Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Age differences of preference for humanoid AI speakers

얼굴형 인공지능 스피커에 대한 선호의 나이 효과

  • Oh, Songjoo (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hwang, Jihyun (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yew, Jiho (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hahn, Sowon (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2018.02.06
  • Accepted : 2018.03.12
  • Published : 2018.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated age differences of preference and trust ratings when the appearance of an artificial intelligent speaker resembles a human face. The appearance of the artificial intelligent speaker was presented in seven levels from robot face to human face. In addition, face stimuli were divided into gender (male and female) and age (20s / 60s). Participants evaluated the reliability and likability of each face stimulus on a 7-point scale. The results show that younger adults tend to prefer the face that was halfway between the robot and the human face, while older adults evaluated that the perceived reliability and likability were higher when the stimuli resembled the human face. When asked to choose the most preferred of the four face categories, all participants chose a younger face. However, with additional conditions including emoticon face and empty condition, older adults still preferred human face, while younger adults preferred emoticon face and empty condition. Taken together, older adults are more receptive to human faces than robotic faces in the context of artificial intelligence speakers. Because artificial intelligent speakers can play an important role in the elderly living alone, the present study will be a good reference in the design and development of artificial intelligent speakers for the elderly users.

본 연구에서 얼굴형 인공지능 스피커에 대한 선호도와 신뢰도가 나이에 따라 어떻게 달라지는지 살펴보았다. 인공지능 스피커의 외형은 성별(남녀)과 나이(20/60대) 네 가지 범주에서 로봇 얼굴과 사람 얼굴이 7단계로 혼합되어 제시되었다. 참여자들 역시 이 네 가지 범주에 맞춰 모집되었고, 각 범주의 얼굴 자극에 대한 호감도와 신뢰도를 7점 척도로 평가하였다. 연구 결과, 인공지능 스피커의 외형이 사람 얼굴을 닮을수록 노인들은 호감도와 신뢰도를 높게 평가했지만, 청년들은 로봇 얼굴과 사람 얼굴이 중간 정도 섞인 형태를 가장 선호하고 신뢰하여 전체적으로 뒤집힌 U자 형태의 평가를 보였다. 네 가지 얼굴 범주에서 선호도를 평가했을 때, 참여자들은 나이와 성별과 관계없이 젊은 얼굴이 가장 높은 점수를 받았다. 그런데, 이모티콘 얼굴과 얼굴이 없이 비어있는 조건을 추가하여 물었을 때, 여전히 노인들은 사람 얼굴을 가장 선호했지만, 청년들은 상대적으로 이모티콘 얼굴과 비어있는 조건을 더 선호하였다. 종합하면, 인공지능 스피커 맥락에서, 노인들은 청년들보다 로봇 얼굴이 아닌 사람 얼굴에 높은 수용적 태도를 보였다. 홀로 사는 노인 인구가 증가하는 미래에 인공지능 스피커의 역할이 중요해짐에 따라, 노인들을 위한 인공지능 스피커의 디자인과 개발에서 본 연구 결과가 좋은 참고가 될 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Frennert, S., & Ostlund, B. (2014). Review: seven matters of concern of social robots and older people. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 299-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0225-8
  2. Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). You, robot: on the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI & society, 26(1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0289-z
  3. Robertson, J. (2010). Gendering humanoid robots: robo-sexism in Japan. Body & Society, 16(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X10364767
  4. Shaw-Garlock, G. (2009). Looking forward to sociable robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0021-7
  5. Zhao, S. (2006). Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media & Society, 8(3), 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061951
  6. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Paper presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on.
  7. Li, D., Rau, P. P., & Li, Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(2), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9
  8. Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., & Koay, K. L. (2007). Looking Good? Appearance Preferences and Robot Personality Inferences at Zero Acquaintance. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics.
  9. Broadbent, E., Kumar, V., Li, X., Sollers 3rd, J., Stafford, R. Q., MacDonald, B. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2013). Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PloS one, 8(8), e72589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072589
  10. Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boerkhorst, R., & Billard, A. (2004, September). Robots as assistive technology-does appearance matter? In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2004. ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 277-282). IEEE.
  11. Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Hegel, F., & de Ruiter, L. (2012). Activating elicited agent knowledge: How robot and user features shape the perception of social robots. Paper presented at the RO-MAN, 2012 IEEE.
  12. Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.
  13. Prakash, A., & Rogers, W. A. (2013). Younger and older adults' attitudes toward robot faces effects of task and humanoid appearance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting.
  14. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087-11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
  15. Mathur, M. B., & Reichling, D. B. (2016). Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition, 146, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.008
  16. Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., & Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: an R software package for the nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments.
  17. Ebner, N. C., Gluth, S., Johnson, M. R., Raye, C. L., Mitchell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activity When Thinking About Others Depends on Their Age. Neurocase, 17(3), 260-269. doi:10.1080/13554794.2010.536953
  18. Ebner, N. C., He, Y., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Age and Emotion Affect How We Look at a Face: Visual Scan Patterns Differ for Own-Age versus Other-Age Emotional Faces. Cognition & Emotion, 25(6), 983-997. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.540817
  19. Cross, J. F., & Cross, J. (1971). Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. Developmental Psychology, 5(3), 433. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031591
  20. Palumbo, R., Adams Jr, R. B., Hess, U., Kleck, R. E., & Zebrowitz, L. (2017). Age and Gender Differences in Facial Attractiveness, but Not Emotion Resemblance, Contribute to Age and Gender Stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1704. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01704
  21. Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2004). Development of an android robot for studying human-robot interaction. Innovations in applied artificial intelligence, 424-434.
  22. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. International journal of social robotics, 1(4), 319-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6
  23. Powers, K. E., Worsham, A. L., Freeman, J. B., Wheatley, T., & Heatherton, T. F. (2014). Social Connection Modulates Perceptions of Animacy. Psychological science, 25(10), 1943-1948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614547706

Cited by

  1. A Study on Wel-Tech Community Care Service Design for the Elderly in Public Silver Housing vol.21, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2020.21.11.2001