How contingent should a lifelike robot be? The relationship between contingency and complexity

Figures & data

Figure 1. System configuration.

Figure 2. Human and robot.

Figure 3. Robot controller.

Figure 4. Example of contingency control.

Figure 5. Simple interaction—a scene of mimicking.

Figure 6. (a) State transition—complex interaction; (b) behaviours—complex interaction.

Figure 7. Questions in the simple interaction experiment.

Table 1. Experimental results—paired comparisons.

Figure 8. Relationship between contingency and impression in simple interactions.

Figure 9. Questions in the complex interaction experiment.

Figure 10. Relationship between contingency and impression in the complex interaction.

Figure 11. Relationship between contingency and subject's behaviour in complex interaction.

Table 2. Experimental results.

(a) Lifelikeness
Contingency	0	20	40	60	80	100
Mean	3.22	3.38	3.59	3.76	3.95	4.00
SD	1.62	1.57	1.40	1.57	1.67	1.55
(b) Autonomy
Contingency	0	20	40	60	80	100
Mean	3.73	3.68	4.19	4.03	4.81	4.81
SD	1.68	1.45	1.35	1.54	1.40	1.49
(c) Preference
Contingency	0	20	40	60	80	100
Mean	3.30	3.41	3.76	4.00	4.16	4.54
SD	1.53	1.21	1.36	1.56	1.59	1.30

Table 3. Experimental results.

(a) Interaction time
Contingency	0	20	40	60	80	100
Mean (s)	162.48	159.74	155.74	161.72	163.39	165.71
SD	23.57	32.31	33.51	29.32	28.39	26.67
(b) Amount of hand movements
Contingency	0	20	40	60	80	100
Mean (m s^−1)	0.476	0.472	0.501	0.512	0.513	0.513
SD	0.187	0.158	0.196	0.206	0.219	0.174

Figure 12. Relationship between contingency and complexity.