Robotics Business Review

  • Home
  • Analysis / Opinion
    • RBR Analysis
    • RBR Opinion
    • RBR Interviews
  • Business
    • Management
    • Workforce
    • Start-Ups
      • RBR Start-Up Profiles
      • RBR Start-Up Insights
    • Social Good
    • Investment
    • Transaction Database
  • Markets / Industries
    • Agriculture
    • Construction / Demolition
    • Consumer
    • Defense / Security
    • Energy / Mining
    • Health / Medical
    • Logistics / Supply Chain
    • Manufacturing
    • Public Safety
    • Retail
    • Robotics Development
    • Utilities
  • Resources
    • Websites
      • The Robot Report
      • Mobile Robot Guide
      • Collaborative Robotics Trends
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Case Studies
    • Company Directory
    • Podcasts
    • Research
  • Events
    • RoboBusiness Direct
    • Robotics Summit
    • RoboBusiness
    • Healthcare Robotics Engineering Forum
    • R&D 100
  • RBR50
    • RBR50 2021 Nominations
    • RBR50 2020
      • RBR50 2020 Winners
      • RBR50 2020 Digital Edition
      • RBR50 2020 Company Listing

Trash-talking Robots Can Impair Human Gameplay, Study Finds

Carnegie Mellon researchers explore non-cooperative human-robot interaction.

Trash-talking Robots Can Impair Human Gameplay, Study Finds

By Carnegie Mellon University | November 20, 2019

PITTSBURGH — Trash talking has a long and colorful history of flustering game opponents, and now researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have demonstrated that discouraging words can be perturbing even when uttered by a robot.

The trash talk in the study was decidedly mild, with utterances such as “I have to say you are a terrible player,” and “Over the course of the game your playing has become confused.” Even so, people who played a game with the robot — a commercially available humanoid robot known as Pepper — performed worse when the robot discouraged them and better when the robot encouraged them.

Lead author Aaron M. Roth said some of the 40 study participants were technically sophisticated and fully understood that a machine was the source of their discomfort.

Aaron M. Roth

“One participant said, ‘I don’t like what the robot is saying, but that’s the way it was programmed so I can’t blame it,’” said Roth, who conducted the study while he was a master’s student in the CMU Robotics Institute.

But the researchers found that, overall, human performance ebbed regardless of technical sophistication.

The study, presented last month at the IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) in New Delhi, India, is a departure from typical human-robot interaction studies, which tend to focus on how humans and robots can best work together.

Fei Fang

“This is one of the first studies of human-robot interaction in an environment where they are not cooperating,” said co-author Fei Fang, an assistant professor in the Institute for Software Research. It has enormous implications for a world where the number of robots and internet of things (IoT) devices with artificial intelligence capabilities is expected to grow exponentially. “We can expect home assistants to be cooperative,” she said, “but in situations such as online shopping, they may not have the same goals as we do.”

Game theory origins

The study was an outgrowth of a student project in AI Methods for Social Good, a course that Fang teaches. The students wanted to explore the uses of game theory and bounded rationality in the context of robots, so they designed a study in which humans would compete against a robot in a game called “Guards and Treasures.” A so-called Stackelberg game, researchers use it to study rationality. This is a typical game used to study defender-attacker interaction in research on security games, an area in which Fang has done extensive work.

Each participant played the game 35 times with the robot, while either soaking in encouraging words from the robot or getting their ears singed with dismissive remarks. Although the human players’ rationality improved as the number of games played increased, those who were criticized by the robot didn’t score as well as those who were praised.

Afsaneh Doryab

It’s well established that an individual’s performance is affected by what other people say, but the study shows that humans also respond to what machines say, said Afsaneh Doryab, a systems scientist at CMU’s Human-Computer Interaction Institute (HCII) during the study, and now an assistant professor in Engineering Systems and Environment at the University of Virginia. This machine’s ability to prompt responses could have implications for automated learning, mental health treatment and even the use of robots as companions, she said.

Related content:

  • Robot Design: The Curious Case of Social Robot Aesthetics
  • The Essential Interview: Maja Mataric, USC and Embodied
  • System Aims to Predict Whether Other Drivers are Jerks
  • How Humans Tell Robots What to Do

Future work might focus on nonverbal expression between robot and humans, said Roth, now a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland. Fang suggests that more needs to be learned about how different types of machines — say, a humanoid robot as compared to a computer box — might invoke different responses in humans.

In addition to Roth, Fang and Doryab, the research team included Manuela Veloso, professor of computer science; Samantha Reig, a Ph.D. student in the HCII; Umang Bhatt, who recently completed a joint bachelor’s-master’s degree program in electrical and computer engineering; Jonathan Shulgach, a master’s student in biomedical engineering; and Tamara Amin, who recently finished her master’s degree in civil and environmental engineering.

The National Science Foundation provided some support for this work.

Related Articles Read More >

Goldberg
Automating Robot-Assisted Surgical Subtasks – An Interview With UC Berkley’s Ken Goldberg
Robotics & Economic Development
Robots and International Economic Development
Jeff Bernstein
A3’s President Jeff Burnstein on North American Robot Sales, Plus Canvas Robotic Drywall Solution, More
Fulfillment as a Service
Warehouse Automation Vendors and Fulfillment-as-a-Service
The Robot Report Listing Database
Tweets by RoboticTips
Robotics Business Review
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Collaborative Robotics Trends
  • The Robot Report
  • Mobile Robot Guide
  • RoboBusiness Conference & Expo
  • Healthcare Robotics Engineering Forum
  • Robotics Summit Conference & Expo

Copyright © 2021 WTWH Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media
Privacy Policy | Advertising | About Us

Search Robotics Business Review

  • Home
  • Analysis / Opinion
    • RBR Analysis
    • RBR Opinion
    • RBR Interviews
  • Business
    • Management
    • Workforce
    • Start-Ups
      • RBR Start-Up Profiles
      • RBR Start-Up Insights
    • Social Good
    • Investment
    • Transaction Database
  • Markets / Industries
    • Agriculture
    • Construction / Demolition
    • Consumer
    • Defense / Security
    • Energy / Mining
    • Health / Medical
    • Logistics / Supply Chain
    • Manufacturing
    • Public Safety
    • Retail
    • Robotics Development
    • Utilities
  • Resources
    • Websites
      • The Robot Report
      • Mobile Robot Guide
      • Collaborative Robotics Trends
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Case Studies
    • Company Directory
    • Podcasts
    • Research
  • Events
    • RoboBusiness Direct
    • Robotics Summit
    • RoboBusiness
    • Healthcare Robotics Engineering Forum
    • R&D 100
  • RBR50
    • RBR50 2021 Nominations
    • RBR50 2020
      • RBR50 2020 Winners
      • RBR50 2020 Digital Edition
      • RBR50 2020 Company Listing