Multi-robot cooperative behavior for reducing unnaturalness of starting a conversation

References

• Burgard W, Cremers AB, Fox D, et al. Experiences with an interactive museum tour-guide robot. Artif Intell. 1999;114(1–2):3–55. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00070-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thrun S, Bennewitz M, Burgard W, et al. Minerva: a second-generation museum tour-guide robot. In: Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 99CH36288C); Vol. 3. IEEE; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Siegwart R, Arras KO, Bouabdallah S, et al. Robox at expo. 02: a large-scale installation of personal robots. Rob Auton Syst. 2003;42(3–4):203–222. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00376-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gockley R, Bruce A, Forlizzi J, et al. Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; IEEE; 2005. p. 1338–1343.
   Google Scholar
• Gross HM, Boehme HJ, Schröter C, et al. Shopbot: progress in developing an interactive mobile shopping assistant for everyday use. In: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics; IEEE; 2008. p. 3471–3478.
   Google Scholar
• Shiomi M, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, et al. A semi-autonomous communication robot: a field trial at a train station. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Amsterdam The Netherlands; 2008. p. 303–310.
   Google Scholar
• Kanda T, Shiomi M, Miyashita Z, et al. A communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Trans Robot. 2010;26(5):897–913. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2010.2062550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin C.. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociol Inq. 1980;50(3–4):272–302. doi: 10.1111/soin.1980.50.issue-3-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidner CL, Kidd CD, Lee C, et al. Where to look: a study of human–robot engagement. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal; 2004. p. 78–84.
   Google Scholar
• Nakano YI, Ishii R. Estimating user's engagement from eye-gaze behaviors in human–agent conversations. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference On Intelligent User Interfaces, Hong Kong, China; 2010. p. 139–148.
   Google Scholar
• Yamazaki K, Kawashima M, Kuno Y, et al. Prior-to-request and request behaviors within elderly day care: implications for developing service robots for use in multiparty settings. In: ECSCW 2007: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Limerick, Ireland, 24–28 Sept 2007; Springer; 2007. p. 61–78.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstrom N, Kanda T, Miyashita T, et al. Modeling of natural human–robot encounters. In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; IEEE; 2008. p. 2623–2629.
   Google Scholar
• Kompatsiari K, Ciardo F, De Tommaso D, et al. Measuring engagement elicited by eye contact in human–robot interaction. In: 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS); IEEE; 2019. p. 6979–6985.
   Google Scholar
• Kuzuoka H, Suzuki Y, Yamashita J, et al. Reconfiguring spatial formation arrangement by robot body orientation. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI); IEEE; 2010. p. 285–292.
   Google Scholar
• Shi C, Shimada M, Kanda T, et al. Spatial formation model for initiating conversation. In: Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems VII, Los Angeles, California, USA; 2011. p. 305–313.
   Google Scholar
• Sakamoto D, Hayashi K, Kanda T, et al. Humanoid robots as a broadcasting communication medium in open public spaces. Int J Soc Robot. 2009;1:157–169. doi: 10.1007/s12369-009-0015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiomi M, Hagita N. Do synchronized multiple robots exert peer pressure? In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, Singapore; 2016. p. 27–33.
   Google Scholar
• Iio T, Yoshikawa Y, Ishiguro H. Pre-scheduled turn-taking between robots to make conversation coherent. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, Singapore; 2016. p. 19–25.
   Google Scholar
• Karatas N, Yoshikawa S, De Silva PRS, et al. Namida: multiparty conversation based driving agents in futuristic vehicle. In: Human–Computer Interaction: Users and Contexts: 17th International Conference, HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Aug 2–7, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 17; Springer; 2015. p. 198–207.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In: Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier; 1978. p. 7–55.
   Google Scholar
• Hong A, Lunscher N, Hu T, et al. A multimodal emotional human–robot interaction architecture for social robots engaged in bidirectional communication. IEEE Trans Cybern. 2020;51(12):5954–5968. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikumapayi OM, Afolalu SA, Ogedengbe TS, et al. Human–robot co-working improvement via revolutionary automation and robotic technologies–an overview. Procedia Comput Sci. 2023;217:1345–1353. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.332
   Google Scholar
• Iio T, Yoshikawa Y, Ishiguro H. Retaining human–robots conversation: comparing single robot to multiple robots in a real event. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform. 2017;21(4):675–685. doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2017.p0675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iio T, Yoshikawa Y, Ishiguro H. Double-meaning agreements by two robots to conceal incoherent agreements to user's opinions. Adv Robot. 2021;35(19):1145–1155. doi: 10.1080/01691864.2021.1974939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iio T, Yoshikawa Y, Chiba M, et al. Twin-robot dialogue system with robustness against speech recognition failure in human–robot dialogue with elderly people. Appl Sci. 2020;10(4):1522. doi: 10.3390/app10041522
   Google Scholar
• Shiomi M, Okumura S, Kimoto M, et al. Two is better than one: social rewards from two agents enhance offline improvements in motor skills more than single agent. PloS One. 2020;15(11):e0240622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okada Y, Kimoto M, Iio T, et al. Two is better than one: apologies from two robots are preferred. Plos One. 2023;18(2):e0281604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281604
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velentza AM, Heinke D, Wyatt J. Human interaction and improving knowledge through collaborative tour guide robots. In: 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); IEEE; 2019. p. 1–7.
   Google Scholar