Cover not available

Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 22:2 (2021) ► pp.244–279

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Why robots should be technical

Correcting mental models through technical architecture concepts

 | CoR-Lab Bielefeld University
 | CoR-Lab Bielefeld University
 | Honda Research Institute Europe
 | Medical Assistance Systems Bielefeld University
 | Medical Assistance Systems Bielefeld University
Published online: 28 February 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.20023.hin
Abstract
Research in social robotics is commonly focused on designing robots that imitate human behavior. While this might increase a user’s satisfaction and acceptance of robots at first glance, it does not automatically aid a non-expert user in naturally interacting with robots, and might hurt their ability to correctly anticipate a robot’s capabilities. We argue that a faulty mental model, that the user has of the robot, is one of the main sources of confusion. In this work, we investigate how communicating technical concepts of robotic systems to users affect their mental models, and how this can increase the quality of human-robot interaction. We conducted an online study and investigated possible ways of improving users’ mental models. Our results underline that communicating technical concepts can form an improved mental model. Consequently, we show the importance of consciously designing robots that express their capabilities and limitations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related work
    • 2.1Dual nature of computational artifacts: Relevance and architecture
    • 2.2Relation to human interactive learning and pragmatic frames
    • 2.3Communicating technical concepts
      • 2.3.1Instructions
      • 2.3.2Feedback
  • 3.Hypotheses
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Scenario
    • 4.2System and concepts
      • 4.2.1Robot
        • Robotic platform
        • System
      • 4.2.2Concepts
        • Object recognition
        • Speech recognition
        • State machine
    • 4.3Experimental design
      • 4.3.1Architecture instruction video
      • 4.3.2Robot visualization
        • Marker detection for object identification
        • Verbal communication
        • Finite state machines for robot control
      • 4.3.3Course of online study
      • 4.3.4Human-robot interaction videos
        • Object detection error
        • Speech recognition error
        • State machine error
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Hypothesis 1: Providing architectural concepts allows users to gain more knowledge about the functionality of a robot
      • Which components does the robot have that allow it to observe or interact with its environment? (hardware)
      • What skills and abilities does the robot have? (software)
    • 5.2Hypothesis 2: Insights into the architecture of a robot increases the ability to recognize and explain errors in human-robot interaction
    • 5.3Hypothesis 3: Technical concepts differ in terms of their familiarity and observability. These factors influence the user’s ability to recognize and understand problems in human-robot interactions
    • 5.4ATI, godspeed and system-usability-scale
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • 8.Future work
  • Notes
  • References
References (44)
References
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24 (6), 574–594. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartneck, C., Kulié, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics, 1 (1), 71–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beller, W. E., & Wang, Y. P. (1997). Bar code dataform scanning and labeling apparatus and method [US Patent 5,602,377].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brand, R. J., Baldwin, D. A., & Ashburn, L. A. (2002). Evidence for ‘motionese’: Modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action. Developmental Science, 5(1), 72–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breazeal, C., Dautenhahn, K., & Kanda, T. (2016). Social robotics. Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1935–1972). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breazeal, C., Kidd, C., Thomaz, A., Hoffman, G., & Berlin, M. (2005). Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 708–713. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breslow, N. (1970). A generalized kruskal-wallis test for comparing k samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika, 57 (3), 579–594. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1985). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 1 (1), 111–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cakmak, M., & Takayama, L. (2014). Teaching people how to teach robots: The effect of instructional materials and dialog design. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, 431–438. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clement, J. (2020). Most popular mobile messaging apps worldwide as of october 2019, based on number of monthly active users [Retrieved: 2020-06-09, from [URL]].
de Greeff, J., & Belpaeme, T. (2015). Why robots should be social: Enhancing machine learning through social human-robot interaction. PLOS ONE, 10 (9), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, B. R. (2006). Fundamental issues in social robotics. International Review of Information Ethics, 6 (12), 2006. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6 (3), 241–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franke, T., Attig, C., & Wessel, D. (2019a). A personal resource for technology interaction: Development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ati) scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(6), 456–467. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). A personal resource for technology interaction: Development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ati) scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35 (6), 456–467. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrido-Jurado, S., Muñoz-Salinas, R., Madrid-Cuevas, F. J., & Marién-Jiménez, M. J. (2014). Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion. Pattern Recognition, 47(6), 2280–2292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamacher, A., Bianchi-Berthouze, N., Pipe, A. G., & Eder, K. (2016). Believing in bert: Using expressive communication to enhance trust and counteract operational error in physical human-robot interaction. 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 493–500. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M., Borchers, J., Boll, S., Pütten, A. R.-V. D., & Wulf, V. (2020). Otherware: How to best interact with autonomous systems. Interactions, 28(1), 54–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hegel, F., Gieselmann, S., Peters, A., Holthaus, P., & Wrede, B. (2011). Towards a typology of meaningful signals and cues in social robotics. 2011 RO-MAN, 72–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hindemith, L., Vollmer, A.-L., Wrede, B., & Joublin, F. (2019). Pragmatic frames as an approach to reduce misinterpretations in human-robot-interaction. Proc. Int. Conf. on Development and Learning (ICDL-EPIROB).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaptein, F., Broekens, J., Hindriks, K., & Neerincx, M. (2017). Personalised self-explanation by robots: The role of goals versus beliefs in robot-action explanation for children and adults. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 676–682. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwon, M., Huang, S. H., & Dragan, A. D. (2018). Expressing robot incapability. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 87–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, S. (2020). Global market share held by operating systems for desktop pcs, from january 2013 to january 2020 [Retrieved: 2020-06-09, from [URL]].
McCracken, D. D., & Reilly, E. D. (2003). Backus-naur form (bnf). Encyclopedia of computer science (pp. 129–131). John Wiley; Sons Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, D. G. K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Jusczyk, P. W., & Cassidy, K. W. (1989). How the prosodic cues in motherese might assist language learning. Journal of child Language, 16 (1), 55–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Otero, N., Alissandrakis, A., Dautenhahn, K., Nehaniv, C., Syrdal, D. S., & Koay, K. L. (2008). Human to robot demonstrations of routine home tasks: Exploring the role of the robot’s feedback. 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 177–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pitsch, K., Vollmer, A.-L., Rohlfing, K. J., Fritsch, J., & Wrede, B. (2014). Tutoring in adult-child interaction: On the loop of the tutor’s action modification and the recipient’s gaze. Interaction Studies, 15(1), 55–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W., Christakis, N. A., Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., et al. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohlfing, K. J., Wrede, B., Vollmer, A.-L., & Oudeyer, P.-Y. (2016). An alternative to mapping a word onto a concept in language acquisition: Pragmatic frames. Frontiers in psychology, 71, 470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saunders, J., Syrdal, D. S., Koay, K. L., Burke, N., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). “teach me-show me” – end-user personalization of a smart home and companion robot. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 46 (1), 27–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schillinger, P., Kohlbrecher, S., & von Stryk, O. (2016). Human-robot collaborative high-level control with application to rescue robotics. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2796–2802. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulte, C., & Budde, L. (2018). A framework for computing education: Hybrid interaction system: The need for a bigger picture in computing education. Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soon, T. J. (2008). Qr code. Synthesis Journal, 20081, 59–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staggers, N., & Norcio, A. F. (1993). Mental models: Concepts for human-computer interaction research. International Journal of Man-machine studies, 38(4), 587–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory et al. (2014, July 22). Robotic operating system (Version ROS Indigo Igloo). [URL]
Sterelny, K. (1990). The representational theory of mind: An introduction. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomaz, A. L., & Cakmak, M. (2009). Learning about objects with human teachers. 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 15–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vollmer, A.-L., Lohan, K. S., Fritsch, J., Wrede, B., & Rohlfing, K. (2009). Which motionese parameters change with children’s age?Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vollmer, A.-L., Mühlig, M., Steil, J. J., Pitsch, K., Fritsch, J., Rohlfing, K. J., & Wrede, B. (2014). Robots show us how to teach them: Feedback from robots shapes tutoring behavior during action learning. PloS one, 9 (3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vollmer, A.-L., & Schillingmann, L. (2018). On studying human teaching behavior with robots: A review. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9 (4), 863–903. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vollmer, A.-L., Wrede, B., Rohlfing, K. J., & Oudeyer, P.-Y. (2016). Pragmatic frames for teaching and learning in human-robot interaction: Review and challenges. Frontiers in neurorobotics, 101, 10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wortham, R., Theodorou, A., & Bryson, J. (2017). Robot transparency: Improving understanding of intelligent behaviour for designers and users, 274–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Weisswange, Thomas H., Hifza Javed, Manuel Dietrich, Malte F. Jung & Nawid Jamali
2026. Design Implications for Robots That Facilitate Groups—A Scoping Review on Improving Group Interactions through Directed Robot Action. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 15:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Belardinelli, Anna, Chao Wang, Daniel Tanneberg, Stephan Hasler & Michael Gienger
2025. Train your robot in AR: insights and challenges for humans and robots in continual teaching and learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 12 DOI logo
Hindemith, Lukas, Christiane B. Wiebel-Herboth, Heiko Wersing, Britta Wrede & Anna-Lisa Vollmer
2025. Improving HRI Through Robot Architecture Transparency. International Journal of Social Robotics 17:12 ► pp. 2981 ff. DOI logo
Abdalrazzaq, Alaa Salim, Noor Kadhim Meftin, Doaa Mohammed Hussein Al Fawadi, Hanaa Hameed Merzah, Omar Baban, Andrii Akymenko & Moamin Ibrahim Jameel Al-Obaidi
2024. 2024 36th Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT), ► pp. 692 ff. DOI logo
Kopp, Tobias
2024. Facets of Trust and Distrust in Collaborative Robots at the Workplace: Towards a Multidimensional and Relational Conceptualisation. International Journal of Social Robotics 16:6 ► pp. 1445 ff. DOI logo
Richter, Phillip, Heiko Wersing & Anna-Lisa Vollmer
2024. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Schütze, Christian, Birte Richter, Olesja Lammert, Kirsten Thommes & Britta Wrede
2024. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Groß, André, Christian Schütze, Mara Brandt, Britta Wrede & Birte Richter
2023. RISE: an open-source architecture for interdisciplinary and reproducible human–robot interaction research. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 10 DOI logo
Wrede, Britta, Anna-Lisa Vollmer & Sören Krach
2023. On the potentials of interaction breakdowns for HRI. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46 DOI logo
Gopfert, Jan Philip, Ulrike Kuhl, Lukas Hindemith, Heiko Wersing & Barbara Hammer
2022. Intuitiveness in Active Teaching. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 52:3 ► pp. 458 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Liuzhen, Yingli Yang & Tao Cui
2022. A Study of the Morphological Design of Architecture from a Geometric Logic Perspective. Security and Communication Networks 2022 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue