Intelligent Moving Display Robots: Human-Centric Design Guidelines for Human–Robot Interaction Designers

References

• Aéraïz-Bekkis, D., Ganesh, G., Yoshida, E., & Yamanobe, N. (2020, April). Robot movement uncertainty determines human discomfort in co-worker scenarios [Paper presentation]. 2020 6th International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR) (pp. 59–66). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, J., Lucero, A., Subramanian, S. (2012, September). Tilt displays: Designing display surfaces with multi-axis tilting and actuation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 161–170).
   Google Scholar
• Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., & Horvitz, E. (2019, May). Guidelines for human-AI interaction [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2019 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing System (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
   Google Scholar
• Argall, B. D., & Billard, A. G. (2010, October). A survey of tactile human–robot interactions. Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 58(10), 1159–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2010.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartoli, L., Garzotto, F., Gelsomini, M., Oliveto, L., & Valoriani, M. (2014, June). Designing and evaluating touchless playful interaction for ASD children [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference Interaction Design and Children (pp. 17–26). https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2593976
   Google Scholar
• Barwise, P., Bellman, S., & Beal, V. (2020, June). Why do people watch so much television and video?: Implications for the future of viewing and advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 60(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2019-024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block, A. E., Seifi, H., Hilliges, O., Gassert, R., & Kuchenbecker, K. J. (2023, March). In the arms of a robot: Designing autonomous hugging robots with intra-hug gestures. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 12(2), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bures, V. (2012, June). Interactive digital television and voice interaction: Experimental evaluation and subjective perception by elderly. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadalavada, R. T., Andreasson, H., Schindler, M., Palm, R., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2020). Bi-directional navigation intent communication using spatial augmented reality and eye-tracking glasses for improved safety in human–robot interaction. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 61, 101830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan, V., & Shah, M. H. (2020). An empirical analysis into sentiments, media consumption habits, and consumer behaviour during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. UGC Care Journal, 31(20), 353–378.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, S. W., Kim, W. J., & Lee, C. H. (2013, March). Interactive display robot: Projector robot with natural user interface. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 109–110). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Clemmensen, T. (2011). Templates for cross-cultural and culturally specific usability testing: Results from field studies and ethnographic interviewing in three countries. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(7), 634–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.555303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemmensen, T., Nielsen, J. A., & Andersen, K. N. (2017). Service robots: Interpretive flexibility or physical appropriation? https://robots-in-context.mpi.aass.oru.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ECCE-2017-RiC-Clemmensen.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Common Sense. (2021). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/8-18-census-integrated-report-final-web_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cooney, M. D., Kanda, T., Alissandrakis, A., Ishiguro, H. (2011). Interaction design for an enjoyable play interaction with a small humanoid robot. In 2011 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (pp. 112–119). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Coronado, E., Kiyokawa, T., Ricardez, G. A. G., Ramirez-Alpizar, I. G., Venture, G., & Yamanobe, N. (2022, April). Evaluating quality in human–robot interaction: A systematic search and classification of performance and human-centered factors, measures and metrics towards an industry 5.0. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 63, 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., Ahrenberg, L. (1993, February). Wizard of Oz studies: Why and how. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 193–200.
   Google Scholar
• Dao, N.-N., Tran, A.-T., Tu, N. H., Thanh, T. T., Bao, V. N. Q., & Cho, S. (2022, November). A contemporary survey on live video streaming from a computation-driven perspective. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(10s), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3519552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Werry, I. (2005, August). What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler? [Paper presentation]. 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 1192–1197). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Faulkner, C. (2023). LG’s StanbyME is a so-so TV on a stellar stand. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/23554060/lg-stanbyme-monitor-tv-stand-features-specs-review
   Google Scholar
• Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003, March). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frijns, H. A., & Schmidbauer, C. (2021, August). Design guidelines for collaborative industrial robot user interfaces [Paper presentation]. Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2021: 18th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Bari, Italy (pp. 407–427).
   Google Scholar
• Gao, F., Yu, C., & Xie, J. (2018, July). Study on design principles of voice interaction design for smart mobile devices [Paper presentation]. Cross-Cultural Design. Methods, Tools, and Users: 10th International Conference, Las Vegas, NV (Vol. 15–20, pp. 398–411).
   Google Scholar
• Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003, November). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human–robot cooperation [Paper presentation]. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 55–60). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Haghzare, S., Campos, J. L., Bak, K., & Mihailidis, A. (2021, February). Older adults’ acceptance of fully automated vehicles: Effects of exposure, driving style, age, and driving conditions. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 150, 105919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105919
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, G., & Ju, W. (2014, February). Designing robots with movement in mind. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(1), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.Hoffman
   Google Scholar
• Hong, A., Lunscher, N., Hu, T., Tsuboi, Y., Zhang, X., Franco Dos Reis Alves, S., Nejat, G., & Benhabib, B. (2020). A multimodal emotional human–robot interaction architecture for social robots engaged in bidirectional communication. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(12), 5954–5968. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, H., Han, S. H., & Kim, J. H. (2020, December). User perspectives on blockchain technology: User-centered evaluation and design strategies for DApps. IEEE Access, 8, 226213–226223. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jost, C., Le Pévédic, B., Belpaeme, T., Bethel, C., Chrysostomou, D., Crook, N., & Mirnig, N. (2020). Human–robot interaction. Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H. C. (2008, September). Weaknesses of voice interaction [Paper presentation]. 2008 4th International Conference on Networked Computing and Advanced Information Management (Vol. 2, pp. 740–745), IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Klumpp, M., Hesenius, M., Meyer, O., Ruiner, C., & Gruhn, V. (2019, December). Production logistics and human-computer interaction—state-of-the-art, challenges and requirements for the future. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 105(9), 3691–3709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03785-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujala, S., Kauppinen, M., Lehtola, L., & Kojo, T. (2005). The role of user involvement in requirements quality and project success [Paper presentation]. 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05) (pp. 75–84). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, L. H., & Hui, P. (2018, May). Interaction methods for smart glasses: A survey. IEEE Access, 6, 28712–28732. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2831081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M. K., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Rybski, P., Antanitis, J., & Savetsila, S. (2012, March). Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 319–326).
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, J., Alenljung, B., & Billing, E. (2020). Evaluating the user experience of human–robot interaction. In Human–robot interaction: Evaluation methods and their standardization. springer series on bio- and neurosystems (Vol. 12, pp. 231–256).
   Google Scholar
• Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006, March). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7
   Google Scholar
• Novanda, O., Salem, M., Saunders, J., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2016). What communication modalities do users prefer in real time HRI? arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03992.
   Google Scholar
• Olatunji, S., Potenza, A., Oron-Gilad, T., Kiselev, A., Loutfi, A., & Edan, Y. (2020). Usability testing for the operation of a mobile robotic telepresence system by older adults. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 64, pp. 1191–1195). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Park, D., & Kim, E. (2024, January). Method of interacting between humans and conversational voice agent systems. Heliyon, 10(1), e23573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23573
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, D., Yoon, W. C., & Lee, U. (2020, May). Cognitive states matter: Design guidelines for driving situation awareness in smart vehicles. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 20(10), 2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20102978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinhanez, C. (2001, September). The everywhere displays projector: A device to create ubiquitous graphical interfaces. In International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 315–331). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Ringgenberg, N., Mildner, S., Hapig, M., Hermann, S., Kruszewski, K., Martin-Niedecken, A. L., & Seebacher, B. (2022). ExerG: Adapting an exergame training solution to the needs of older adults using focus group and expert interviews. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 19(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01063-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samarakoon, S. B. P., Muthugala, M. V. J., Jayasekara, A. B. P., & Elara, M. R. (2023, April). Adapting approaching proxemics of a service robot based on physical user behavior and user feedback. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 33(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-022-09329-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunderson, S., & Nejat, G. (2019). How robots influence humans: A survey of nonverbal communication in social human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(4), 575–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00523-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheible, J., Hoth, A., Saal, J., & Su, H. (2013). Displaydrone: A flying robot based interactive display. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (pp. 49–54).
   Google Scholar
• Sghir, N., Adadi, A., & Lahmer, M. (2022, December). Recent advances in predictive learning analytics: A decade systematic review (2012–2022). Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11536-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statista. (2023). Digital fitness & well-being – worldwide. https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/digital-health/digital-fitness-well-being/worldwide
   Google Scholar
• Syrdal, D. S., Koay, K. L., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007, August). A personalized robot companion?-The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios [Paper Presentation]. RO-MAN 2007-The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 1143–1148). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Yee, W. (2009, July 19–24). Potential limitations of multi-touch gesture vocabulary: Differentiation, adoption, fatigue [Paper presentation]. Human-Computer Interaction. Novel Interaction Methods and Techniques: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA (pp. 291–300).
   Google Scholar
• Yousuf, M. A., Kobayashi, Y., Kuno, Y., Yamazaki, K., & Yamazaki, A. (2019). Social interaction with visitors: Mobile guide robots capable of offering a museum tour. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 14(12), 1823–1835. https://doi.org/10.1002/tee.23009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar