced during this task increases confidence that the robot has correctly learned each object.

Potential applications of robots in private and public human spaces have prompted the design of so-called “social robots” that can interact with humans in social settings and potentially cause humans to attach to the robots. The focus of this article is an analysis of possible benefits and challenges arising from such human-robot attachment as reported in the HRI literature, followed by guidelines for the use and the design of robots that might elicit attachment bonds. We start by analyzing the potential benefits for humans becoming attached to robots, which might include increased natural interaction, effectiveness and acceptance of the robot, social companionship, and well-being for the human. Turning to the potential risks associated with human-robot attachment, we discuss the possibly suboptimal use of the robot in the most benign cases, but also the potential formation of unidirectional emotional bonds, and the potential for deception and subconscious influence of the robot on the person in more severe cases. The upshot of the analysis then is a recommendation to reconceptualize relationships with social robots in an attempt to retain potential benefits of human-robot attachment, while mitigating (to the extent possible) its downsides.

Much research effort in HRI has focused on how to enable robots to learn new skills from observations, demonstrations, and instructions. Less work, however, has focused on how skills can be corrected if they were learned incorrectly, adapted to changing circumstances, or generalized/specialized to different contexts. In this paper, a skill modification framework is introduced that allows users to modify a robot’s stored skills quickly through instructions to (1) reduce inefficiencies, (2) fix errors, and (3) enable generalizations, all in a way for modified skills to be immediately available for task performance. A thorough evaluation of the implemented framework shows the operation of the algorithms integrated in a cognitive robotic architecture on different fully autonomous robots in various HRI case studies. An additional online HRI user study verifies that subjects prefer to quickly modify robot knowledge in the way we proposed in the framework.

Trust in human-robot interactions (HRI) is measured in two main ways: through subjective questionnaires and through behavioral tasks. To optimize measurements of trust through questionnaires, the field of HRI faces two challenges: the development of standardized measures that apply to a variety of robots with different capabilities, and the exploration of social and relational dimensions of trust in robots (e.g., benevolence). In this paper we look at how different trust questionnaires (Lyons & Guznov, 2019; Schaefer, 2016; Ullman & Malle, 2018) fare given these challenges that pull in different directions (being general vs. being exploratory) by studying whether people think the items in these questionnaires are applicable to different kinds of robots and interactions. In Study 1 we show that after being presented with a robot (non-humanoid) and an interaction scenario (fire evacuation), participants rated multiple questionnaire items such as "This robot is principled" as "Non-applicable to robots in general" or "Non-applicable to this robot." In Study 2 we show that the frequency of these ratings change (indeed, even for items rated as N/A to robots in general) when a new scenario is presented (game playing with a humanoid robot). Finally, while overall trust scores remained robust to N/A ratings, our results revealed potential fallacies in the way these scores are commonly interpreted. We conclude with recommendations for the development, use and results-reporting of trust questionnaires for future studies, as well as theoretical implications for the field of HRI.

Robots are machines and as such do not have gender. However, many of the gender-related perceptions and expectations formed in human-human interactions may be inadvertently and unreasonably transferred to interactions with social robots. In this paper, we investigate how gender effects in people's perception of robots and humans depend on their emotional intelligence (EI), a crucial component of successful human social interactions. Our results show that participants perceive different levels of EI in robots just as they do in humans. Also, their EI perceptions are affected by gender-related expectations both when judging humans and when judging robots with minimal gender markers, such as voice or even just a name. We discuss the implications for human-robot interactions (HRI) and propose further explorations of EI for future HRI studies.

We present an approach to generating natural language justifications of decisions derived from norm-based reasoning.Assuming an agent which maximally satisfies a set of rules specified in an object-oriented temporal logic, the user can ask factual questions (about the agent's rules, actions, and the extent to which the agent violated the rules) as well as "why" questions that require the agent comparing actual behavior to counterfactual trajectories with respect to these rules.To produce natural-sounding explanations, we focus on the subproblem of producing natural language clauses from statements in a fragment of temporal logic, and then describe how to embed these clauses into explanatory sentences.We use a human judgment evaluation on a testbed task to compare our approach to variants in terms of intelligibility, mental model and perceived trust.