Article
Robot Transparency and Anthropomorphic Attribute Effects on
Human–Robot Interactions
Jianmin Wang
1,2
, Yujia Liu
1,3,
* , Tianyang Yue
1
, Chengji Wang
1
, Jinjing Mao
1
, Yuxi Wang
1
and Fang You
1,2,
*
Citation: Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Yue, T.;
Wang, C.; Mao, J.; Wang, Y.; You, F.
Robot Transparency and
Anthropomorphic Attribute Effects
on Human–Robot Interactions.
Sensors 2021, 21, 5722. https://
doi.org/10.3390/s21175722
Academic Editors: Abolfazl Zaraki
and Hamed Rahimi Nohooji
Received: 6 August 2021
Accepted: 23 August 2021
Published: 25 August 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1
Car Interaction Design Lab, College of Arts and Media, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China;
wangjianmin@tongji.edu.cn (J.W.); michaelyue0812@tongji.edu.cn (T.Y.); laoji@tongji.edu.cn (C.W.);
2133609@tongji.edu.cn (J.M.); wangyuxi@tongji.edu.cn (Y.W.)
2
Shenzhen Research Institute, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen 518057, China
3
College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
* Correspondence: liuyujia@tongji.edu.cn (Y.L.); youfang@tongji.edu.cn (F.Y.)
Abstract:
Anthropomorphic robots need to maintain effective and emotive communication with
humans as automotive agents to establish and maintain effective human–robot performances and
positive human experiences. Previous research has shown that the characteristics of robot com-
munication positively affect human–robot interaction outcomes such as usability, trust, workload,
and performance. In this study, we investigated the characteristics of transparency and anthropo-
morphism in robotic dual-channel communication, encompassing the voice channel (low or high,
increasing the amount of information provided by textual information) and the visual channel (low or
high, increasing the amount of information provided by expressive information). The results showed
the benefits and limitations of increasing the transparency and anthropomorphism, demonstrating
the significance of the careful implementation of transparency methods. The limitations and future
directions are discussed.
Keywords: on-board robot; robot transparency; anthropomorphism; human–robot interactions
1. Introduction
The emergence of on-board intelligent robots has enriched the practical application
scenarios for robots, enhanced the human–vehicle interaction experience, and improved the
overall intelligence level of the intelligent cockpit. It belongs to the field of Human–Robot
Interaction (HRI), which is receiving increasing attention from production and research.
The examples of vehicle-mounted robots that have been already used in cars have inspired
much academic and industrial research and foresight researches worthwhile in the areas of
anthropomorphism, autonomous interaction, and new ways of interacting in self-driving
cockpits in the future.
Early robot systems in the 1990s had many limitations, such as accepting only a
few simple commands mechanically, having only a fixed set of answers, having no real
voice planning or ability to autonomously generate purposeful conversations, etc. [
1
].
Stimulating interactive robots with human–robot communication capabilities has effectively
become an area of active research in the last two decades [
1
]. Voice communication is one of
the main interaction methods to convey information between human and robots, so robots
with human-like voice communication capabilities can provide better services. However,
natural voice commands do not fully convey precise information, and human sometimes
prefer uncertain terms, symbols, and concepts [2].
In the field of on-board robots, a considerable amount of research has proved that
anthropomorphic robots provide a better driving experience than traditional forms of
interaction with voice and touch screens. For example, Kenton Wiliams et al., from MIT
published several papers comparing four different types of interactions (smartphone,
dynamic robot, static robot, and human passenger) and showed that dynamic robots had
Sensors 2021, 21, 5722. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21175722 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
