Investigating Breakdowns in Human Robot Interaction: A Conversation Analysis Guided Single Case Study of a Human-Robot Communication in a Museum Environment

Authors: B. Arend, P. Sunnen, P. Caire

Abstract:

In a single case study, we show how a conversation analysis (CA) approach can shed light onto the sequential unfolding of human-robot interaction. Relying on video data, we are able to show that CA allows us to investigate the respective turn-taking systems of humans and a NAO robot in their dialogical dynamics, thus pointing out relevant differences. Our fine grained video analysis points out occurring breakdowns and their overcoming, when humans and a NAO-robot engage in a multimodally uttered multi-party communication during a sports guessing game. Our findings suggest that interdisciplinary work opens up the opportunity to gain new insights into the challenging issues of human robot communication in order to provide resources for developing mechanisms that enable complex human-robot interaction (HRI).

Keywords: Human-robot interaction, conversation analysis, dialogism, museum, breakdown.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1130169

References:

[1] M. Goodrich & A. Schultz, “Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey”, in Foundation and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no 3, 2007, pp. 203-275.
[2] J. Markowitz (ed.), Robots that Talk and Listen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
[3] H. R. M. Pelikan & M. Broth, “Why that Nao? How Humans Adapt to a Conventional Humanoid Robot in Taking Turns-at-Talk”, in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2016, pp. 4921-4932.
[4] B. Arend, P. Sunnen, P. Fixmer & M Sujbert, “Perspectives do matter – Expanding Multimodal Interaction Analysis with Joint Screen”, in Classroom Discourse, Special Issue Multimodality, vol. 5, no 1, 2014, pp. 38-50.
[5] B. Arend, P. Sunnen, “Dialogic Classroom Talk - Rethinking ‘Messy’ Classroom Interaction”, in Proceedings of the 10th EAPRIL (European Association for Practitioner Research on Improving Learning in Education and Professional Practice) conference, 2016, pp. 424-434.
[6] P. Linell, “Dialogism and the Distributed Language Approach: a rejoinder to Steffensen”, in Language Sciences, vol. 50, 2015, pp. 120-126.
[7] M.M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986.
[8] P. Linell, Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2009.
[9] V.N. Volosinov, V.N., Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973, p. 86.
[10] P. ten Have, "Methodological Issues in Conversation Analysis”, 1990. http://www.paultenhave.nl/mica.htm Accessed on 19/04/2016.
[11] P. ten Have, Doing Conversation Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2007.
[12] H. Sacks, E.A. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson, “A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking in conversation”, in Language, vol. 50, no 4, 1974, pp. 596-735.
[13] A. Deppermann, H. Blühdorn, “Negation als Verfahren des Adressatenzuschnitts: Verstehenssteuerung durch Interpretationsrestriktionen”, in Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation, Themenheft: Interaktionale Linguistik des Verstehens, vol. 13, no 1, 2013, pp. 6-30.
[14] C. Heath, “Talk and recipiency: sequential organization in speech and body movement”, in J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 250.
[15] E. Schegloff, Sequence Organization in Interaction. A primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[16] K. Pitsch, R. Gehle & S. Wrede, “Addressing Multiple Participants: A Museum Robot’s Gaze Shapes Visitor Participation”, in Proceedings of ICSR 2013, 2013, pp. 587-588.
[17] B. Arend, “Contribution d’un outil de transcription dans la mise en mots de l’analyse d’un processus de conception collaborative observé dans sa profondeur phénoménale”, inRecherches Qualitatives, Logiciels Pour l’analyse Qualitative: Innovations Techniques et Sociales, vol. 9, 2010, pp.95-108.
[18] P. Caire et al., COROBOTS, exhibition brochure, 9. June 2015 – 16. January 2016. MUDAM Luxembourg.
[19] E. Holt, “On the nature of 'laughables': laughter as a response to overdone figurative phrases”, in Pragmatics, vol. 21, no 3, 2011, pp. 393-410.
[20] B. Mutlu, S. Andrist & A. Sauppé, “Enabling human-robot dialogue”, in J. Markowitz (ed.), Robots that Talk and Listen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015, pp. 81-124.