A systematic survey of multiple social robots as a passive- and interactive-social medium

References

• Wang J, Liu J, Kato N. Networking and communications in autonomous driving: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials. 2019;21(2):1243–1274. doi:10.1109/COMST.2018.2888904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Vaio M, Falcone P, Hult R, et al. Design and experimental validation of a distributed interaction protocol for connected autonomous vehicles at a road intersection. IEEE Trans Veh Technol. 2019;68(10):9451–9465. doi:10.1109/TVT.2019.2933690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CK, Lin B, Ng K, et al. Smart robotic mobile fulfillment system with dynamic conflict-free strategies considering cyber-physical integration. Adv Eng Inf. 2019;42:100998, doi:10.1016/j.aei.2019.100998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandian DAP. Artificial intelligence application in smart warehousing environment for automated logistics. J Artif Intell Capsule Networks. 2019;1(2):63–72. doi:10.36548/jaicn.2019.2.002
   Google Scholar
• Che E, Jung J, Olsen MJ. Object recognition, segmentation, and classification of mobile laser scanning point clouds: a state of the art review. Sensors. 2019;19(4):810, doi:10.3390/s19040810
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaidi SSA, Ansari MS, Aslam A, et al. A survey of modern deep learning based object detection models. Digit Signal Process. 2022;126:103514, doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2022.103514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy P, Chowdhury C. A survey of machine learning techniques for indoor localization and navigation systems. J Intell Rob Syst. 2021;101(3):63, doi:10.1007/s10846-021-01327-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asaad SM, Maghdid HS. A comprehensive review of indoor/outdoor localization solutions in IoT era: research challenges and future perspectives. Comput Netw. 2022;212:109041, doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudenko A, Palmieri L, Herman M, et al. Human motion trajectory prediction: a survey. Int J Rob Res. 2020;39(8):895–935. doi:10.1177/0278364920917446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong Y, Fu Y. Human action recognition and prediction: a survey. Int J Comput Vis. 2022;130(5):1366–1401. doi:10.1007/s11263-022-01594-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahiya A, Aroyo AM, Dautenhahn K, et al. A survey of multi-agent human–robot interaction systems. Rob Auton Syst. 2023;161:104335, doi:10.1016/j.robot.2022.104335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebo S, Stoll B, Scassellati B, et al. Robots in groups and teams: a literature review. Article. 2020;4(CSCW2):176.
   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(2):157–169. doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscovici S, Faucheux C. Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1972: 149–202: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60027-1
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB, Trost MR. (1998). “Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance”.
   Google Scholar
• Tang J, Sun J, Wang C, et al. Social influence analysis in large-scale networks. Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; 2009. p. 807–816.
   Google Scholar
• Fraune MR, Sherrin S, Sabanović S, et al. Rabble of robots effects: number and type of robots modulates attitudes, emotions, and stereotypes. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2015; Portland, Oregon, USA. p. 109–116.
   Google Scholar
• Fox Tree JE. Listening in on monologues and dialogues. Discourse Process. 1999;27(1):35–53. doi:10.1080/01638539909545049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan HP, Catchpole CM, Pickering MJ. What makes dialogues easy to understand? Lang Cogn Process. 2011;26(10):1667–1686. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.524765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske AP. The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychol Rev. 1992;99(4):689, doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinnes KK, Blomster JK, Seibt B, et al. Too cute for words: cuteness evokes the heartwarming emotion of Kama Muta. Front Psychol. 2019;10:387, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00387
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiomi M, Hayashi R, Nittono H. Is two cuter than one? number and relationship effects on the feeling of kawaii toward social robots. PLoS One. 2023;18(10):e0290433, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi K, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, et al. Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium: a field experiment at a train station. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction; 2007. p. 137–144.
   Google Scholar
• Hayashi K, Kanda T, Miyashita T, et al. Robot Manzai: robot conversation as a passive–social medium. Int J Humanoid Rob. 2008;5(1):67–86. doi:10.1142/S0219843608001315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrović D, Kićinbaći L, Petric F, et al. Autonomous robots as actors in robotics theatre – tribute to the centenary of R.U.R. 2019 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR); 2019. p. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Nikolic PK, Yang H. Artificial intelligence clone generated content toward robot creativity and machine mindfulness. Mobile Netw Appl. 2020;25(4):1504–1513. doi:10.1007/s11036-019-01281-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolić PK, Tomari MRM. Robot-robot interaction, toward new conversational artificial intelligence aesthetic. 10th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts, Aveiro; 2022; Portugal, Portugal. p. Article 15.
   Google Scholar
• Krzyżaniak M. Musical robot swarms, timing, and equilibria. J New Music Res . 2021;50(3):279–297. doi:10.1080/09298215.2021.1910313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijholt A. Robotic stand-up comedy: state-of-the-art. Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions: Understanding Humans, Cham; 2018. p. 391–410.
   Google Scholar
• Swaminathan J, Jujjuri S, Knight H. Using street-performance style robot comedians to attract audiences for HRI studies. Workshop on Performing Art Robots & Technologies (PAR-T) at International Conference of Robots and Systems; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Brink KA, Wellman HM. Robot teachers for children? Young children trust robots depending on their perceived accuracy and agency. Dev Psychol. 2020;56(7):1268–1277. doi:10.1037/dev0000884
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• So W-C, Cheng C-H, Law W-W, et al. Robot dramas may improve joint attention of Chinese-speaking low-functioning children with autism: stepped wedge trials. Disability Rehabil: Assistive Technol. 2023;18(2):195–204. doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1841836
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peng Y, Feng YL, Wang N, et al. How children interpret robots’ contextual behaviors in live theatre: gaining insights for multi-robot theatre design. 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 2020. p. 327–334.
   Google Scholar
• Xu H, Ray LC. Cohesiveness of robots in groups affects the perception of social rejection by human observers. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI); 2022. p. 1100–1104.
   Google Scholar
• Ueno A, Hayashi K, Mizuuchi I. Impression change on nonverbal non-humanoid robot by interaction with humanoid robot. 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 2019. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Singh AK, Baranwal N, Richter K-F, et al. Verbal explanations by collaborating robot teams. Paladyn, J Behav Rob. 2021;12(1):47–57. doi:10.1515/pjbr-2021-0001
   Google Scholar
• Velentza A-M, Fachantidis N, Pliasa S. Which one? Choosing favorite robot after different styles of storytelling and robots’ conversation. Front Rob AI. 2021;8:700005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itahara H, Kimoto M, Iio T, et al. How does exposure to changing opinions or reaffirmation opinions influence the thoughts of observers and their trust in robot discussions? Appl Sci. 2023;13(1):585, doi:10.3390/app13010585
   Google Scholar
• Karatas N, Yoshikawa S, De Silva PRS, et al. How multi-party conversation can become an effective interface while driving. Trans Human Interface Soc. 2018;20(3):371–388.
   Google Scholar
• Karatas N, Tamura S, Fushiki M, et al. Multi-party conversation of driving agents: the effects of overhearing information on lifelikeness and distraction. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction; 2018; Southampton, United Kingdom. p. 84–91.
   Google Scholar
• Mizumaru K, Sakamoto D, Ono T. Perception of emotional relationships by observing body expressions between multiple robots. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction; 2022; Christchurch, New Zealand. p. 203–211.
   Google Scholar
• Wicke P, Veale T. The show must go on: on the use of embodiment, space and gesture in computational storytelling. New Gener Comput. 2020;38(4):565–592. doi:10.1007/s00354-020-00106-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirayama T, Okada Y, Kimoto M, et al. What is the speed boundary between patting and slapping by a robot? Investigating perceptions toward robot-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction; 2022. p. 212–218.
   Google Scholar
• Okada Y, Taniguchi R, Tatsumi A, et al. Effects of touch behaviors and whispering voices in robot-robot interaction for information providing tasks. 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 2020. p. 7–13.
   Google Scholar
• Lc R, Benayoun M, Lindborg P, et al. Power chess: robot-to-robot nonverbal emotional expression applied to competitive play. 10th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts; 2022; Aveiro, Portugal. p. Article 2.
   Google Scholar
• Kondaxakis P, Gulzar K, Kinauer S, et al. Robot–robot gesturing for anchoring representations. IEEE Trans Robot. 2019;35(1):216–230. doi:10.1109/TRO.2018.2875388
   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
• Barbareschi G, Kawaguchi M, Kato H, et al. “I am both here and there” parallel control of multiple robotic avatars by disabled workers in a café. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2023; Hamburg, Germany. p. Article 75.
   Google Scholar
• Song S, Baba J, Okafuji Y, et al. Out for In! empirical study on the combination power of Two service robots for product recommendation. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2023; Stockholm, Sweden. p. 408–416.
   Google Scholar
• Iwamoto T, Baba J, Nakanishi J, et al. Playful recommendation: sales promotion that robots stimulate pleasant feelings instead of product explanation. IEEE Rob Autom Lett. 2022;7(4):11815–11822. doi:10.1109/LRA.2022.3189149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamino W, Sabanovic S. Coffee, Tea, robots? The performative staging of service robots in ‘robot cafes’ in Japan. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2023; Stockholm, Sweden. p. 183–191.
   Google Scholar
• Nakanishi J, Kuramoto I, Baba J, et al. Continuous hospitality with social robots at a hotel. SN Appl Sci. 2020;2(3):452, doi:10.1007/s42452-020-2192-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aizawa M, Umemuro H. Behavioral design of guiding agents to encourage their Use by visitors in public spaces. Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2021; Boulder, CO, USA. p. 247–251.
   Google Scholar
• Amada J, Okafuji Y, Matsumura K, et al. Investigating the crowd-drawing effect, on passersby, of pseudo-crowds using multiple robots. Adv Robot. 2023;37(6):423–432. doi:10.1080/01691864.2022.2143242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efthymiou N, Filntisis PP, Koutras P, et al. ChildBot: multi-robot perception and interaction with children. Rob Auton Syst. 2022;150:103975, doi:10.1016/j.robot.2021.103975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soleiman P, Moradi H, Mehralizadeh B, et al. Fully robotic social environment for teaching and practicing affective interaction: case of teaching emotion recognition skills to children with autism spectrum disorder, a pilot study. Front Rob AI. 2023;10; doi:10.3389/frobt.2023.1088582
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esfandbod A, Rokhi Z, Meghdari AF, et al. Fast mapping in word-learning: a case study on the humanoid social robots’ impacts on children’s performance. Int J Child Comput Interact. 2023;38:100614, doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100614
   Google Scholar
• Lytridis C, Papadopoulou CI, Papakostas GA, et al. Robot-assisted autism spectrum disorder (ASD) interventions: a multi-robot approach. 2020 International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM); 2020. p. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Amanatiadis A, Kaburlasos VG, Dardani C, et al. Social robots in special education: creating dynamic interactions for optimal experience. IEEE Consum Electron Mag. 2020;9(3):39–45. doi:10.1109/MCE.2019.2956218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamura Y, Shiomi M, Kimoto M, et al. Robots as an interactive-social medium in storytelling to multiple children. Interact Stud. 2021;22(1):110–140. doi:10.1075/is.18033.tam
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alemi M, Taheri A, Shariati A, et al. Social robotics, education, and religion in the islamic world: an Iranian perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(5):2709–2734. doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00225-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan XZ, Reig S, Carter EJ, et al. From one to another: how robot-robot interaction affects users’ perceptions following a transition between robots. Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2020; Daegu, Republic of Korea. p. 114–122.
   Google Scholar
• Tan XZ, Luria M, Steinfeld A. Defining transfers between multiple service robots. Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2020; Cambridge, United Kingdom. p. 465–467.
   Google Scholar
• Tan XZ, Carter EJ, Pareek P, et al. Group formation in multi-robot human interaction during service scenarios. Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction; 2022; Bengaluru, India. p. 159–169.
   Google Scholar
• Correia F, Mascarenhas S, Gomes S, et al. For The record – a public goods game for exploring human-robot collaboration. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems; 2019; Montreal QC, Canada. p. 2351–2353.
   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
• Fujii A, Okada K, Inaba M. A basic study for acceptance of robots as meal partners: number of robots during mealtime, frequency of solitary eating, and past experience with robots. 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 2021. p. 73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Erel H, Cohen Y, Shafrir K, et al. Excluded by robots: can robot-robot-human interaction lead to ostracism?. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2021. p. 312–321.
   Google Scholar
• Erel H, Carsenti E, Zuckerman O. A carryover effect in HRI: beyond direct social effects in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2022. p. 342–352.
   Google Scholar
• Söderlund M. The robot-to-robot service encounter: an examination of the impact of inter-robot warmth. J Serv Marketing. 2021;35(9):15–27. doi:10.1108/JSM-01-2021-0006
   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
• Arimoto T, Yoshikawa Y, Ishiguro H. Multiple-Robot conversational patterns for concealing incoherent responses. Int J Soc Robot. 2018;10(5):583–593. doi:10.1007/s12369-018-0468-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samson BPV, Sumi Y. Are Two heads better than one? Exploring two-party conversations for car navigation voice guidance. Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2020; Honolulu, HI, USA. p. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Goto K, Mizumaru K, Sakamoto D, et al. Angel and devil robots: personifying a dilemma to influence willpower. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction; 2022; Christchurch, New Zealand. p. 260–262.
   Google Scholar
• Velentza AM, Heinke D, Wyatt J. Human interaction and improving knowledge through collaborative tour guide robots. 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 2019. p. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Nishio T, Yoshikawa Y, Ogawa K, et al. Development of an effective information media using Two android robots. Appl Sci. 2019;9(17):3442, doi:10.3390/app9173442
   Google Scholar
• Golcic C, Harrysson G, Johansson H, et al. “Going through the motions of conversation: social movements in interacting robots,” Intelligent, socially oriented technology IV: projects by teams of master level students in cognitive science and engineering, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Fraune MR, Oisted BC, Sembrowski CE, et al. Effects of robot-human versus robot-robot behavior and entitativity on anthropomorphism and willingness to interact. Comput Human Behav. 2020;105:106220, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.106220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eshed M, Epstein M, Zohar AH, et al. Studying dynamics of human information gathering behaviors using social robots. Front Psychol. 2021;12; doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.669198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oertel C, Jonell P, Kontogiorgos D, et al. Towards an engagement-aware attentive artificial listener for multi-party interactions. Front Rob AI. 2021;8; doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.555913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiomi M, Hagita N. Do the number of robots and the participant’s gender influence conformity effect from multiple robots? Adv Robot. 2019;33(15-16):756–763. doi:10.1080/01691864.2019.1617781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomons N, Linden MVD, Sebo SS, et al. Humans conform to robots: disambiguating trust, truth, and conformity. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 2018; Chicago, IL, USA. p. 187–195.
   Google Scholar
• Hashemian M, Paiva A, Mascarenhas S, et al. The power to persuade: a study of social power in human-robot interaction. 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 2019. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar