The Case of the Curious Robot: On the Social Viability of Curious Behavior in Non-Human Agents
Article No.: 19, Pages 1 - 12
Abstract
Curiosity is increasingly being looked at to develop interactive non-human agents capable of lifelong learning, particularly in the space of Ai driven agents. However, the way a non-human agent’s mental state is described could prime expectations in human counterparts as well as alter perceptions of an agent’s behavior. We conducted an online experiment examining people’s perceptions of four levels of curious behavior portrayed by a robot agent and whether this behavior matched people’s expectations when primed to anticipate a “curious” vs. “learning” vs. “autonomous” robot agent. As curiosity increased, the ratings of the robot agent’s thinking ability also increased. This was juxtaposed by a decrease in the robot’s ratings as an effective worker and social agent. Further, we captured a unique trajectory of expectation matching showing that agents’ internal mental states should be matched with analogous external behaviors. Our findings have implications for the design and development of non-human agents that engage in learning modeled on forms of human cognition.
Supplemental Material
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 4.84 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 4.84 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 4.85 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 5.34 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 5.35 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 5.35 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 6.76 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 6.76 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 6.77 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 8.77 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 8.78 MB
MP4 File
12 videos used as study stimulation. First participants are shown a title card, depending on condition they are in, reminding them that they expect to see an Autonomous or Learning or Curious robot. Then the robot agent is summoned to pick-up mail, leaves its charging station, travels down a cubicle hall, notices a box of stuff at which point it performs one of four levels of curious behavior focused on the box, and finally arrives at a persons desk to receive a letter.
- Download
- 8.79 MB
References
[1]
Wilma A Bainbridge, Justin W Hart, Elizabeth S Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 1 (2011), 41–52.
[2]
Liam J Bannon. 1995. From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. In Readings in human–computer interaction. Elsevier, 205–214.
[3]
Daniel Ellis Berlyne. 1954. A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology. General Section 45, 3 (1954), 180–191.
[4]
D. E. Berlyne. 1966. Curiosity and Exploration. Science 153, 3731 (jul 1966), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.153.3731.25
[5]
Jessy Ceha, Nalin Chhibber, Joslin Goh, Corina McDonald, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer, Dana Kulić, and Edith Law. 2019. Expression of Curiosity in Social Robots: Design, Perception, and Effects on Behaviour. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.
[6]
Amy Chak. 2007. Teachers’ and parents’ conceptions of children’s curiosity and exploration. International Journal of Early Years Education 15, 2 (2007), 141–159.
[7]
Anca D Dragan, Kenton CT Lee, and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2013. Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 301–308.
[8]
Sébastien Forestier, Yoan Mollard, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2017. Intrinsically motivated goal exploration processes with automatic curriculum learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.02190 (2017).
[9]
Batya Friedman and David G Hendry. 2019. Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press.
[10]
Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2002. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington technical report2-12 (2002).
[11]
Yogesh Girdhar and Gregory Dudek. 2016. Modeling curiosity in a mobile robot for long-term autonomous exploration and monitoring. Autonomous Robots 40, 7 (2016), 1267–1278.
[12]
Goren Gordon. 2019. Social behaviour as an emergent property of embodied curiosity: a robotics perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374, 1771 (2019), 20180029.
[13]
Goren Gordon, Cynthia Breazeal, and Susan Engel. 2015. Can children catch curiosity from a social robot?. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 91–98.
[14]
Emily M Grossnickle. 2016. Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review 28, 1 (2016), 23–60.
[15]
John Harris and Ehud Sharlin. 2011. Exploring the affect of abstract motion in social human-robot interaction. In 2011 Ro-Man. IEEE, 441–448.
[16]
Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel. 1944. An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology 57, 2 (1944), 243–259.
[17]
Guy Hoffman. 2012. Dumb robots, smart phones: A case study of music listening companionship. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 358–363.
[18]
Guy Hoffman and Cynthia Breazeal. 2007. Cost-based anticipatory action selection for human–robot fluency. IEEE transactions on robotics 23, 5 (2007), 952–961.
[19]
Guy Hoffman and Cynthia Breazeal. 2007. Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. 1–8.
[20]
Guy Hoffman and Wendy Ju. 2014. Designing robots with movement in mind. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 1 (2014), 91–122.
[21]
Guy Hoffman and Gil Weinberg. 2010. Shimon: an interactive improvisational robotic marimba player. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3097–3102.
[22]
Laura Hoffmann and Nicole C Krämer. 2013. Investigating the effects of physical and virtual embodiment in task-oriented and conversational contexts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 71, 7-8 (2013), 763–774.
[23]
Chien-Ming Huang and Bilge Mutlu. 2016. Anticipatory robot control for efficient human-robot collaboration. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, 83–90.
[24]
Clayton Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 8.
[25]
Serena Ivaldi, Natalia Lyubova, Alain Droniou, Damien Gerardeaux-Viret, David Filliat, Vincent Padois, Olivier Sigaud, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer, 2013. Learning to recognize objects through curiosity-driven manipulation with the iCub humanoid robot. In 2013 IEEE Third Joint International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL). IEEE, 1–8.
[26]
Jamie Jirout and David Klahr. 2012. Children’s scientific curiosity: In search of an operational definition of an elusive concept. Developmental review 32, 2 (2012), 125–160.
[27]
Frederic Kaplan. 2007. In search of the neural circuits of intrinsic motivation. Frontiers in Neuroscience 1, 1 (nov 2007), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.01.1.1.017.2007
[28]
Todd B Kashdan, David J Disabato, Fallon R Goodman, and Patrick E McKnight. 2020. The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020), 109836.
[29]
Todd B Kashdan and Paul J Silvia. 2009. Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. Oxford handbook of positive psychology 2 (2009), 367–374.
[30]
Todd B Kashdan, Melissa C Stiksma, David J Disabato, Patrick E McKnight, John Bekier, Joel Kaji, and Rachel Lazarus. 2018. The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality 73 (2018), 130–149.
[31]
Celeste Kidd and Benjamin Y. Hayden. 2015. The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity. Neuron 88, 3 (nov 2015), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010
[32]
Przemyslaw A Lasota and Julie A Shah. 2015. Analyzing the effects of human-aware motion planning on close-proximity human–robot collaboration. Human factors 57, 1 (2015), 21–33.
[33]
John Lasseter. 1987. Principles of traditional animation applied to 3D computer animation. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 35–44.
[34]
Edith Law, Vicky Cai, Qi Feng Liu, Sajin Sasy, Joslin Goh, Alex Blidaru, and Dana Kulić. 2017. A Wizard-of-Oz study of curiosity in human-robot interaction. In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 607–614.
[35]
Jordan Litman. 2005. Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition & emotion 19, 6 (2005), 793–814.
[36]
George Loewenstein. 1994. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.Psychological Bulletin 116, 1 (1994), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
[37]
Wallace H Maw and A Jon Magoon. 1971. The curiosity dimension of fifth-grade children: A factorial discriminant analysis. Child development (1971), 2023–2031.
[38]
Wallace H Maw and Ethel W Maw. 1961. Establishing criterion groups for evaluating measures of curiosity. The Journal of Experimental Education 29, 3 (1961), 299–305.
[39]
Wallace H Maw and Ethel W Maw. 1966. Children’s curiosity and parental attitudes. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1966), 343–345.
[40]
Bilge Mutlu and Jodi Forlizzi. 2008. Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 287–294.
[41]
Amal Nanavati, Christoforos I Mavrogiannis, Kevin Weatherwax, Leila Takayama, Maya Cakmak, and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2021. Modeling Human Helpfulness with Individual and Contextual Factors for Robot Planning. In Robotics: Science and Systems.
[42]
Hung Ngo, Matthew Luciw, Alexander Forster, and Juergen Schmidhuber. 2012. Learning skills from play: artificial curiosity on a katana robot arm. In The 2012 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1–8.
[43]
Behnaz Nojavanasghari, Tadas Baltrusaitis, Charles E Hughes, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2016. The Future Belongs to the Curious: Towards Automatic Understanding and Recognition of Curiosity in Children. In WOCCI. 16–22.
[44]
Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2018. Computational theories of curiosity-driven learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.10546 (2018).
[45]
Pierre Yves Oudeyer and Frederic Kaplan. 2009. What Is Intrinsic Motivation? A Typology of Computational Approaches. Frontiers in Neurorobotics (2009). https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.12.006.2007
[46]
Pierre-Yves Oudeyer, Frédéric Kaplan, Verena V Hafner, and Andrew Whyte. 2005. The playground experiment: Task-independent development of a curious robot. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Developmental Robotics. Stanford, California, 42–47.
[47]
German I Parisi, Ronald Kemker, Jose L Part, Christopher Kanan, and Stefan Wermter. 2019. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks 113 (2019), 54–71.
[48]
Hee Sun Park, René Dailey, and Daisy Lemus. 2002. The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research 28, 4 (2002), 562–577.
[49]
Maddie Pelz and Celeste Kidd. 2020. The elaboration of exploratory play. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 375, 1803 (2020), 20190503.
[50]
Aaron Powers, Sara Kiesler, Susan Fussell, and Cristen Torrey. 2007. Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. 145–152.
[51]
Johnmarshall Reeve. 1993. The face of interest. Motivation and Emotion 17, 4 (1993), 353–375.
[52]
Johnmarshall Reeve and Glen Nix. 1997. Expressing intrinsic motivation through acts of exploration and facial displays of interest. Motivation and Emotion 21, 3 (1997), 237–250.
[53]
Tiago Ribeiro, André Pereira, Eugenio Di Tullio, and Ana Paiva. 2016. The sera ecosystem: Socially expressive robotics architecture for autonomous human-robot interaction. In 2016 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
[54]
Pericle Salvini, Cecilia Laschi, and Paolo Dario. 2010. Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society. International journal of social robotics 2, 4 (2010), 451–460.
[55]
Henk Schmidt and Jerome Rotgans. 2020. Epistemic Curiosity and Situational Interest: Distant Cousins or Identical Twins?Educational Psychology Review (2020).
[56]
Katie Seaborn, Norihisa P Miyake, Peter Pennefather, and Mihoko Otake-Matsuura. 2021. Voice in Human–Agent Interaction: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 4 (2021), 1–43.
[57]
Stela H Seo, Denise Geiskkovitch, Masayuki Nakane, Corey King, and James E Young. 2015. Poor thing! Would you feel sorry for a simulated robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 125–132.
[58]
Dajung Diane Shin and Sung-il Kim. 2019. Homo curious: Curious or interested?Educational Psychology Review (2019), 1–22.
[59]
Paul J Silvia. 2008. Interest—The curious emotion. Current directions in psychological science 17, 1 (2008), 57–60.
[60]
Paul J Silvia. 2012. Curiosity and motivation. The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2012), 157–166.
[61]
Bharat Singh, Rajesh Kumar, and Vinay Pratap Singh. 2022. Reinforcement learning in robotic applications: a comprehensive survey. Artificial Intelligence Review 55, 2 (2022), 945–990.
[62]
James P Stevens. 2012. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
[63]
Daniel Szafir, Bilge Mutlu, and Terrence Fong. 2015. Communicating directionality in flying robots. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 19–26.
[64]
Leila Takayama, Doug Dooley, and Wendy Ju. 2011. Expressing thought: improving robot readability with animation principles. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. 69–76.
[65]
Sebastian Thrun and Tom M Mitchell. 1995. Lifelong robot learning. Robotics and autonomous systems 15, 1-2 (1995), 25–46.
[66]
Emre Ugur, Mehmet R Dogar, Maya Cakmak, and Erol Sahin. 2007. Curiosity-driven learning of traversability affordance on a mobile robot. In 2007 IEEE 6th International Conference on Development and Learning. IEEE, 13–18.
[67]
Gentiane Venture and Dana Kulić. 2019. Robot expressive motions: a survey of generation and evaluation methods. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 8, 4 (2019), 1–17.
[68]
Nick Walker, Kevin Weatherwax, Julian Allchin, Leila Takayama, and Maya Cakmak. 2020. Human Perceptions of a Curious Robot that Performs Off-Task Actions. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 529–538.
[69]
Sarah N Woods, Michael L Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2006. Methodological issues in HRI: A comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In ROMAN 2006-the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 51–58.
Index Terms
- The Case of the Curious Robot: On the Social Viability of Curious Behavior in Non-Human Agents
Recommendations
Curious agents and situated design evaluations
This paper presents a possible future direction for agent-based simulation using complex agents that can learn from experience and report their individual evaluations. Adding learning to the agent model permits the simulation of potentially important ...
A simple curious agent to help people be curious
AAMAS '11: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 3Curiosity is an innately rewarding state of mind that, over the millennia, has driven the human race to explore and discover. Many researches in pedagogical science have confirmed the importance of being curious to the students' cognitive development. ...
Towards a computational model of creative societies using curious design agents
ESAW'06: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Engineering societies in the agents world VIIThis paper present a novel approach to modelling creative societies using curious design agents. The importance of modelling the social aspects of creativity are first presented and a novel agent-based approach is developed. Curious design agents are ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2024
337 pages
ISBN:9798400706257
DOI:10.1145/3652988
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 26 December 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
IVA '24
Sponsor:
IVA '24: ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents
September 16 - 19, 2024
GLASGOW, United Kingdom
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 53 of 196 submissions, 27%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 18Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)18
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)18
Reflects downloads up to 03 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in