Young researchers' views on the current and future state of HRI

  • Authors:

  • Kevin Gold;Ian Fasel;Nathan G. Freier;Cristen Torrey

  • Affiliations:

  • Yale University, New Haven, CT;University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA;University of Washington, Seattle, WA;Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

  • Venue:
  • Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction
  • Year:
  • 2007

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a panel discussion titled "The Future of HRI," held during an NSF workshop for graduate students on human-robot interaction in August 2006. The panel divided the workshop into groups tasked with inventing models of the field, and then asked these groups their opinions on the future of the field. In general, the workshop participants shared the belief that HRI can and should be seen as a single scientific discipline, despite the fact that it encompasses a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies drawn from several "core" disciplines in traditional areas of study. HRI researchers share many interrelated goals, participants felt, and enhancing the lines of communication between different areas would help speed up progress in the field. Common concerns included the unavailability of common robust platforms, the emphasis on human perception over robot perception, and the paucity of longitudinal real-world studies. The authors point to the current lack of consensus on research paradigms and platforms to argue that the field is not yet in the phase that philosopher Thomas Kuhn would call "normal science," but believe the field shows signs of approaching that phase.