John Benjamins Publishing Company - Research …eprints.uwe.ac.uk/12740/1/camera_copy_from_publishers.pdf · Walking with Robots (WWR, ... automata used to “strike awe and wonder

This is a contribution from Interaction Studies 10:3© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Interaction Studies 10:3 (2009), –. doi 10.1075/is.10.3.07rocissn 1572–0373 / e-issn 1572–0381 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

‘Heart Robot’, a public engagement project

Claire Rocks, Sarah Jenkins, Matthew Studley & David McGoranUniversity of the West of England, Jenesys Associates Ltd, United Kingdom

Heart Robot was a public engagement project funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). The aim of the project was to challenge cultural perceptions of robots, and to stimulate thought and debate in members of the general public around research in the field of social and emotional robotics. Fusing the traditions of Bunraku puppetry, the technology of animatronics and the field of artificial emotion and social intelligence, Heart Robot presented a series of entertaining, thought-provoking, and moving performances at fourteen events in the south-west region of the UK between May and December 2008.

This paper presents a summary of the independent evaluation of the project.

Keywords: Robot, Puppet, Public Engagement, Social Robots, Science-art collaboration

1. Introduction

Heart Robot was a project funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Partnerships for Public Engagement scheme. The project took place from May to December 2008.

Robots are an integral part of our modern mythology as seen through Hollywood films (Khan, 1998). However, robots are becoming increasingly popular in the ‘real-world’ as entertainment, e.g. Pleo and the Sony Aibo; for companion-ship, e.g. PARO the robot baby harp seal; in our workplaces, and in our homes, e.g. the iRobot vacuum cleaner Roomba. The success of such robots depends not only on their function, but also on their ability to interact with humans in an appropriate way. As a result, research throughout the last decade has begun study-ing the robot attributes necessary to integrate robots fully into society, exploring fascinating possibilities for robots to express intimate emotions or enter into social relationships (Breazeal 2000, 2003a, 2003b).

At the same time, exploring public views on the future direction of science and engineering is becoming an increasingly valued source of evidence for policy-makers and for other stakeholders (RCUK, 2008). Scientists and policy-makers are

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Claire Rocks, Sarah Jenkins, Matthew Studley & David McGoran

increasingly recognising the need to engage the public “upstream” – early in the development of new technologies (Wilsdon & Willis, 2004). UK universities have recently seen initiatives to support public engagement, for example the Beacons for Public Engagement (BPE, 2008) and, in robotics, the EPSRC-funded project Walking with Robots (WWR, 2008).

The research field of Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) is still in its infancy (Dautenhahn, 2007a), providing a timely opportunity to raise debate around the topic and to explore public opinions. Stimulating discussion amongst researchers and the general public about the wider implications of the research not only allows the public to become accustomed to what is possible in terms of future robotics, but also allows them to contribute to the debate around desirable, as well as undesirable, research directions (Dautenhahn, 2007a). Engaging the public can also benefit the researcher, through exposing them to diverse perspectives from outside the university (Birkhead, 2007).

Unfortunately, the concepts and ideas behind social robotics are not always obvious to the general public and it is often difficult to explain the research and its significance to those who are not directly involved. The costs of producing robots with the necessary sophistication for research into HRI are high, and the logistics of bringing the equipment out of the laboratory can make public engagement impractical since prototypes often lack robustness and may require significant time and effort to transport and recommission.

We therefore set out to engage with non-scientific audiences using a robust physical prop – a semi-autonomous puppet – that would act as a proxy for potential future developments, and that would appear to interact in an emotionally sophis-ticated way. The Heart Robot project was inspired by current research in artificial emotion, robotic developmental psychology and human-robot relationships emerging from research laboratories around the world (Breazeal, 1999; Breazeal, 2000; Breazeal, 2003a; Breazeal, 2003b; Dautenhahn, 2007; Dautenhahn et al., 2003; Dautenhahn & Billard, 1999; Fong et al., 2003; Friedman et al., 2003; Jaeckel et al., 2007; Khan 1998; Peltu & Wilks, 2008; Reeves & Nass, 1996; Robins et al., 2005; Shibata et al., 2004).

By combining both puppetry and autonomous reflexes, Heart Robot intended to present robotics in a fun and engaging light, as well as demonstrate that robotics research also raises key philosophical issues. Puppetry captures the imagination and often generates interesting questions, making it a popular and significant form of performance that can reach out to adults and children alike (Dircks, 2004). Robotics is part of a long tradition that goes right back to automata used to “strike awe and wonder into the ancients” (Sharkey & Sharkey, 2006: p 10). A well-known example is Wolfgang von Kempelen's chess playing ‘Turk’ which prompted questions about the possibility of artificial intelligence



over 150 years before the first digital computers were built (Standage, 2002); this is an excellent example of the value of a proxy stimulating discussion of future developments.

Furthermore, communicating important political and societal issues through performance and metaphor is commonplace within the creative indus-tries: examples include ‘Invisible Theatre’, ‘Theatre of the Oppressed’ and ‘Forum Theatre’ (Boal, 2004), and ‘Bread and Puppet Theatre’ (Bread & Puppet, 2009). Performance has also been used to raise awareness of issues in science and technology, for example the Y-Touring Theatre Company programme, Genetic Futures, aims to “use theatre as a means of increasing the informed debate about the impact of science on society, particularly in the field of biomedical science” (Y Touring, 2009).

In their paper examining the role of interactive exhibits in museums, Adams et al (2004) describe “hearts-on” (p. 156) exhibits as those that engage with us in a “physical, intellectual and emotional” (p. 156) way. It was this type of “hearts-on” engagement that was intended with Heart Robot; that by providing more than a ‘hands-on or minds-on’ intervention, members of the public would change how they felt about robots, and as a result be moved to think through the issues, seek out further information, and to ask questions. Furthermore, the proj-ect was often engaging audiences at events very different from the normal arenas of public engagement with science, where they were expecting to be entertained, therefore the mode of engagement would have to be entertaining also.

This paper presents a description of the Heart Robot Project and a summary of the project evaluation, which collected feedback from the public audience and the project team. This information was collected by an independent third party using methods common in assessing the success of public engagement projects (RCUK, 2005).

. The project

The project had two main aims:

i. To stimulate thought and debate about robots of the future: in particular, to ask what it would be like if robots were to interact with us in complex social ways, for example through ‘artificial emotions’.

ii. To challenge cultural perceptions about robots: in particular, to show that robotics can be creative, that robots could be something with which we could have an emotional attachment or a social interaction, and hence could be something that appeals to our humanity.



The project sought to meet its aims through the following objectives:

i. To provide members of the public with a hands-on interactive encounter with a puppet to stimulate dialogue and encourage awareness of the debate around social robots

ii. To be present at events not normally associated with science and technologyiii. To develop a website and other materials that will allow the public to follow-up

their interestiv. To foster relationships between the creative industries and the scientific

research communityv. To promote the value of public engagement within the research community

and provide researchers with an opportunity to observe the public's response to their work

We were fortunate to have access to a number of co-located resources which enabled the project to flourish:

The Bristol Robotics Laboratory, one of the largest robotics labs in the UK, –is part of a consortium investigating cooperative human robot interaction systems (CHRIS, 2008)The University of the West of England, Bristol (UWE) is the coordinating –centre for Walking with Robots (WWR, 2008), an EPSRC funded public engagement programme focussing on intelligent roboticsThe robotics undergraduate intake at UWE currently includes an internationally- –recognised Bunraku1 puppeteerThere is a considerable amount of creative industry in the Bristol area, –which is known for puppetry, animation and digital arts as exemplified by the Creative Technology Network (CTN, 2007)

Experts from within the robotics and artificial intelligence, animatronics, and performance communities were also recruited to contribute to the project,2 as were undergraduate volunteers.

. The design

.1 Physical appearance of the puppet

The final design of the puppet specifically aimed to demonstrate that robots can be something people value, something of beauty, an object of play, a work of art, or even something sensual. For this reason the project team considered it important


‘Heart Robot’, a public engagement project 1

that the finished puppet be evidently made by hand – the product of an artisan. Metaphor also played a large part in the design. The team wanted to draw out comparisons with a creator by crafting something infant-like in clay; the process of creation, and of the project as a whole, was made visible on the project website. The infant robot metaphor can also be seen to represent that the field of robotics is also in its infancy where care and thought about its development are required. The design was intended to be attractive, comfortable and non-threatening – a puppet that was infant-like, light-hearted, slightly comical, and playful. However, it was also heavily influenced by practicalities, for example the size of the puppet was governed by the size of the components and batteries required for the autonomous functions of the puppet.

The final puppet (see Figure 1) was an android doll made of a low-melting point thermal plastic called ‘Polymorph’. It had minimal facial features; two large eyes with moving eyelids, two nostrils and two ears turned slightly downwards. This simplicity was deliberate; inspiration was taken from the ‘neutral mask’, a mask without particular expression and the simple ‘Volto’ or ‘Larva’ mask of Venetian tradition. Both neutral and expressive masks are used in the performance teach-ings of Jacques Lecoq (2000). Neutral masks allow the actors using them to take on a neutral generic being, rather than a character with a history.

The puppet had a large head, a large distended belly, long legs and large feet. Each hand had three fingers and a thumb. The back of the head, and the body, were covered in a padded suit made from a neutral coloured Egyptian cotton. On the left-hand side of the chest was an exposed ‘beating’ silicon heart backlit by a red LED.

Figure 1. The Heart Robot



. Functional design

As highlighted by Reeves and Nass (1998) and others, technology does not need to be complex for members of the public to engage in a relationship with it. Sharkey and Sharkey (2006: p. 12) explain that creating an illusion about technology “relies partly on capturing features that people use to attribute sentience or animacy” and that humans intuitively know what those features are. The creative and performance industries have a long tradition of study into what is needed to arouse an emotional response (Lecoq, 2004). In order to promote such responses, Heart Robot incorpo-rated simple autonomous functions which made it more than a puppet; it was some-thing that was reacting to its environment, consisting of audience and puppeteer. On the advice of the experts in performance, the autonomous functions included:

i. Accelerometers in the head and body, which were coupled to the rate of blinking and to the heart beat so that these increased as the puppet was moved quickly or repeatedly.

ii. A proximity sensor which means that it could grasp an object or hold some-one’s hand, its fingers closing gently like a baby’s.

. Performance design

Performances took the form of street theatre involving the puppeteer, puppet, and often a second volunteer who was there to answer questions about the puppet, the project or social robotics. Throughout the performances there was an open and obvious relationship between the puppeteer, the puppet and the robot within the puppet. The puppeteer, through Bunraku puppetry, provided the cognitive capa-bilities and the personality as he was able to interpret social and cultural cues and respond accordingly. At the same time the puppet had its own autonomous func-tions by virtue of its ‘robotic’ components.

. The events

Over the course of the project, performances took place at fifteen events, of which approximately two thirds were events not normally associated with science and technology. These events were mostly chosen on the basis of their geographical and temporal locality within the project, although several high-profile events out-side the region were added as opportunities arose as the project progressed:

Three events normally associated with science and technology and popular –with family audiences (Cheltenham Science Festival, Emotibots at London Science Museum, BA Festival of Science)



Four street festivals in the Bristol area, also popular with family audiences –(St Paul’s Carnival in Bristol, Bristol Harbour Festival, Bristol Balloon Fiesta, ‘The Bristol Do’)Five informal appearances at cafés in the Bristol area –Artbots 2008 held in Dublin, Ireland –Arnolfini Café Scientifique attended only by adults –Creative Technology Network event ‘Real Robots’ attended only by adults –

At these events we supplied postcards which informed the audience about the project website (http://www.heartrobot.org.uk) where they could explore issues further, access interviews with the experts and view a short documentary. Visitors to the website were asked for their opinions via an online questionnaire, however they were free to decline.

We used an external consultant to evaluate the project. In doing so, we were able to draw on her extensive expertise in evaluating public engagement projects for clients such as Cheltenham Festivals Ltd and the Institute of Physics. We also gained a more objective insight into the successes and challenges of the project.

. Methodology

It is important to make the distinction between evaluation of public engagement interventions and evaluation as understood by the HRI community. Within the public engagement community it is accepted that good evaluation of a public engagement project should at least investigate: (1) whether the exercise has met its targets or objectives; (2) whether the process has worked well and (2) what impact the process has had on participants (Warburton et al., 2007: p. 2). Evalua-tion might also investigate whether the objectives were the right ones, and exam-ine the lessons learned. The methods chosen are likely to reflect an evaluation’s main purpose. For example, if an evaluation is designed for audit then a number of quantitative or statistical measures will be implemented, and if the evaluation is designed for identifying lessons learned and best practice, then more qualita-tive measures will be used.

Heart Robot was a pilot project and whilst it was necessary to measure the number of people it reached, our primary interest was learning from the proj-ect and so much of the evaluation was qualitative. The desire to learn from the project also meant the evaluation was designed to provide formative feedback throughout the development process as well as summative feedback at the proj-ect's conclusion.



Rowe and Frewer (2004) define the following steps in an evaluation – defining effectiveness; developing processes and methods to measure success; conducting the evaluation; and interpreting the results. These steps provide a useful frame-work for discussion of our own methodology.

.1 Defining effectiveness

In the Heart Robot project we were engaging with people at social and recre-ational events, who were likely to measure success by the extent to which they were being entertained. However the project aimed to use the puppet to stimu-late thought and debate about robots of the future, and to challenge cultural perceptions about robots. We were also interested in investigating the impact on the audience, but also in assessing the value of collaboration on members of the creative industries and scientific researchers.

Our evaluation was designed to measure progress against these aims and objectives. In addition, as the project was a pilot we were also keen to learn from each event. The project deliverers were therefore encouraged, throughout the pro-cess, to reflect on audiences’ responses and enhance the delivery of the project.

. Developing processes and methods to measure success

To measure the impact of the project on the members of the public we employed a number of tools. We observed and interviewed audience members at six events: Cheltenham Science Festival (7 June 2008); Bristol Harbour Festival (3 August 2008); Bristol Balloon Fiesta (8 August 2008); Creative Technology Network (16 September 2008); The Bristol Do (27 September 2008); Arnolfini Science Cafe (5 December 2008). We used an on-line survey to gauge the responses and opinions of visitors to the website. Feedback from the project team and other contributors was collected via a project wrap-up meeting in late October 2008 and by email and telephone. In addition to this formal evaluation data, a contact address was accessible from the web page which enabled visitors to contact the project team with their thoughts and opinions.

The development of tools to measure success must consider their validity, reliability and usability (Rowe & Frewer, 2004). The use of an external evaluator, with many years of experience in evaluating public engagement, gave us con-siderable confidence in the face validity (assessing the plausibility of the results obtained (Rowe & Frewer, 2004)) of the specific measures. In addition, we used a variety of instruments such as observations and interviews, and were able to compare the results. Reliability refers to the ability of an instrument or measure



to deliver consistent results over time or when administered on different occa-sions. As outlined above, the evaluation drew on experiences at several events, and with different audience members. Usability is also an important consider-ation and recognising that we were conducting our evaluation at events where people had come to be entertained and have fun, we were careful that the evalu-ation tools were appropriate to the location, activity or event, and the subjects of the evaluation. For example, we used two different interview schedules – one suitable for those under 12, and another suitable for those aged 12 and above. Both schedules were kept short reflecting what was appropriate when asking members of the public for their opinions on a short demonstration as part of a recreational event.

The interview schedules comprised a mixture of closed and open questions. The closed questions provided demographic information; data about respondents’ general attitudes towards robots; and their ratings of Heart Robot. The open ques-tions enabled audience members to express a wide range of opinions such as why they did or did not like the puppet; what they liked or disliked; the believability and usefulness of socially interactive robots.

Respondents aged over 12 were first asked for a maximum of three words that they thought best described the puppet. They were then asked to rate how Interesting, Interactive, Fun and Thought–provoking they felt Heart Robot was, and why? To assess what people had understood or gained from their encounter with the puppet, the team first had to determine what they knew before (RCUK, Evaluation: Practical Guidelines p. 10), and so the interviews asked those aged over 12 about their prior interest in robotics before asking whether their feelings had been changed, and whether they would continue to discuss robots after the event. Respondents aged over 12 were also asked if they felt robots could have emotions. Respondents aged 12 and under were asked for the words they thought best described the puppet, what they thought of the puppet, and whether seeing the puppet had changed how they feel about robots. In the final section of the interview, subjects of all ages were invited to add further comments or suggest improvements to the puppet.

The online questionnaire comprised three parts; information about respon-dents, their opinions about robots in general and Heart Robot specifically, and their views about the website. Respondents were also asked whether they could ever love a robot, whether they thought a robot could ever love them back, and what affect robots with feelings or emotions could have on us in the future. Space was included for respondents to make general comments. The online questionnaire and interviews were designed to move from simple non- threatening questions to those that required more thought and personal information, thus



making the completion process easier for respondents (RCUK, Evaluation: Practical Guidelines p. 27).

. Conducting the evaluation

The puppet was complete at all observed events with the exception of Cheltenham Science Festival. The observations recorded numbers of ‘intimate encounters’ and ‘engaged spectators’ at fixed time points throughout each observation period. An ‘intimate encounter’ was defined as when an individual engaged personally with the puppet. This included touching, speaking to, holding and establishing a relationship with it. ‘Engaged spectators’ consisted of people who stopped and watched the puppet and its intimate encounters. Their reactions included asking questions, accepting a picture postcard (which also served as a pointer towards the website) and discussing the puppet with other onlookers. Observations took place at different times throughout an event to account for variances in overall visitor numbers and competing attractions. Observational data were recorded in a structured ‘field diary’ which included time of the observation and sections for (1) the number of participants; (2) the level of their encounters; (3) their input into discussions; (4) the ages, gender and visitor groups of people who actively participated; (5) the language they used; and (6) their main areas of concern and questioning.

Audience impressions at a deeper level were gathered through short, struc-tured interviews (16 with subjects aged 12 or under and 48 with subjects aged over 12) with audience members after they had engaged with the puppet. Care was taken to select subjects who represented the observed audience in terms of demographics, e.g. age, visitor group composition, and responses were recorded by note taking of key points. Interviews were conducted with both those who experienced an ‘intimate encounter’ with the puppet and those who were ‘engaged spectators’.

. Interpreting the results

Analysis of the observational data involved tallies of audience numbers and categorisation of audience behaviours and comments. The main themes and issues raised by audiences were plotted against who made each comment, enabling identification of the ages and genders of people who raised specific issues. The analysis took into account context and intended meaning as well as body language and the spoken language used.

Responses to closed questions from the interviews and online survey were collated. For open questions, the evaluator spent some time becoming familiar



with the data, looking for similar responses in order to draw up a coding framework, identifying themes and sub-themes and illustrative quotes (RCUK, Evaluation: Practical Guidelines, p. 21–23). The text in the responses was coded according to a number of categories: Generally positive; Generally negative; Puppet’s appearance; Ownership/ buying; and Potential uses, before collating the coded responses in an Excel spreadsheet.

. Results

.1 At the events

At every event the puppet succeeded in engaging large audiences and attracting significant levels of attention. Events normally began with a playful, sometimes cheeky, exchange between the puppet and a member of the public, and often resulted in members of the public holding the puppet and taking over from the puppeteer. This changing of roles often encouraged further members of the audience to engage in the activity, seeing the ‘handing-over’ of the puppet as permission to interact with it.

Key points from the Observations are summarised here:

A total of 960 encounters were observed at six events. 185 were ‘intimate –encounters’ and 660 were ‘engaged spectators’. 115 encounters were observed at the Creative Technology Network and the Arnolfini Science café, which differed from the walkabout encounters that took place at the festivals.Even when the puppet was ‘unfinished’ at Cheltenham Science Festival, it –managed successfully to engage adults and children. People of all ages were attracted ‘directly’ by the performance and ‘indirectly’ by observing people (mainly children) who were interacting with the puppet.No significant differences were observed in responses to the finished and –unfinished puppet and so the data presented here has been combined.The puppet was able to provide audiences with a wide range of highly- –personalised engagement experiences:

‘Contact’ intimate encounters – many children and adults wanted to –touch the puppet.‘Non-contact’ intimate encounters – children in particular were able –to have intimate encounters without touching the puppet. These included mimicking the puppet’s movements and ‘dancing’ or ‘walking’ with it.



Engaged spectators – these were attracted from a wide distance (up to –10 metres in some cases). Several people were observed making detours to watch or photograph ‘intimate encounters’.

A typical intimate encounter lasted between 2 and 3 minutes. The ratio of –‘intimate encounters’ to ‘engaged spectators’ varied between 1:3 and 1:6 according to the nature of the event and the location.The nature of the engagement experiences did not appear to affect the –responses or reactions of the audiences, which were consistent regardless of the type of encounter.Overall, a majority of observed encounters – 623 (65%) – took place with –females.Most of the audiences were family groups, which reflected the nature of the –events that were observed.Audience reactions covered a wide spectrum from “ – scary” to “brilliant”. Adults were more likely than children to be overheard expressing concern about the concept of ‘emotional robots’ and their possible negative impact on society.

. Interviews

Females made up 62% of interview respondents, which reflected the gender balance observed at the events. The age ranges reflect the family audiences that are most likely to attend the festivals (see Figure 2.)

18

16 16

6

10

12

9

3

1

7

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0u13 13–17 18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 56–65 65+

Figure 2. Interview respondents’ age range (n=64)



The 5 words most used by over-12s to describe the puppet were: Interesting; Weird; Amazing; Thought-provoking; Engaging. 45 (95%) respondents aged over 12 rated the puppet as ‘very’ interesting and 45 (95%) ‘very’ thought provoking. 26 (54%) felt that it was ‘very’ interactive with remainder, 22 (46%), rating it as ‘quite’ interactive. 19 respondents (40%) rated it as ‘very’ fun with 26 (54%) and 3 (6%) rating it as ‘quite’ and ‘a little’ fun respectively (see Figure 3.)

Interesting

Interactive

Fun

�oughtprovoking

VeryQuiteA little

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

45 3

3

26 22

2619

2 145

Figure 3. Respondents’ (over 12) ratings of Heart Robot (n=48)

The puppet generated a wide variety of opinions which were generally very positive, for example:

“It is so different to anything else I have ever seen”;“Holding it was fantastic and somehow soothing”;“I really liked how it responded when I touched it”;“It appeals to everyone”;“Its heart beating faster was very good, but a bit strange”;“I like robots anyway. This one held your hand which was amazing”;“It had sensors and things which reacted to you”.

22 respondents (46%) aged over 12 indicated that they were ‘definitely’ not interested in robots prior to seeing the puppet, with a further 6 (13%) ‘proba-bly’ not interested. However 13 (27%) and 24 (50%) indicated respectively that they would ‘definitely’ and ‘probably’ continue to discuss robots afterwards.



This suggests that the puppet has increased people’s general interest in the subject of robotics (see Figure 4). A similar impact was found in respondents aged 12 or less with 13 (81%) indicating that the puppet had made them more interested in robots, and the remainder indicating no change. No one responded that it had made them less interested.

Believe thatrobots can

have emotionsor feelings

Previouslyinterestedin robots

Will continueto discuss robots

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

45

5 3 6 2212

2 1

13 24 7 4

De�nitely yes

De�nitely no

Probably yes

Probably noNeutral

Figure 4. Interview respondents’ (over 12) views about robots (n=48)

Nine (19%) of respondents aged over 12 indicated that they ‘definitely’ believe that robots can have emotions or feelings, with a further 18 (38%) saying they ‘probably’ believe robots have emotions or feelings (see Figure 4). Eighteen respon-dents of all ages added comments that indicate that whilst they believe it is possible for robots to display emotions or feelings, those emotions or feelings have to be given to them by man, either through programming or some other form of influ-ence or control.

Further comments and suggested improvements obtained at the end of the interviews centred around four key themes: ‘Appearance’, ‘Attitudes Towards Robots’, ‘Potential Societal Impact’ and ‘Suggested Improvements’. Examples are given below.

.1 Appearance

People who commented positively about the puppet’s appearance typically used words such as “cute” or “lovable”. Even those who described the puppet as “weird” or “scary” indicated that these characteristics did not deter themselves or others from wanting to engage with it. Comments included “Weird but cute” and “It looks



quite scary, but I, and others, am still attracted to it”. There was a view that the puppet looked human and the padded suit gave it the appearance of being injured or bandaged, which could make people respond more sympathetically than they otherwise would. For example:

“I think the face is the thing that attracts people first, which makes me think that subconsciously we believe it is human”;“The bandages make it look injured. It would be better if they were not white”;“It would be interesting to see people’s responses if it looked less like a ‘bandaged’ victim”.

. Attitudes towards robots

Adults and children indicated that interacting with the puppet had caused a positive change in how they felt about robots. Most of the reasons given for any change referred to the puppet’s ‘emotional’ attributes and the fact that its appearance differed from typical representations of robots in the popular media. Example comments include:

“It shows that some robots can have feelings”;“It does not look or feel like a robot, which I like”;“It made me realise that the robots shown in films are not the only type that exist”;“I liked the way it responded to your touch, it made it more interesting than most robots”;“I did not know that robots could be like this, i.e. change when people did different things”;“It’s good because there are lots of things this robot could do that other robots I’ve seen could not”.

Those adults who said their views had not changed also gave reasons, which reflected their opinions that robots remain machines and cannot become emo-tional or social. Children whose attitudes had not changed said it was because they already liked robots.

. Potential societal impact

Audiences made both positive and negative comments about the potential impact on society of ‘emotional robots’, with a majority commenting positively and indicating a number of possible benefits in healthcare and emotional support for children and adults. Examples of positive comments included:

“It could be useful for society, in healthcare. I’m going on the website to find out more”;“I would love someone to investigate if it could help people with learning difficulties”.



Negative comments reflected concerns about substituting robots for humans in our relationships and with the blurring of boundaries between machines and humans. Examples included:

“I am concerned that it would mess with people’s perceptions of what is a machine and what is human”;“I am not sure if that is a good thing. Surely we need to retain our belief that it is a machine”.

. Suggested improvements

Those who suggested improvements tended to focus on the puppet’s appearance. Most of their comments were associated with making it look more colourful and attrac-tive and less “scary”, or less like it was wearing bandages. There were also suggestions that it should respond to sounds and make sounds of its own. Comments include:

“Make it look more like a baby as some people are scared of the way it looks now”;“It should respond to voices and sounds. It could even be given its own voice”;“Coloured clothes would make it look less like it was wearing bandages”.

. Online

Between 27 July and 31 December 2008, 402 respondents completed the online questionnaire. The age range of respondents is shown in Figure 5. 250 (62%) respondents were female, which is consistent with the gender balance observed and interviewed at the events.

120

29

94

111

64

39

132

50

100

80

60

40

20

0u13 13–17 18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 56–65 65+

Figure 5. Online questionnaire respondents’ age range (n=402)



155 (39%) respondents were generally ‘very’ interested in robots, 167 (42%) were ‘quite’ and none were ‘not at all’ interested; 34 (8%) did not answer. When asked the questions about loving robots, 137 (34%) and 132 (33%) respectively indicated that they could ‘definitely’ and ‘probably’ love a robot. The numbers who said they ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ could not love a robot were 42 (10 %) and 7 (2%) respectively, 53 (13%) did not know and 31 (8%) did not answer. When asked; ‘could a robot ever love you back’, respondents were less certain with 46 (11%) and 95 (24%) saying ‘definitely yes’ and ‘probably yes’ respectively. 65 (16%) and 48 (12%) responded ‘probably no’ and ‘definitely no’ A further 117 (29%) were uncer-tain and 31 (8%) did not answer (see Figure 6).

Could youever lovea robot?

Could a robotever loveyou back?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

137

46 95 65 48 31117

132 53 42 317De�nitely yes

De�nitely noNo answer

Porbably yes

Porbably no

Maybe/don’t know

Figure 6. Respondents’ attitudes to loving robots (n=402)

Of the 369 respondents who answered the on-line survey question about the affect of robots with feelings or emotions, 260 remarked positively. Comments were often more detailed than those received through interview and raised issues such as companionship, for example:

“If they were all like heart, who I found adorable, I think it would help combat loneliness because they would make a wonderful companion for somebody on their own”,“I am at present looking for a doll for my Mum who has Alzheimer’s. She is not able to engage with usual everyday activities any more and I am hoping that on an instinctive level she might respond to a doll as something she could look after. Maybe a Heart Robot would be even better?”



Fourty-three respondents raised concerns about the possible impact of social and emotional robots. Some of their comments indicated that they were concerned about the confusion that could arise from people ‘loving’ robots:

“I think there’s the danger of people relying on robots to meet emotional needs in the same way that people sometimes rely too heavily on pets or internet communication to feel connected. This can be a substitute for real, human connection”;“I think they might make us a bit confused about what love actually is for!”

Others believed that robots could somehow turn against their creators:

“Man will not stop creating new, more sophisticated robots until AI is a reality! Hope we are not at war with the results someday!”

Sixty-six respondents were uncertain about whether the impact of social and emotional robots would be positive or negative. Their responses either directly expressed uncertainty or contained both positive and negative elements:

“I am quite uncertain about how they could affect us. I could imagine a child who has to live in a bubble because of an immune condition having one to play with. However I am concerned by the thought that they could become substitutes for human contact with older people, for example”;“At this point I do not know enough of the aspects of interaction the Robots will have with us. I am interested, though, to see if it will be in fact, beneficial to humans”;“I believe that being able to “use” a “toy” like this would be great fun. I am looking forward. But I am a little afraid of it, too. For me, and most of all other people, it wouldn’t be dangerous to be “a robot’s friend”, but I do believe that it could be dangerous for the social life of some”.

Of the 192 respondents who indicated that ‘emotional robots’ could have specific uses, 112 would use them for emotional support or companionship; 59 said they have medical or therapeutic potential; and 21 indicated they could be sold as toys.

Many of the comments about providing emotional support or companionship expressed the view that ‘emotional robots’ can address loneliness in adults and children. It was suggested that they will be useful to adults who live alone or do not have children and to children who lack confidence around people. Examples of the comments made:

“They would make a wonderful companion for somebody on their own”;“I know a lot of women that can not have children who would love something like this”;“They could help very young children with confidence problems because they could learn to interact with the robot which would help them to get on with other children with similar emotions to the robot”.



Respondents who suggested therapeutic uses focused on children in long-term hospital care (e.g. with cancer or immune conditions) and people with autism. For example:

“These robots have the potential to help others. They can be used in therapeutic ways. They can be used to help children battling cancer. They can help with the treatment of autism, as well as treating children who have experienced previous traumas”.

The main reason given for suggesting that ‘emotional robots’ would make good toys was their potential to train children how to take care of something without giving them the full responsibility of caring for an animal.

Over the period of events there were 96 emails. None of the responses were solicited by the evaluator. Many of the emails requested further information for the press and media, or asked for information relating to where to buy the puppet, or where the next event would take place. The remaining emails are nearly all very positive; some refer to an interaction with the puppet, for example: “I was allowed to cuddle him last sunday at the balloon fiesta and fell in love with him instantly. I feel very honoured to have been able to hold such technology and such a cutie-pie”, or state that the interaction has led them to investigate the project further: “we made him walk and my friend rachel hed him but i woz scared when he put his hand out to me. i have been readin evrything on your website and im fasciated by it”

A couple of the emails refer to the emotional response the puppet was able to elicit in the respondents:

“I absolutely love what you’ve done! The Heart Robot is one of the most innocent and beautiful creations I have ever seen. The video of it’s creation and life moved me to tears”;“i saw an article on the heart robot online and i was blown away by it! i think its amazing what you guys have come up with. it actually make me even cry a little”.

A number of emails referred to the appearance or functionality of the puppet:

“Heart Robots are so delightful and engaging! I love the fact he can grip and walk when assisted but that he’s also helpless and soft like a baby … I think what you’ve made is so beautiful and creative- and I’m really glad you’ve left out the gimmicks like silly voices and stupid dancing but still made him so cute and lovable”;“The life likeness of this robot enforces a stronger connection with humans. Robots that feel alive will have more respect and provide better human interactions. The handmade craftsmanship of the Heart Robot gives imperfections that truly enhance the human feel. I don’t see the Heart Robot falling down the uncanny valley”.

A few emails referred to the potential uses:

“As a near shut-in, it’d be great to have a pal that makes no mess and always responds positively to affectionate contact. People have conversations with their pets expecting no real understanding, why not a Heart Robot as well?”;



“What great work, and so interesting!! I can see some useful applications for the heart robots in research into Autism, Personality disorders, Childhood emotional and physical trauma incidents, Brain injury, Delayed or damaged emotional development, and there are probably many more”.

On particular email demonstrated a high level of impact, provoking a very thoughtful response:

“Where will robots ‘soul’ be? Or spirit? If they have them? How will we make robots aware of what they are, socially, culturally, mentally to other humans or robots? What will be the potential to excede programming, so we may discover new modes of social intelligence, as we do for instance when visiting new cultures and countries to our own? Otherwise won’t robots be limited to defining the capaicities we give them? What will robots ‘think’ about forces or agencies which threaten them, rebuke them, challenge them, get in their way? Or those that respect them, help them, honour them? What will govern a robots moral orientation? Their design? The capacity to learn? Wherein do ‘limits’ consist? Mechanical, Cognitive, Purpose?Will there be ‘bad robots’ (maybe military killing machines) and good robots (maybe nurse or medic machines)”.

. Discussion

The five most commonly used words describing the puppet were interesting, weird, amazing, thought-provoking and engaging showing the project undoubtedly received a positive response from those who came into contact with it. Although, it is worth noting that 2 of the 5 most commonly used words were also the words respondents over 12 were asked to rate the puppet against, and even though care was taken to ask for the three descriptive words before asking for the ratings, it is possible that respondents overheard previous interviews. However, evidence for the positive reception is also present in the observation data and in the responses to the online questionnaire.

There is also evidence that the project had an impact on how people ‘felt’ about robots with most of the reasons referring to emotional attributes and how different Heart Robot was in comparison to how robots are presented in the media. The wide variety of opinions generated, and quotes such as “It is so different to anything else I have ever seen” indicate that in some cases the project was successful in challenging people’s perceptions of robots. This is in keep-ing with feedback from experts from within the performance community, who said the puppet possessed exactly the fundamental characteristics that would engage people of all ages, and especially children, who responded very intuitively.



They thought the crafted look had softened Heart Robot's technological image, which broadened its appeal, and helped the audience to question their precon-ceptions about robots.

The puppet was such a simple simulacrum, and yet for some people it triggered intense emotional responses, perhaps making the case for the use of proxies in delivering public engagement events in the future. However, it should be acknowl-edged that for this project, the quality of the engagement was very dependent on the skills of the puppeteer.

The evaluation shows that the project was able to stimulate thought and dialogue around the subject area of emotional and social robots with many members of the public, who came into contact with Heart Robot, indicating that they would continue to discuss robotics afterwards. The high traffic recorded on the website, the email feedback and comments such as “I’m going on the website to find out more” indicates that many of them were keen to explore the issues fur-ther, and had been triggered into thinking about the possibilities and challenges presented by machines which appear to have emotions.

A number of comments indicate that the aims of the project were sometimes misunderstood. Heart Robot was intended to be a discussion prompt, an abstrac-tion rather than an example of current robot capabilities. However, some people were very quick to accept it as a fact rather than a representation of a possible future. The project team considered it likely that the street theatre format, and short interaction times in noisy and busy environments, meant that it was difficult to relate the performances to the current reality or near future of the research. With this is mind the project website played an important role, as a source of information, and an opportunity to hear from experts in the field.

Many of comments received about Heart Robot's appearance, robotic tech-nology, and its impact and potential uses were positive and not unexpected or unusual. Those who were uncertain about the potential impact of ‘emotional robots’ can identify specific situations where they may be of benefit but also expressed the opinion that their use needs to be managed and controlled. Some of the potential uses proposed by members of the public, such as companions and mediators for children with autism, are already the subject of research (LIREC, 2009; Robins, 2005). Some of the concerns expressed are mirrored in other studies which present public concern about emotional relationships between robots and humans (Turkle, 2005), and suggest a blurring of onto-logical boundaries (Melson et al., 2009), or as one audience member put it, “peo-ple’s perceptions of what is a machine and what is human”. The specific concern about robots replacing humans is also recognised as a potential problem by the EURON Roboethics Roadmap (Veruggio, 2006), and the issue of dangerous



robots or robots turning against their creators is often raised in popular culture (Khan, 1998).

. Recommendations

The field of social and emotional robotics proved an interesting topic for –public audiences, and could be used as an engaging example of robotics research to raise awareness and stimulate debate around wider aspects of robotics research.Puppetry also proved successful in engaging the public about robotics. Future –projects could explore the success of a puppet that is less reliant on an operator and perhaps also less humanoid.The project has shown that there is a considerable amount of synergy between –the creative and robotics communities and we recommend pursuing further opportunities for collaboration.When engaging audiences through short interactions in noisy and busy –environments, extra care should be taken to mitigate against misunder-standing of the project aims or current boundaries of the research.

1. Conclusion

The project team regarded the project to be highly ambitious and personally rewarding, particularly when witnessing public reactions at first hand. The puppet, and the subject matter, proved very effective at engaging a wide variety of audiences at a variety of locations and events, including some not normally associated with science and technology. The project was shown to have had an impact on the audi-ence’s attitudes to robotics and succeeded in shifting their perceptions of robots.

The project also showed that public engagement activities can be rewarding, technically challenging and fun for those involved in the development and delivery. A significant amount project’s success was attributed to the creative freedom the team had, and the combination of expertise that was used. It could not have been delivered by either roboticists or performers alone. Team members agreed that there are significant opportunities for further development and collaboration.

The team feel that the project was very successful and met all of the objectives, bringing together a variety of communities in a multi-disciplinary project that challenged people’s preconceptions about robotics. Almost a year later, the team still receive requests for information from members of the public and from the world’s media.



Notes

1. In the west Bunraku Puppetry often refers to the way in which the puppet is manipu-lated, which is similar to that of traditional Japanese Bunraku. The puppeteers manipulate the puppet directly (there are no rods or strings) in full view of the audience.

. Dr J Bryson, Professor K Dautenhahn, Professor M Shanahan and Professor A Winfield, shared their expertise on robotics and artificial intelligence. Matt Denton, an animatronics designer with extensive experience in designing electronic and control systems for film and television, advised on the production of the puppet. William Todd-Jones, a puppeteer with extensive experience working and performing with animatronic puppets in film and televi-sion and in front of live audiences, and Bim Mason, the Co-founder and Head of Perfor-mance Studies and Co-Director of Circomedia, The Centre for Contemporary Circus and Physical Performance, both assisted in refining our understanding of how to interact with the audience with our robot/puppet hybrid. Dr Peter Walters (RCUK Research Fellow in Rapid Prototyping; Arts Media and Design, The University of the West of England, Bristol) helped with the construction techniques and novel materials that allowed the Heart Robot to appear to respond to the audience.

References

Adams, M., Luke, J., Moussouri, T. (2004). Interactivity: Moving Beyond Terminology, Curator, 47 (2), 155–170.

Beacons for Public Engagement [BPE]. (2008). The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. [Online] Available at: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/project/default.htm [Accessed 10 January 2009].

Boal, A. (2004). Theatre of the Oppressed. [Online] Available at: http://www.theatreoftheoppressed.org/en/index.php?nodeID=3 [Accessed 19 January 2009].

Bread & Puppet. (2009). Bread & Puppet. [Online] Available at: http://www.breadandpuppet.org/ [Accessed 19 January 2009].

Breazeal, C. (2003a). Toward Sociable Robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 167–175.Breazeal, C. (2003b). Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International Journal of Human

Computer Studies, 59, 119–155.Breazeal, C. (2000). Sociable Machines: expressive social exchange between humans and robots,

Sc. D dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT.Breazeal, C., Scassellati, B. (1999). How to build robots that make friends and influence people.

Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2, 858–863.Birkhead, T. (2007). Don’t be afraid, you can wing it. Times Higher Education, 6 April 2007

[Online] Available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=208543 [Accessed 31 January 2009].

The CHRIS Project [CHRIS]. (2008). Cooperative Human Robot Interaction Systems. [Online] Available at: www.chrisfp7.eu [Accessed 31 January 2009].

Creative Technology Network [CTN]. (2007). Creative Technology Network launches in Bristol. [Online] Available at: http://www.connectingbristol.org/2007/07/18/creative-technology-networklaunches-in-bristol/ [Accessed 19 January 2009].



Dautenhahn, K. (2007a). Methodology & Themes of Human–Robot Interaction: A Growing Research Field. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 4 (1), 103–108.

Dautenhahn, K. (2007b). Socially Intelligent Robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 679–704.

Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S.N., Kaouri, C. Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion – friend, assistant or butler? In Proceedings of IEEE RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (IROS’ 05), 1488–1493.

Dautenhahn, K., Billard, A. (1999). Studying Robot Social Cognition within a developmental psychology framework. In Proceedings of 3rd European Workshop on Advanced Mobile Robots (Eurobot ‘99) 1999, 187–194.

Dircks, P.T. (2004). American Puppetry: Collections, History and Performance. McFarland & Co Inc.

Fong, T.W., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 143–166.

Friedman, B., Khan, P.H., Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware companions?: What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human robotic relationship. Conference on human factors in computing systems, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 273–280.

Jaeckel, P., Campbell, N., Melhuish, C. (2007). Towards realistic facial behaviour – mapping from video footage to a robot head. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robots (ICORR), IEEE, 833–838.

Kahn, P.H., Friedman, B., Perez-Granados, D.R., & Freier, N.G. (2006). Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interaction Studies: Social Behavior and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 7, 405−436.

Khan, Z. (1998). Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. Technical Report IPLab-154, TRI-TA-NA-P9821, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Lecoq, J., Carasso, J-G., Lallias, J-C. (2000). The Moving Body: Teaching Creative Theatre. Translated from the French by David Bradby, Methuen Publishing Ltd, London.

Lehr, Jane L., McCallie, Ellen, Davies, Sarah R., Caron, Brandiff R., Gammon, Benjamin & Duensing, Sally (2007). ‘The Value of “Dialogue Events” as Sites of Learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks’, International Journal of Science Education, 29:12, 1467–1487.

LIREC (2009). LIREC / LIving with Robots and InteractivE Companions. [Online] Available at: http://www.lirec.org/ [Accessed 8 May 2009].

Melson, G.F., Kahn P.H., Becka, A., Friedman, B., Roberts, T., Garretta, E., & Gill, B.T. (2009). Children’s behavior toward an understanding of robotic and living dogs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30 (2), pp 92–102.

Peltu, M., Wilks, Y. (2008). Engaging with artificial companions: Key social, psychological, ethical and design issues. [Online] Available at: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/FD14.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2008].

RCUK. (2005). Evaluation: Practical Guidelines. [Online] Available at: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/evaluationguide.htm [Accessed 9 January 2009].

Rosener, J. (1981). User oriented evaluation: A new way to view citizen participation. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 17, 4, 583 – 596.

Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Science Technology Human Values, 29, 512–556.

Shibata T., Wada, K., Tanie, K. (2004). Tabulation and analysis of questionnaire results of subjective evaluation of seal robot in Japan, UK, Sweden and Italy. In Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA ‘04), 2, 1387–1392.



Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1998). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: CSLI.

Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., Billard, B. (2005). Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: Can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Universal Access in the Information Society (UAIS), 4 (2), Springer Verlag.

Sharkey, N & Sharkey, A. (2006). Artificial intelligence and natural magic. Artificial Intelligence Review 25, (1–2) pp 9–19.

Standage, T. (2002). The Turk: The Life and Times of the Famous Eighteenth- Century Chess-Playing Machine. Walker & Co.

Turkle, S. (2005). The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit: Twentieth Anniversary edition, MIT Press.

The Royal Society. (2006). Factors affecting science communication: a survey of scientists and engineers. [Online] Available at: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180 [Accessed 7 January 2009].

Veruggio, G, (2006). The EURON Roboethics Roadmap: In Proceedings of 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 4–6 December 2006, pp 612–617.

Wilsdon, J., Willis, R. (2004). See Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Go Upstream, Demos, London.

Walking with Robots [WWR]. (2008). About Walking with Robots. [Online] Available at: http://www.walkingwithrobots.org/about/index.php [Accessed 10 January 2009].

Warburton, D, Wilson, R & Rainbow, E. (2007). Making a Difference: A Guide to Evaluating Public Participation in Central Government. [Online] Available at: http://www.involve.org.uk/making_a_difference/ [Accessed 6 May 2009].

Y Touring. (2009). Welcome to Y Touring Theatre Company. [Online] Available at: http://www. ytouring.org.uk/ [Accessed 19 January 2009].

Author’s address

Claire Rocks Sarah JenkinsUniversity of the West of England Jenesys Associates LtdScience Communication Unit PO Box 80Faculty of Health and Life Sciences PontyclunFrenchay Campus Rhondda Cynon Taff CF 72 9WZColdharbour Lane

Email: [email protected] BS16 1QYUnited Kingdom

Email: [email protected] David McGoran University of the West of EnglandName Dr Matthew Studley Bristol Institute of TechnologyAffiliation University of the West of England Frenchay CampusPostal address Bristol Institute of Technology, Coldharbour LaneFrenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QYBristol BS16 1QY

Email: [email protected]: [email protected]



Author biographical notes

Claire Rocks has a Ph.D. in space robotics. She currently coordinates the Walking with Robots network, providing support for UK robotics researchers to engage public audiences.

Sarah Jenkins is an experienced consultant who has previously contributed independent analysis on a range of public engagement programmes, both within the UK and internationally.

Matthew Studley is a member of the Bristol Robotics Laboratory and teaches Robotics at the University of the West of England. His research area is Machine Learning.

David McGoran is an internationally-recognised puppeteer who has performed to audiences all over the world. He has recently completed a BSc in Robotics.

Documents

John Benjamins Publishing Company - Research …eprints.uwe.ac.uk/12740/1/camera_copy_from_publishers.pdf · Walking with Robots (WWR, ... automata used to “strike awe and wonder