IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2013 - 82

Table 6. Demographic and background information of questionnaire participants.
Age

Sex

Participants' Experience with Computers

Participants' Experience with Robots

57-100

14 Females (F)
8 Males (M)

8 (7 F and 1 M): No experience

19 (13 F and 6 M): No experience

2 (1 F and 1 M): Beginner (e-mail, use simple
programs)

2 (1 F and 1 M): Beginner (seen
robots at museums/science centers or
stores, or have watched shows on real/
physical robots)

1 (M): Intermediate (internet, chat)

1 (M): Intermediate (have worked with/
used commercial robots)

11 (6 F and 5 M): Advanced (editing documents,
use complex programs)

0: Advanced (have worked on robot
developmental aspects including
hardware/software design)

Table 7. Most-liked robot characteristics.
Ranking

Robot Characteristics

1st (82% of participants)

The robot expressing different emotions through
facial expressions and different tones of voice

2nd (77% of participants)

The robot's humanlike voice

2nd (77% of participants)

The robot's life-like appearance and demeanor

individuals as well as their caregivers. Participants discussed the robot's behaviors
with onlookers or laughed with them
when the robot smiled or told a joke.

Post-Interaction Questionnaire Results
The demographic and background
3rd (68% of participants)
The companionship the robot provides by just
information of the 22 participants who
being there
completed the questionnaire is presented in Table 6. Cronbach's alpha ( a )
was determined for the constructs in
the
questionnaire
that had multiple questions to verify
sad state, it was found that 57% were reengaged by lookinterreliability
between
them for the participant group.
ing at Brian 2.1 and verbally responding back empathetiAlpha
values
are
presented
in Table 5 under the approcally to the robot's emotion. The remaining 43% were
priate
constructs.
In
general,
values of at least 0.5 are
reengaged by bringing their focus of attention back to the
considered
to
be
acceptable
for
such short instruments
robot and activity.
[22].
The
descriptive
statistics
for the constructs are
Three participants
also
presented
in
Table
5.
Based
on the results, it is
interacted with Brian 2.1
worth
noting
that
Brian
2.1
scored
high on questions
on two different occaThe robot provides
related
to
the
participants'
attitudes
toward using the
sions, and one particirobot,
their
perceived
enjoyment
during
interactions
pant interacted with the
encouraging behaviors
with
the
robot,
and
the
robot's
perceived
sociability.
robot on four different
Furthermore,
the
participants
found
the
robot
easy to
occasions during the
using a happy emotional
use
and
would
use
it
again.
The
participants
were
also
course of two days. In
trusting
of
the
advice
the
robot
would
provide
them.
In
general, the majority (31
state, while orientating
general,
the
participants
had
a
positive
experience
with
participants) were polite
behaviors are provided in a to the robot, greeting the robot, which influenced their motivation to use it
it before interactions, again. The memory card game appeared to be the most
thanking the robot for enjoyable activity for the participants based on feedback
neutral emotional state.
its help, and saying provided in the questionnaire.
Table 7 summarizes the participants' responses with
good-bye to the robot.
respect
to the most-liked characteristics of the robot.
Six participants asked questions regarding their progress
The
responses
are based on a ranking of the total
throughout the memory game activity, for example, "How
number
of
responses
for each characteristic. The robot's
am I doing Brian?" and "What do you think about these
ability
to
display
different
emotions through facial
two cards?" One of these participants actively asked the
expressions
and
tone
of
voice
was
ranked the highest for
robot to provide her with encouragement after she did not
the
most-liked
characteristic.
This
concurs with the
get a matching pair of cards. Other participants comresults
of
the
questionnaire
and
the
observations
of the
mented to Brian 2.1 about the pictures on the cards. For
interactions,
which
found
that
a
large
number
of
particiexample, one male participant wearing a tie told the robot
that his tie was similar to the tie on one of the cards. Similar pants smiled or laughed when the robot would smile at
to other HRI studies in public places, the robot promoted them or when the robot told a joke and subsequently
interactions between the participants and other elderly laughed itself.
82

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

March 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2013