Psychological and symbolic determinants relating to the first meeting with a humanoid robot.

OBJECTIVE: Humanoid robotics has reached a technological level of development that allows considering them as potential assistive and social devices for people who lost a part of their autonomy. The aims of this study aims are questioning the issue of the acceptability of a humanoid robot by people without any knowledge on robotics. The first meeting with such a robot develops symbolic figures that would guide the design of a humanoid robot for a better acceptation.

MATERIAL/PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine participants met for the first time, Nao or Pepper, both robotic devices that only differ in terms of the size and the morphotype, knowing that the applications implemented in both robots were similar. A specific time dedicated to the interaction with the robot was proposed. Participations answered an open and closed questionnaire and benefited from a video record in order to study explicit and implicit attitudes towards the robot.

RESULTS: The first results highlighted the main domains of using such a robot to facilitate communication with a person. Each participant invested the discussion in the light of his own expectations and underlined how a robot could be helpful provided he could exert his authority on the robot. Most of participants had a positive representation of Nao and Pepper. They considered it as childlike and friendly. The lack of fluency in the communication between the robot and the participant due to a little delay in the robot's answer could have penalized the spontaneity of the verbal communication between them. Similarly, gestures associated with the robot's verbal expression ("body language") divided the participants into 2 opinions. Some claimed that the body language was required to emphasize verbal communication. Others stated that hand gestures could be inconvenient and embarrassing.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The potential appropriation of a humanoid robot seems to depend mainly on its utility perceived during the meeting with the robot. It is of prime important that configuration of the robot be personalized according to users expectations and needs. For most participants, acceptability would be linked to the necessity of using an assistive robotic device just to compensate for some needs that did not find any other solutions in daily life.