Human strategies for correcting `human-robot' errors during a laundry sorting task

Mental models and expectations underlying human-human interaction (HHI) inform human-robot interaction (HRI) with domestic robots. To ease collaborative home tasks by improving domestic robot speech and behaviours for human-robot communication, we designed a study to understand how people communicated when failure occurs. To identify patterns of natural communication, particularly in response to robotic failures, participants instructed Laundrobot to move laundry into baskets using natural language and gestures. Laundrobot either worked error-free, or in one of two error modes. Participants were not advised Laundrobot would be a human actor, nor given information about error modes. Video analysis from 42 participants found speech patterns, included laughter, verbal expressions, and filler words, such as ``oh'' and ``ok'', also, sequences of body movements, including touching one's own face, increased pointing with a static finger, and expressions of surprise. Common strategies deployed when errors occurred, included correcting and teaching, taking responsibility, and displays of frustration. The strength of reaction to errors diminished with exposure, possibly indicating acceptance or resignation. Some used strategies similar to those used to communicate with other technologies, such as smart assistants. An anthropomorphic robot may not be ideally suited to this kind of task. Laundrobot's appearance, morphology, voice, capabilities, and recovery strategies may have impacted how it was perceived. Some participants indicated Laundrobot's actual skills were not aligned with expectations; this made it difficult to know what to expect and how much Laundrobot understood. Expertise, personality, and cultural differences may affect responses, however these were not assessed.

Charting Ethical Tensions in Multispecies Technology Research through Beneficiary-Epistemology Space

While ethical challenges are widely discussed in HCI, far less is reported about the ethical processes that researchers routinely navigate. We reflect on a multispecies project that negotiated an especially complex ethical approval process. Cat Royale was an artist-led exploration of creating an artwork to engage audiences in exploring trust in autonomous systems. The artwork took the form of a robot that played with three cats. Gaining ethical approval required an extensive dialogue with three Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) covering computer science, veterinary science and animal welfare, raising tensions around the welfare of the cats, perceived benefits and appropriate methods, and reputational risk to the University. To reveal these tensions we introduce beneficiary-epistemology space, that makes explicit who benefits from research (humans or animals) and underlying epistemologies. Positioning projects and IRBs in this space can help clarify tensions and highlight opportunities to recruit additional expertise.