FR-H4-5
SCIS&ISIS2006 @ Tokyo, Japan (September 20-24, 2006)
Acquisition of Body Image by Anthropomorphization Framework Hirotaka Osawa
Jun Mukai
Michita Imai
Graduate School of Science and Technology Keio University
[email protected]
Graduate School of Science and Technology Keio University
[email protected]
Faculty of Science and Technology Keio University
[email protected]
Abstract— In this study, we propose anthropomorphization framework that determines object’s body image by attaching it to human-like body parts. Our purpose is that an object acquires subjective representation by anthropomorphization and it communicates with humans. Although, there are many studies on anthropomorphic agents to communicate with humans via an object, it’s unnatural because these agents are unrelated to the object directly. In our method, the object is directly anthropomorphized so it can conduct task-related communication using its intrinsic body image. We designed anthropomorphization framework that changes body image by attaching places of body parts. We also conducted an experiment to evaluate this framework. The result indicates that an attached place of anthropomorphize device influences human’s perception for body image.
I. I NTRODUCTION In human-human interactions, we use relationship between environmental objects to refer to an object. For example, we can point at an object by another object like “on the table” or “near the door”. For human-computer interactions, it is also useful for the computer to treat relationship between objects. In order to convey such information, anthropomorphic agents such as robots and CG agents are commonly used, because they had their own bodies and they can easily point out the objects. There are precedent studies for anthropomorphic agents such as CG agents or robots [5][1][3]. For example, humanoid robot named Robovie[1] succeeded to point posters out to humans with gaze-drawing using their eyes and indication using their hands and arms. With approaches of anthropomorphic agents(see left of Fig. 1), however, agents irritate users occasionally because they need to treat agent additionally. Assume that a system helps users to run a dishwasher, for example. It is unnatural that the anthropomorphic agent instructs users how to wash dishes, because the agent itself is irrelevant to a dish washing task. On the contrary, if the object obtains its own standpoint (see right of Fig. 1), it can conduct a task dependent representation. For the case of the example above, the task is achieved by that the dishwasher only says “please put all objects in me!” which makes the communication simple. In order to set an object’s standpoint, we propose a framework that anthropomorphizes an object by attach-
Agent
Object
Fig. 1.
Object
Human
Human
Anthropomorphic agent and Anthropomorphized object
ing humanoid body parts to the object. Using attachable devices that imitates human body parts, the object can communicate with users and provide services using environmental information. Originally, human has a tendency to treat the object like human and think its body. It is noted on The Media Equation[9]. Our framework reinforces its subjectivity and concrete virtual body of the object. We call this virtual body as “body image” in this paper. By the body image, the object can use subjective representation as if they had body parts(a head, a stomach, etc. ). It also separate their intrinsic body image for virtual body parts and the objects can use subjective representation as if they had body parts. And exact body image and virtual body parts are determined according to place of the devices. For example, if top of a washing machine is anthropomorphized by eye-like device, its door may become its mouth. In this study, we propose one of our frameworks to separate body image by eye. And we developed eyelike device to realize this framework, named “Iris-board”. We conducted experiment that reveals how changes body image by the method of anthropomorphization attaching Iris-board on top and bottom of the refrigerator. As a result, it is indicated that Iris-board reinforces “body image of stomach” on the situation that Iris-board attached with top of it, and users recognize it’s top segment as “head” and interact it as it’s head. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we models anthropomorphization framework. In Section III, we design and implement eye-like device for the framework. Section IV describes an experiment to
- 1460 -
Object
objects
eye-like devices
Segment
Head
Segment
Body
segment 1
Iris-board data segment 2
anthropomorphization server bodyimage
Fig. 2.
convert
segment meta-data
anthropomorphization framework by eye
"Please put them into segment 2"
evaluate the framework. Section V describes the results of the experiment and they are discussed in Section VI. In Section VII, we conclude the paper with a summary of out results and an overview of future work.
Fig. 3.
"Please put them into my stomach"
System overview
object
II. A NTHROPOMORPHIZATION FRAMEWORK We think that when a user regards the object as anthropomorphized agent, he/she uses such a human-like device as a trigger of anthropomorphization and begins to think that the object is constructed by body parts. We construct anthropomorphization framework with this feature. In this study, we uses eye-like device to prove our framework. It behaves like human’s eye that traces objects and wink at users. Anthropomorphization framework for an object is as follows. First, we attach eye-like device on one of parted segments of the object. With this eye-like device, a human thinks the segment as a head. Next, a human percepts below segments from is as stomach with this framework. We call this “eye-like device separate human’s perception for body image of object to head and stomach.” Figure 2 shows separation according to our framework. This object has 2 segments, and exact body image changes according to the place that eye-like device is attached on. III. I MPLEMENTATION
Iris-board server
OF THE FRAMEWORK
Anthropomorphization using eye-like device proceeds with 2 steps as follows. First, eye-like device need to attach on one of parted segments of an object and convert segment data to anthropomorphic word. Next, it moves its eye and looks another object as it is living. In this section, we explain the system of anthropomorphization framework and detail implementation of eye-like device, named “Irisboard”. A. System overview Figure 3 shows the entire system using anthropomorphization framework. The anthropomorphization server accepts metadata that include segments of the object, and it also accepts the place of an eye-like device. And it determines a place of head-image. If instruction is inputted into the server, it convert a word of location on the object like ”segment1” or ”segment2” to a word using body image like ”head” or ”stomach”. Figure 4 shows the Iris-board server system. Iris-board server gets locations of environmental objects and humans
Iris-board server
human location data of objects
direction
selection module
selection object to be direction
Object selection
location data of Iris-board
Iris board
Fig. 4.
control data
localization of position data expression module Add expression
Iris-board server
from Ultrasonic 3D tags[6] attached to them. Iris-board runs with the Iris-board server. The server has two modules. The selection module takes targeted object or human as its input, and gathers its position from its sensors. And, this module converts the position of the target to its relative coordination from Iris-board, and generates each displaying position of iris. The expression module enables Iris-board to make a facial expression, and display whole of the eye. Additional facial expressions are a saccade and a wink. B. Gazing algorithm Human eye has two functions. First, it can get visions. Second, it indicates what the person looks at[2]. In this section, We focus on the latter function of eye and design algorithm of positioning. Iris-board is an eye-like module which simulates human eyes (Fig. 5). In the follow sections, we call iris and pupil as ”iris”. In Fig. 6, the white ellipse region represents a sclera and the black circle region represents an iris and a pupil. In this figure, Iris-board looks at a cup. Iris-board consists of a pair of displays to simulate human eyes. And it calculates the positions of its irises from the referring object position which is acquired from position sensor. Details of calculating positions of an iris are as follows (see Fig. 7). Each board has virtual eyeball. It calculates the intersection p of the vector from the object position x
- 1461 -
sclera pupil
iris
Fig. 5.
human’s eye
Fig. 6.
Iris-board Fig. 9.
TABLE I
part of Iris-board virtual eye
Iris-board looks at a cup
SPECS OF I RIS - BOARD
virtual center of eye c p center of pupil
i
A
a normal vector from board Fig. 7.
PC for display and control screen size length between virtual center of eye and screen connection weight position sensor OS
x
Libretto 50CT width 128 mm × height 96 mm 30 mm wireless LAN(802.11b) 1.1kg × 2 Ultrasonic 3D tag system VineLinux 3.2 kernel 2.4.31
object
position of iris
IV. E XPERIMENT
to the center of the eyeball c and the board plain A. After that, Iris-board convert global coordinates p to display coordinates i. These processes are applied to each board of Iris-board. How to calculate the normal vector a? If Iris-board is based on the one board, it is necessary to use some additional sensors(etc. gyro) to calculate the direction of the board A. However Iris-board calculate a from a vector r between the position sensor of the right board to the position sensor of the left board if two boards have a same direction, two boards are on same plane B and a tilt of plane B is known (Fig. 8). Under these restrictions, Irisboard can calculate it’s irises even if one of two board moves. Figure 9 shows appearance of Iris-board, and detail specs of Iris-board are described on Table I.
Our past study evaluates a difference between an anthropomorphized object by a human-like device and an object not anthropomorphized[7][8]. In this section, we states the experiments to evaluate anthropomorphization framework. The experiment is that anthropomorphized object instruct user that it wants neighboring 9 dummy fruits. We used refrigerator for the object that has two segments. We divide participants to two groups. First experiment is that Iris-board was attached on above of the object(Fig. 10) called Experiment A. Next experiment is control experiment that Iris-board was attached on below of the object(Fig. 11) called Experiment B. A. Hypothesis Our hypothesis is that if Iris-board is on top segment of the refrigerator, top segment of the refrigerator gets virtual head image and user puts dummy fruits on top segment of the refrigerator(Group EYE-ON-TOP) than on bottom segment of the refrigerator(Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM).
positions of each board
Head
I want it.
Body
( I ) want it.
Head
normal vector of the board Fig. 8.
Fig. 10. top
direction of Iris-board
- 1462 -
Iris-board attached on Fig. 11. bottom
Iris-board attached on
TABLE II THE COORDINATES OF OBJECTS
origin of the coordinates
door number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
kind of object a big persimmon a chestnut a grape a little persimmon a muscat a potato a lemon a pear a fig
coordinates(mm) (-620, -770, 790) (330, -680, 490) (2060, -500, 740) (-470, -1570, 460) (1450, -1940, 1550) (1140, -1430, 100) (-620, -770, 20) ( 0, -2100, 790) ( 800, -2100, 790)
refrigerator y x 7
3 2 chair
1
6 cart
table
Also, users can decide appropriately its “stomach” in its instruction and put dummy fruits into the refrigerator.
wash stand
Iris-board
4 chair
9
8
5
table blackboard
B. Participants and Environment There are 21 subjects in the experiment 1. They are all university students (their age between 19 - 25, male 17 and female 4). First, we divide subjects into 2 parts as below. • Group EYE-ON-TOP(experimental group):Iris-board on top segment(male 9, female 2) • Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM(control group):Iris-board on bottom segment(male 8, female 2) Before the experiment, we instructed all of the subjects as below. • “A machinery is set in front of you.” • “Something will be heard.” When the subject enters the room after these instructions, the system instructs him/her about the indicating objects by controlling the Iris-board and the speaker. The place of objects are on Fig. 12. We placed 9 dummy fruits on field(Table II). The instructions are as follows. At first, Iris-board looked at a subject, then it looked at targeted object (this is for gaze-drawing) while doing to say request “I want it”. The request for the subject was repeated until 3 times, if he/she didn’t response to it. An interval between instructions are 5 seconds. If there were no response in this interval, we proceeded next instruction. All of the instruction were finished, Iris-board or speaker says “Please put them into my stomach.” and we recorded responses of subjects.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Field of the experiment
A scene of Group EYE-ON-TOP
C. Questionnaire After the experiment, we ask participants following questions to evaluate body image percepted by participants. 1) Can you here what machinery says? 2) Did you understand spoken word “I want it” ? 3) Did you understand spoken word “Please put them into my stomach” ? V. R ESULT Places that participants put dummy fruits on after “I want it” are shown in Table III and Figure 15. If Iris-board is on top segment of the refrigerator, 6 participants in the Group EYE-ON-TOP put dummy fruits
- 1463 -
Fig. 14.
A scene of Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM
TABLE III
12
SUBJECTS WHO PUT INTO AND PUT ON THE REFRIGERATOR
Group EYE-ON-TOP Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM
PUT ON 6 1
PUT INTO 4 7
YES
OTHERS 1 2
10
NO
8 6
12 PUT INTO
10
4
PUT ON
2
OTHERS
8
0
Group EYE-ON-TOP
6
Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM
4 Fig. 17.
Question 2:Did you understand spoken word “I want it” ?
2 12 0
Group EYE-ON-TOP
Fig. 15.
YES
Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM
10
NO
8
Locations of fruits after the experiment
6
on the refrigerator. And 4 participants in the Group EYEON-TOP put dummy fruits into the refrigerator. The other participant just moves dummy fruits in front of the refrigerator. If Iris-board is on bottom segment of the refrigerator, 1 participant in the Group EYE-ON-TOP put dummy fruits on the refrigerator. And 7 participants in the Group EYE-ON-TOP put dummy fruits into the refrigerator. One participant just touched dummy fruits, and one participant did nothing. All of the participants in the Group EYE-ON-TOP and the Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM put fruits on the refrigerator after the instruction “Please put them into my stomach.” Answers for questionnaire is shown in Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18.
12 YES
10
NO
8 6 4 2 0
Group EYE-ON-TOP
Fig. 16.
Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM
Question 1:Can you here what machinery says?
4 2 0
Group EYE-ON-TOP
Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM
Fig. 18. Question 3:Did you understand spoken word “Please put them into my stomach” ?
VI. D ISCUSSION We conduct chi square test with Table III. And a result is shown as p = 0.09604 < 0.10. With these results, it is possible to say that Group EYE-ON-TOP and Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM has a statistically significant trend(p < 0.10) with participants’ places to put dummy fruits. This result supported that participants in Group EYE-ON-TOP percept head image on top segment of the refrigerator by the anthropomorphization framework. We think that the refrigerator’s stomach image in the experimental group generated according to its head image of top of the segment. Then, participants percepts “I want it” as “(please give it on me).” Because the refrigerator has no hand image, they puts a fruit on the head segment instead of hand segment to attach it on its body. On the contrary in the Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM, the bottom segment of the refrigerator gets head image accordance with the framework and the top segment has no body image. Then, there are no space on the head image and participants percepts “I want it” as “(please give it into me).” and they throw fruits into the refrigerator. The questionnaire supports this inference. We conduct
- 1464 -
Fisher’s exact test with first and third questionnaire that Can you here what machinery says?(Figure 16) and Did you understand spoken word “Please put them into my stomach” ? (Figure 18). And a result is shown as p = 0.0805 < 0.10 and p = 0.06347 < 0.10. With these results, it is possible to say that Group EYE-ON-TOP and Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM has a statistically significant trend(p < 0.10) with participants’ perception of virtual stomach image. It reveals that participants in the Group EYE-ON-TOP gets more appropriate body image by attaching Iris-board on top of the segment, and they percept the meaning of subjective representation such as “I” in “I want it.” And the result of the Figure 18 shows that participants cannot understand “Please put them into my stomach”, without to percept the refrigerator’s stomach image. With this result, it is possible to say that some body image is determined in accordance with another body image. We need to prove this effect and include it on the anthropomorphization framework. We also conduct Fisher’s exact test with second questionnaire Did you understand spoken word “I want it” ? (Figure 17) and a result is shown as p = 1.000 > 0.10. With these results, it is possible to say that Group EYEON-TOP and Group EYE-ON-BOTTOM doesn’t have a statistically significant difference with participants’ perception of virtual body image itself. A meaning of the sentence “I want it” didn’t change in accordance with places of head and body. VII. C ONCLUSION In this study, we proposed anthropomorphization framework that reinforce body image of the object by attaching human-like body parts. We also implemented humanoid eye-like device, Iris-board, and evaluate their effectiveness with experiments. As a result, it is indicated that Irisboard reinforces “body image of stomach” on the situation that Iris-board attached with top of the object, and users recognize it’s top segment as “head” and interact it as it’s head. This result supports that our proposed framework will works effective. We are planning to evaluate detail effectiveness of Irisboard and how to reinforce anthropomorphization more. And we will also implement and evaluate other devices like arms or a mouth. Adding other type of body parts an object gets more subjectivity and it can inform users about not only objects position but also complex instructions for the object. Here is an example that antoropomorphized pot
Fig. 19.
Anthropomorphized pot using arm-like device
equipped with arm-like device(see Figure 19). This pot inform a user that how to take hot water. R EFERENCES [1] T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, T. Ono, M. Imai, and R. Nakatsu, “Development and evaluation of an interactive humanoid robot “Robovie.”,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA2002), Washington, DC, USA, May 2002, pp. 4166–4173. [2] H. Kobayashi and S. Kohshima, “Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive meaning: comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye,” Journal of human evolution., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 419–435, 2001. [3] H. Kozima, C. Nakagawa, and H. Yano, “Attention coupling as a prerequisite for social interaction,” in IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, San Francisco, CA, USA, Oct. 2003, pp. 109–114. [4] F. Michahelles, S. Antifakos, J. Boutellier, A. Schmidt, and B. Schiele, “Instructions immersed into the real world How your Furniture can teach you,” in The Fifth International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Seattle, USA, October 2003. [5] N. Mukawa, A. Fukayama, T. Ohno, M. Sawaki, and N. Hagita, “Gaze Communication between Human and Anthropomorhic Agent,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Bordeaux-Paris, France, Sept. 2001, pp. 366–370. [6] Y. Nishida, H. Aizawa, T. Hori, N. Hoffman, T. Kanade, and M. Kakikura, “3d ultrasonic tagging system for observing human activity,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS2003), Las Vegas, USA, Oct. 2003, pp. 785–791. [7] H. Osawa, J. Mukai, and M.Imai, “Anthropomorphization of an object by displaying robot,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Hatfield, United Kingdom, Sept. 2006. [8] ——, “Acquisition of subjective representation using body parts by an object,” in IEEE Workshop on International Conference on Cognitive Science 2006, Vancouver, Canada, July 2006. [9] B. Reeves and C. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996.
- 1465 -
