Dog Sit! Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) Follow a Robot's Sit Commands

ABSTRACT

As personal social robots become more prevalent, the need for the designs of these systems to explicitly consider pets become more apparent. However, it is not known whether dogs would interact with a social robot. In two experiments, we investigate whether dogs respond to a social robot after the robot called their names, and whether dogs follow the 'sit' commands given by the robot. We conducted a between-subjects study (n = 34) to compare dogs' reactions to a social robot with a loudspeaker. Results indicate that dogs gazed at the robot more often after the robot called their names than after the loudspeaker called their names. Dogs followed the 'sit' commands more often given by the robot than given by the loudspeaker. The contribution of this study is that it is the first study to provide preliminary evidence that 1) dogs showed positive behaviors to social robots and that 2) social robots could influence dog's behaviors. This study enhance the understanding of the nature of the social interactions between humans and social robots from the evolutionary approach. Possible explanations for the observed behavior might point toward dogs perceiving robots as agents, the embodiment of the robot creating pressure for socialized responses, or the multimodal (i.e., verbal and visual) cues provided by the robot being more attractive than our control condition.

References

1. Judit Abdai, Anna Gergely, Eszter Petró, József Topál, and Ádám Miklósi. 2015. An investigation on social representations: inanimate agent can mislead dogs (Canis familiaris) in a food choice task.PloS one, 10, 8 (2015), e0134575.
2. 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.
3. Anna Gergely, Judit Abdai, Eszter Petró, András Kosztolányi, József Topál, and Ádám Miklósi. 2015. Dogs rapidly develop socially competent behaviour while interacting with a contingently responding self-propelled object. Animal Behaviour, 108 (2015), 137--144.
4. Anna Gergely, Eszter Petró, József Topál, and Ádám Miklósi. 2013. What are you or who are you? The emergence of social interaction between dog and an unidentified moving object (UMO). PloS one, 8, 8 (2013), e72727.
5. ME Goddard and RG Beilharz. 1984. A factor analysis of fearfulness in potential guide dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1, 2, 3 (1984), 253--265.
6. Jay M Goldberg and Paul B Brown. 1969. Response of binaural neurons of dog superior olivary complex to dichotic tonal stimuli: some physiological mechanisms of sound localization. Journal of neurophysiology, 32, 4 (1969), 613--636.
7. Elena Corina Grigore, Andre Pereira, Jie Jessica Yang, Ian Zhou, David Wang, and Brian Scassellati. 2016. Comparing ways to trigger migration between a robot and a virtually embodied character. InInternational Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 839--849.
8. Elena Corina Grigore, Andre Pereira, Ian Zhou, David Wang, and Brian Scassellati. 2016. Talk to me: Verbal communication improves perceptions of friendship and social presence in human-robot interaction. In International conference on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, 51--63.
9. Brian Hare, Michelle Brown, Christina Williamson, and Michael Tomasello. 2002. The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 5598 (2002), 1634--1636.
10. Brian Hare, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello. 1998. Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evolution of communication, 2, 1 (1998), 137--159.
11. Angie M Johnston, Paul C Holden, and Laurie R Santos. 2017. Exploring the evolutionary origins of overimitation: a comparison across domesticated and non-domesticated canids. Developmental science, 20, 4 (2017), e12460.
12. Angie M Johnston, Yiyun Huang, and Laurie R Santos. 2018. Dogs do not demonstrate a human-like bias to defer to communicative cues. Learning & behavior, 46, 4 (2018), 449--461.
13. Tammy King, Paul H Hemsworth, and Grahame J Coleman. 2003. Fear of novel and startling stimuli in domestic dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 82, 1 (2003), 45--64.
14. Enikö Kubinyi, Ádám Miklósi, Frédéric Kaplan, Márta Gácsi, József Topál, and Vilmos Csányi. 2002. Can a dog tell the difference? dogs encounter AIBO, an animal-like robot in two social situations. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior on From animals to animats. MIT Press, 403--404.
15. Enik? Kubinyi, Ádám Miklósi, Frédéric Kaplan, Márta Gácsi, József Topál, and Vilmos Csányi. 2004. Social behaviour of dogs encountering AIBO, an animal-like robot in a neutral and in a feeding situation. Behavioural processes, 65, 3 (2004), 231--239.
16. Gabriella Lakatos, Mariusz Janiak, Lukasz Malek, Robert Muszynski, Veronika Konok, Krzysztof Tchon, and Á Miklósi. 2014. Sensing sociality in dogs: what may make an interactive robot social? Animal cognition, 17, 2 (2014), 387--397.
17. Daniel Leyzberg, Samuel Spaulding, Mariya Toneva, and Brian Scassellati. 2012. The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Vol. 34.
18. Á Miklösi, Rob Polgárdi, J Topál, and V Csányi. 1998. Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Animal cognition, 1, 2 (1998), 113--121.
19. Maretta Morovitz, Megan Mueller, and Matthias Scheutz. [n. d.]. Animal-Robot Interaction: The Role of Human Likeness on the Success of Dog-Robot Interactions. In 1st International Workshop on Vocal Interactivity in-and-between Humans, Animals and Robots.
20. András Péter, Ádám Miklósi, and Péter Pongrácz. 2013. Domestic dogs'(Canis familiaris) understanding of projected video images of a human demonstrator in an object-choice task. Ethology, 119, 10 (2013), 898--906.
21. Robert Plutchik. 1971. Individual and breed differences in approach and withdrawal in dogs. Behaviour, 40, 3--4 (1971), 302--311.
22. Péter Pongrácz, Ádám Miklósi, Antal Dóka, and Vilmos Csányi. 2003. Successful application of video-projected human images for signalling to dogs. Ethology, 109, 10 (2003), 809--821.
23. Benjamin Ishak Resner. 2001. Rover@ Home: Computer mediated remote interaction between humans and dogs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
24. Laurel D Riek. 2012. Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1, 1 (2012), 119--136.
25. Nicole Salomons, Michael van der Linden, Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, and Brian Scassellati. 2018. Humans conform to robots: Disambiguating trust, truth, and conformity. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 187--195.
26. Brian Scassellati, Jake Brawer, Katherine Tsui, Setareh Nasihati Gilani, Melissa Malzkuhn, Barbara Manini, Adam Stone, Geo Kartheiser, Arcangelo Merla, Ari Shapiro, et al.2018. Teaching language to deaf infants with a robot and a virtual human. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 553.
27. Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, Priyanka Krishnamurthi, and Brian Scassellati. 2019. "I Don't Believe You": Investigating the Effects of Robot Trust Violation and Repair. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 57--65.
28. Elaine Short, Justin Hart, Michelle Vu, and Brian Scassellati. 2010. No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 219--226.
29. Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, Margaret Traeger, Malte Jung, and Brian Scassellati. 2018. The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot's vulnerable behavior on trust in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 178--186.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

      • Laboratory experiments

      • User studies

  • Interaction design

    • Empirical studies in interaction design