The Best Video was awarded to Hirotaka Osawa, Ren Ohmura, and Michita Imai for their video titled “Self Introducing Poster Using Attachable Humanoid Parts.”

In addition, each poster presenter will participate in a poster “teaser” session. The teaser session gives you the opportunity to speak for 90 seconds about your poster to excite the other HRI attendees about your work.  In order to participate in your teaser session, you must email one slide in PDF format to the late-breaking abstracts co-chair, Kristen Stubbs (kristen.stubbs@gmail.com), on or before Monday, March 9. The name of the file should be the presenter’s last name, an underscore character, and the HRI submission number (i.e., Stubbs_205.pdf).

You can find out to which poster session and which teaser session you have been assigned by visiting:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=prMLRjo_iIQVQQ5XC8TAILQ

Wednesday, March 11, 10:30am-11:30am

Paper Session 1: Designing Robots Based on Human Behavior
CHAIR:  Aude Billard, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switserland

The Snackbot: Documenting the Design of a Robot for  Long-term Human-Robot Interaction
Min Kyung Lee¹, Jodi Forlizzi¹, Paul Rybski¹, Frederick Crabbe², Wayne Chung¹, Josh Finkle¹, Eric Glaser¹, Sara Kiesler¹
Carnegie Mellon University, USA¹, United States Naval Acadamy, USA²

Learning about Objects with Human Teachers
Andrea Thomaz, Maya Cakmak
Georgia Institute of Technology, USA

How People Talk When Teaching a Robot
Elizabeth Kim¹, Dan Leyzberg¹ Katherine Tsui² Brian Scassellati¹
Yale University¹ (USA), University of Massachusets Lowell (USA)²

Wednesday, March 11, 13:30am-14:30am

Paper Session 2 : Robots as Intermediaries.
CHAIR:  Greg Trafton

I Am My Robot: The Impact of Robot-building and Robot Form on Operators
Victoria Groom, Leila Takayama, Paloma Ochi, Clifford Nass
Stanford University, USA

Egocentric and Exocentric Teleoperation Interface using Real-time, 3D Video Projection
Francois Ferland, Francois Pomerleau, Chon Tam Le Dinh, Francois Michaud
University de Sherbrooke, Canada

Robots in the Wild: Understanding Long-term Use
JaYoung Sung, Henrik Christensen, Rebecca Grinter
Georgia Institute of Technology, USA

Wednesday, March 11, 16:20am-17:40am

Paper Session 3: Non-Verbal Communication in HRI.
CHAIR:  Dan Levine

Providing Route Directions:  Design of Robot’s Utterance, Gesture, and Timing
Yusuke Okuno¹, Takayuki Kanda¹, Michita Imai¹, Hiroshi Ishiguro², Norihiro Hagita¹
ATR (Japan)¹, Osaka University (Japan)²

Footing In Human-Robot Conversations: How Robots Might Shape Participant Roles Using Gaze Cues
Bilge Mutlu¹, Toshiyuki Shiwa², Takayuki Kanda², Hiroshi Ishiguro³, Norihiro Hagita²
Carnegie Mellon University (USA)¹, ATR (Japan)², Osaka University (Japan)³

Nonverbal Leakage in Robots: Communication of Intentions through Seemingly Unintentional Behavior
Bilge Mutlu¹, Fumitaka Yamaoka, Takayuki Kanda², Hiroshi Ishiguro³, Norihiro Hagita²
Carnegie Mellon University (USA) ¹, ATR (Japan)², Osaka University (Japan) ³

Visual Attention in Spoken Human-Robot Interaction
Maria Staudte, Matthew Crocker
Saarland University, Denmark

Thursday, March 12, 10:30am-11:30am

Paper Session 4: New Methods for Studying HRI.
CHAIR:  Vanessa Evers

An Information Pipeline Model of Human-Robot Interaction
Kevin Gold
Wellesley College, USA

Systemic Interaction Analysis (SInA) in HRI
Manja Lohse, Marc Hanheide, Katharina Rolfing, Gerhard Sagerer
Bielefeld University, Germany

The Oz of Wizard: Simulating the Human for Interaction Research
Aaron Steinfeld¹, Odest Chadwicke Jenkins², Brian Scassellati³
Carnegie Mellon University (USA) ¹, Brown University (USA) ², Yale University (USA) ³

Thursday, March 12, 16:20am-17:40am

Paper Session 5: Modeling Social Interaction
CHAIR:  Jill Drury

How to Approach Humans? -Strategies for Social Robots to Initiate Interaction
Satoru Satake, Takayuki Kanda, Dylan Glas, Michita Imai, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Norihiro Hagita
ATR (Japan)

ShadowPlay: A Generative Model for Nonverbal Human-Robot Interaction
Eric Meisner¹, Selma Sabanovic², Volkan Isler³, Linda Caporeal¹, Jeff Trinkle¹
Resselaer Polytechnic Institute (USA)¹, Stanford University (USA) ², University of Minnesota (USA)³

Creating and Using Matrix Representations of Social Interaction
Alan Wagner
Georgia Institute of Technology (USA)

Developing a Model of Robot Behavior to Identify and Appropriately Respond to Implicit Attention-Shifting
Fumitaka Yamaoka, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Norihiro Hagita
ATR, Japan

Friday, March 13, 10:30am-11:30am

Paper Session 6: Situation Awareness, Interface Design & Usability,
CHAIR:  Kristen Stubbs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lowell (USA)

How Search and its Subtasks Scale in N Robots
Huadong Wang¹, Michael Lewis¹, Prasanna Velagapudi², Paul Scerri², Katia Sycara²
University of Pittsburgh (USA) ¹, Carnegie Mellon University (USA) ²

Field Trial for Simultaneous Teleoperation of Mobile Social Robots
Dylan Glas¹, Takayuki Kanda¹, Hiroshi Ishiguro², Norihiro Hagita¹
ATR (Japan) ¹, Osaka University (Japan) ²

Mobile Human-Robot Teaming with Environmental Tolerance
Mathew Loper¹, Nathan Koening², Sonia Chernova³, Chris Jones⁴, Odest Cadwicke Jenkins¹
Brown University (USA) ¹, University of Southern California (USA) ², Carnegie Mellon University (USA) ³, iRobot Corporation (USA) ⁴

Friday, March 13, 15:10am-16:10am

Paper Session 7: Responding to Autonomy.
CHAIR:  Rachid Alami

On Using Mixed-Initiative Control: A Perspective for Managing Large-Scale Robotic Teams
Benjamin Hardin, Michael Goodrich
Brigham Young University (USA)

An Affective Guide Robot in a Shopping Mall
Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Zenta Miyashita, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Norihiro Hagita
ATR (Japan)

Concurrent Performance of Military and Robotics Tasks: Effects of Automation Unreliability and Individual Differences
Jessie Chen
US Army Research Laboratory (USA)

To request funding, please send the following information to adriana.tapus@usc.edu

(1) Provide:

1. Your Name,
2. Your Affiliation (name and address of college/university),
3. Your Contact Information (email address and telephone number(s)).

(2) Indicate:

1. whether you are a part-time or full-time student, and include the name of your faculty advisor with email and telephone contact information;
2. whether or not you are a (co)author of a paper or poster (please specify whether regular poster or informal poster) at HRI09;
3. if you are receiving or requesting funding from the Young Researchers Workshop on 10 March 2009
4. Please include information about your area of study.

(3) A statement of your requested funding amount and a brief justification of your funding needs (250 words maximum).

Note that you do not have to have an accepted paper/poster at HRI09 to be considered for financial support. The deadline for the information submission is January 31, 2009.

Late-Breaking Abstracts will be available after the conference in the ACM digital library. These library entries would be on-archival, thus enabling you to take this work and re-submit it to other venues, while still allowing this early version to remain visible to researchers worldwide.

Authors will be notified of the acceptance decision by January 8th, 2009.  IMPORTANT: If accepted, authors must be prepared to submit both the source file and a PDF version of the paper to Sheridan Printing (http://www.sheridanprinting.com/typedept/hri2.htm) by January 13th, 2009 or risk not having their paper included in the proceedings.

2. Background of participants

This course assumes a familiarity of evaluating HRI such as was provided in earlier HRI tutorials or experience with basic experimental evaluation techniques.  Participants should be familiar with human-robot interaction but we will not assume prior knowledge of specific HCI evaluation techniques.

3. Motivation

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

As HRI becomes a more mature discipline, expectations are rising for validating the work that we are doing to design robot interfaces.  HRI is its own sub-discipline, but there are similarities to HCI because robots are computerized applications — even though they are usually mobile, often remote from users, sometimes fragile, and potentially unpredictable in their behavior.  Rather than start from scratch, a number of researchers have taken HCI evaluation techniques and have adapted them to be more compatible with the practical realities of robots.  This tutorial describes several example techniques and their adaptations and provides guidance for using these techniques with HRI applications.

The instructors are active in the field of search and rescue robotics, assistive robotics, and unmanned aerial vehicles and will use examples from these domains in the presentations.  Having examples from multiple domains will enrich the discussion.

4. Conducting the tutorial

The tutorial will use lectures and exercises to give participants experience with using four example techniques.  The tutorial will begin with a lecture and discussion of how HRI differs from HCI and what roles robot users take on when working with robots (Scholtz 2003).  We will discuss situation awareness (SA) measurement techniques (e.g., Endsley’s (1998) Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique) and which ones are appropriate for various types of robot evaluation tasks. The heart of the tutorial consists of modules on each of the three categories of HCI evaluation methods (inspection, empirical, and formal/ analytical) and exercises that illustrate them, as described below.

4.1 Inspection Method: GDTA

Goal Directed Task Analysis (GDTA) was used by Adams (2005) to better understand how users will want to employ a robot interface.  A GDTA analysis can also be used as a means of inspecting an interface to evaluate whether it allows users to meet their goals efficiently.  We will provide attendees with a fragment of a previously-developed GDTA that they will use to evaluate whether the interface is compatible with the identified goals.

4.2 Inspection Method: Heuristic Evaluation

Heuristic evaluation for HRI (Drury et al. 2003) is an inspection method based on Nielsen’s (1994) technique, but modified with heuristics that apply more directly to HRI.  Attendees will practice comparing the heuristics to the example interface, identifying the parts of the interface that violate the heuristics.

4.3 Empirical Method: LASSO

The LASSO method (Drury et al. 2007a) is based on usability testing and the Think Aloud method (Ericsson and Simon 1980).  Users perform typical tasks while thinking aloud, and evaluators analyze the users’ utterances to determine whether users had awareness of the robot’s Location, Activity, Surroundings, and Status as well as progress towards completing the Overall mission (LASSO).  We will show a video clip from a LASSO evaluation and attendees will practice coding a transcript fragment.

4.4 Formal/Analytical Method: GOMS

The Goals, Operators, Methods and Selection rules (GOMS) technique (John and Kieras 1996) is a formal/analytical method.  In conjunction with Kieras, we have extended GOMS for HRI (Drury et al. 2007b).  We will guide attendees in writing a fragment of a GOMS model using the simplest variant of GOMS, the Keystroke Level Model, for the example robot interface.

5. Tutorial schedule

If there is more time available than is scheduled below, we will allow more time for exercises and discussion.

6. Instructors’ backgrounds

Dr. Jill Drury is an Associate Department Head at The MITRE Corporation, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Visiting Scientist at MIT.  Her research interests include human-robot interaction, evaluation methods for human-computer interaction, and awareness support for collaborative applications.  She regularly teaches Evaluation of HCI at the graduate level.  She is a member of ACM, SIGCHI, and SWE (Society of Women Engineers) and has had organizing committee and reviewer roles for many conferences, including HRI and Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).  She co-organized a tutorial with Dr. Yanco and Dr. Jean Scholtz on Introduction to HRI at the Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) 2006 conference.  Her publications in the area can be found at jldrury.googlepages.com.

Dr. Holly Yanco is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.  Her research interests include human-robot interaction, artificial intelligence for robotics, assistive technology, and urban search and rescue.  She has doctorate and master’s degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a bachelor’s degree from Wellesley College, all in Computer Science.  She received the Award for Teaching Excellence from the University of Massachusetts Lowell in 2002 and the Frederick C. Hennie III Teaching Award from the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1996.  She is an elected member of AAAI’s Executive Council and has served as the Exhibitions and Sponsorship Chair of HRI-07, HRI-08 and HRI-09.  With Dr. Jean Scholtz, she co-organized a tutorial on Introduction to HRI at the CHI 2004 and CHI 2005 conferences, and (also with Jill Drury) at the IUI 2006 conference.  She also presented a tutorial introducing HRI to the AAAI 2008 conference.  See a list of her publications at http://robotics.cs.uml.edu/publications/.

7. References

[1]    Adams, J. A. (2005). Human-Robot Interaction Design: Understanding User Needs and Requirements.  In Proceedings of the 2005 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, 2005, Orlando, FL, USA.
[2]    Drury, J., Riek, L. D., Christiansen, A. D., Eyler-Walker, Z. T., Maggi, A. and Smith, D. B. (2003).  Command and Control of Robot Teams.  In Proceedings of the 2003 Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Baltimore, July 2003.
[3]    Drury, J. L., Keyes, B., and Yanco, H. A. (2007a).  LASSOing HRI: Analyzing Situation Awareness in Map-Centric and Video-Centric Interfaces.  In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Arlington, VA, March 2007.
[4]    Drury, J. L., Scholtz, J., and Kieras, D. E. (2007b).  Adapting GOMS to Model Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Arlington, VA, March 2007.
[5]    Endsley, M. R., Selcon, S. J., Hardiman, T. D., and Croft, D. G. (1998).  A Comparative Analysis of SAGAT and SART for Evaluations of Situation Awareness.  In Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Chicago, October 1998.
[6]    K. A. Ericsson and H. A. Simon (1980). Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review, Vol. 87, pp. 215 – 251.
[7]    John, B. E. and Kieras, D. E. (1996).  The GOMS Family of User Interface Analysis Techniques:  Comparison and Contrast.  ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(4), December 1996.
[8]    Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic Evaluation.  In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods.  John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
[9]    Scholtz, J. (2003).  Theory and Evaluation of Human Robot Interactions.  In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Science 36, January 2003

• HRI Pioneers Workshop – Organizers: Alan Wagner, Rosemarijn Looije, Maxim Makatchev, Marek Michalowski, Emily Mower; March 10th, 2009 (full day)
• Social responsibility in HRI: Conducting our research, changing the world – Organizers: Nathan G. Freier, Vanessa Evers, Takayuki Kanda, Victoria Groom, Bigle Mutlu, Peter H. Kahn; March 10, 2009 (morning)
• Societal impact: How socially accepted robots can be integrated in our society – Organizers: Astrid Weiss, Manfred Tscheligi, Aude Billard; March 10, 2009 (afternoon)
• Full-day tutorial: Using and adapting Human-Computer Interaction methods for HRI – Organizers: Jill Drury, Holly Yanco; March 10, 2009 (full day)