Type of Credit: Elective
Credit(s)
Number of Students
請注意：此門課程將以英語授課，所有的課間報告與討論也將以英文進行。Note: This course will be taught in English. All the in-class presentations and discussions will also be in English.
This seminar course explores advanced theories and research in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) and Human-AI Interaction (HAI). Students will examine cutting-edge studies and core concepts in the field, including interaction dynamics, social implications, and the evolving roles of robots and AI agents in human environments. Through in-depth discussions and analyses of academic papers, students will critically evaluate the theoretical and empirical foundations of HRI and HAI while considering their applications in diverse contexts. The course also emphasizes understanding how these technologies influence communication, collaboration, and social structures.
能力項目說明
By the end of this course, students will:
|
Week |
Topic |
Content and Reading Assignment |
Teaching Activities and Homework |
|
1 |
Introduction and course overview |
|
|
|
2 |
What is Human-Robot Interaction and Human-AI Interaction? |
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81-103. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., ... & Horvitz, E. (2019, May). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-13). Lee, H. P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025, April). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-22). |
Team Formation |
|
3 |
Social Robots |
Forlizzi, J., & DiSalvo, C. (2006, March). Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 258-265). Breazeal, C., Dautenhahn, K., & Kanda, T. (2016). Social robotics. Springer handbook of robotics, 1935-1972. |
|
|
4 |
Anthropomorphism |
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological review, 114(4), 864. Fink, J. (2012). Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. In Social Robotics: 4th International Conference, ICSR 2012, Chengdu, China, October 29-31, 2012. Proceedings 4 (pp. 199-208). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. |
|
|
5 |
Embodiment and Nonverbal Communication |
Mutlu, B., Shiwa, T., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009, March). Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (pp. 61-68). Jung, M. F., Lee, J. J., DePalma, N., Adalgeirsson, S. O., Hinds, P. J., & Breazeal, C. (2013, February). Engaging robots: easing complex human-robot teamwork using backchanneling. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1555-1566). |
|
|
6 |
Chatbot and Verbal Communication |
Luger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016, May). " Like Having a Really Bad PA" The Gulf between User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 5286-5297). Liao, Q. V., Mas-ud Hussain, M., Chandar, P., Davis, M., Khazaeni, Y., Crasso, M. P., ... & Geyer, W. (2018, April). All work and no play?. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13). Torrey, C., Fussell, S. R., & Kiesler, S. (2013, March). How a robot should give advice. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 275-282). IEEE. |
Team Projects: Idea Pitch |
|
7 |
Designing AI user experiences |
Yang, Q., Steinfeld, A., Rosé, C., & Zimmerman, J. (2020, April). Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-13). Yang, Q., Steinfeld, A., & Zimmerman, J. (2019, May). Unremarkable AI: Fitting intelligent decision support into critical, clinical decision-making processes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-11). Kay, M., Kola, T., Hullman, J. R., & Munson, S. A. (2016, May). When (ish) is my bus? user-centered visualizations of uncertainty in everyday, mobile predictive systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 5092-5103). |
|
|
8 |
Transparent and explainable AI |
Wang, D., Yang, Q., Abdul, A., & Lim, B. Y. (2019, May). Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-15). Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495-504. (Optional) Ehsan, U., Passi, S., Liao, Q. V., Chan, L., Lee, I. H., Muller, M., & Riedl, M. O. (2024, May). The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-32). |
|
|
9 |
Team Projects: Midterm Research Proposal Presentation |
|
Presentation |
|
10 |
Collaboration, Teamwork, and Work Settings |
Hinds, P. J., Roberts, T. L., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 151-181. Jung, M. F., Martelaro, N., & Hinds, P. J. (2015, March). Using robots to moderate team conflict: the case of repairing violations. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 229-236). Fraune, M. R., Šabanović, S., & Smith, E. R. (2017, August). Teammates first: Favoring ingroup robots over outgroup humans. In 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1432-1437). IEEE. |
|
|
11 |
Team Projects: In-Class Discussion |
|
|
|
12 |
Team Projects: In-Class Data Collection |
|
|
|
13 |
Emotion |
Boehner, K., DePaula, R., Dourish, P., & Sengers, P. (2007). How emotion is made and measured. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(4), 275-291. Breazeal, C., & Brooks, R. (2005). Robot emotion: A functional perspective. Who needs emotions, 271-310. Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., Forlizzi, J., & Rybski, P. (2012, May). Ripple effects of an embedded social agent: a field study of a social robot in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 695-704). |
|
|
14 |
Ethics: Fairness & Trust |
Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015, March). Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 117-124).
Pataranutaporn, P., Archiwaranguprok, C., Chan, S. W., Loftus, E., & Maes, P. (2025, April). Synthetic human memories: Ai-edited images and videos can implant false memories and distort recollection. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-20).
Afroogh, S., Akbari, A., Malone, E., Kargar, M., & Alambeigi, H. (2024). Trust in AI: progress, challenges, and future directions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-30.
Claure, H., Kim, S., Kizilcec, R. F., & Jung, M. (2023). The social consequences of machine allocation behavior: Fairness, interpersonal perceptions and performance. Computers in human behavior, 146, 107628.
|
|
|
15 |
Ethics: Power |
Winkle, K., McMillan, D., Arnelid, M., Harrison, K., Balaam, M., Johnson, E., & Leite, I. (2023, March). Feminist human-robot interaction: Disentangling power, principles and practice for better, more ethical HRI. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 72-82). Gero, K. I., Desai, M., Schnitzler, C., Eom, N., Cushman, J., & Glassman, E. L. (2025, April). Creative Writers' Attitudes on Writing as Training Data for Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-16). Hou, Y. T. Y., Lee, W. Y., & Jung, M. (2023, April). “Should I Follow the Human, or Follow the Robot?”—Robots in Power Can Have More Influence Than Humans on Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13). |
|
|
16 |
Team Projects: Final Poster Session |
|
|
* This syllabus is developed with reference to Professor Malte Jung's courses at Cornell University (USA): Robots, Teamwork, Emotion.
* Due to the rapid development of AI technologies, assigned readings are subject to change. Students may propose substitutions or opt out of readings during their assigned weeks. Final details will be discussed in Week 1.
* This course also includes 6 hours of online reading of recently published papers and submitting reflection reports on the Moodle platform. Detailed instructions will be provided in the first week.
The total score of 100 points will be the accumulation of these activities:
Each post should include (a) a short description of one surprising or interesting point from the readings assigned for that week, something you did not know before or had not thought deeply about; and (b) some implications of this interesting point for your own research or experience. Posts should be about 150-300 words and must be completed by 6 PM one day before the class to receive credit.
Students should also comment on two other student's posts by 10 PM one day before the class to receive full credit.
Each student is allowed to miss two weeks without any need for explanation, but no late submission will be accepted. If a student misses more than two assignments, no excuses will be accepted for subsequent missed assignments.
Active participation is essential for this course. Students are expected to come to each class prepared, having read and taken notes on the assigned materials. You may be called on to summarize the main arguments, strengths, weaknesses, or critiques of any assigned reading.
To receive full participation credit, each student must contribute verbally at least twice per class session. Simply attending class without speaking will result in zero points for participation that day.
Each student may miss up to two classes without explanation. However, no additional absences will be excused, regardless of the reason. In addition, students must not miss the class sessions during which they are responsible for leading discussions, presenting team projects, collecting data, or participating in the final poster session.