This paper describes an open source speech translator toolkit created as part of the "Survivor Buddy" project which allows written or spoken word from multiple independent controllers to be translated into either a single synthetic voice, synthetic voices for each controller, or unchanged natural voice of each controller. The human controllers can work over the internet or be physically co-located with the Survivor Buddy. The toolkit is expected to be of use for exploring voice in general human-robot interaction.

As their abilities improve, robots will be placed in roles of greater responsibility and specialization. In these contexts, robots may attribute blame to humans in order to identify problems and help humans make sense of complex information. In a between-participants experiment with a single factor (blame target) and three levels (human blame vs. team blame vs. self blame) participants interacted with a robot in a learning context, teaching it their personal preferences. The robot performed poorly, then attributed blame to either the human, the team, or itself. Participants demonstrated a powerful and consistent negative response to the human-blaming robot. Participants preferred the self-blaming robot over both the human and team blame robots. Implications for theory and design are discussed.

This paper describes the Survivor Buddy human-robot interaction project and how it was used by four middle-school girls to illustrate the scientific process for an episode of "SciGirls", a Public Broadcast System science reality show. Survivor Buddy is a four degree of freedom robot head, with the face being a MIMO 740 multi-media touch screen monitor. It is being used to explore consistency and trust in the use of robots as social mediums, where robots serve as intermediaries between dependents (e.g., trapped survivors) and the outside world (doctors, rescuers, family members). While the SciGirl experimentation was neither statistically significant nor rigorously controlled, the experience makes three contributions. It introduces the Survivor Buddy project and social medium role, it illustrates that human-robot interaction is an appealing way to make robotics more accessible to the general public, and raises interesting questions about the existence of a minimum set of degrees of freedom for sufficient expressiveness, the relative importance of voice versus non-verbal affect, and the range and intensity of robot motions.

As computational agents become more sophisticated, it will frequently be necessary for the agents to disagree with users. In these cases, it might be useful for the agent to use politeness strategies that defuse the person's frustrations and preserve the human-computer relationship. One such strategy is distancing, which we implemented by spatially distancing an agent's voice from its body. In a 2 (agent disagreement: none vs. some) x 2 (agent voice location: on robotic body vs. in control box) between-participants experiment, we studied the effects of agent disagreement and agent voice location in a collaborative human-agent desert survival task (N=40). People changed their answers more often when agents disagreed with them and felt more similar to agents that always agreed with them, even when substantive content was identical. Strikingly, people felt more positively toward the disagreeing agent whose voice came from a separate control box rather than from its body; for agreement, the body-attached voice was preferred.

As robots become more pervasive, operators will develop richer relationships with them. In a 2 (robot form: humanoid vs. car) x 2 (assembler: self vs. other) between-participants experiment (N=56), participants assembled either a humanoid or car robot. Participants then used, in the context of a game, either the robot they built or a different robot. Participants showed greater extension of their self-concept into the car robot and preferred the personality of the car robot over the humanoid robot. People showed greater self extension into a robot and preferred the personality of the robot they assembled over a robot they believed to be assembled by another. Implications for the theory and design of robots and human-robot interaction are discussed.