Discussions on human-robot interactions abound in the fields of human-agent interaction and human-robot interaction. Although studies on communication through conversations and physical actions have been conducted, many of these studies focus on robot gaze while neglecting human gaze. In this study, we developed Pocketable-Bones, a mobile robot that can move with the human gaze in mind. This robot can fit in a breast pocket and follows and turns in the same direction a person faces. Notably, we have been investigating the realization of joint gazing in which two persons share interests and concerns through gazing. This study’s experiment results showed that Pocketable-Bones’ gazing behaviors satisfied the components of self-determination theory in well-being, notably autonomy, competence, and relationship.

1. [1] M. Ryosuke, O. Naoki, and M. Okada, “Pocketable-Bones: A Portable Robot Sharing Interests with User in the Breast Pocket,” Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI ’19), 2019.
2. [2] K. Hasegawa and M. Okada, “Mako-no-te: Investigating Intersubjectivity with Side-by-Side Walking Robot,” Proc of the 7th Int. Conf. on Human-Agent Interaction, pp. 217-219, 2019.
3. [3] Y. Yamada, “Koto-ba-no-mae-no-koto-ba,” Shinyosha, 2010 (in Japanese).
4. [4] M. Gallotti and C. Frith, “Social cognition in the we-mode,” Trends in Cognitive Science, Vol.17, pp. 160-165, 2013.
5. [5] A. Sato, “Psychological research on the ‘We-mode’: Current perspectives,” Japanese Psychological Review, Vol.59, No.3, pp. 217-231, 2016.
6. [6] J. S. Bruner, “From communication to language,” Cognition, Vol.3, pp. 255-287, 1975.
7. [7] G. Butterworth and N. Jarrett, “What minds have in common is space: Spatial mechanisms serving joint visual attention in infancy,” British J. of Developmental Psychology, Vol.9, pp. 55-72, 1991.
8. [8] M. Tomasello, “Joint attention as social cognition,” C. Moore and P. J. Dunham (Eds.), “Joint attention: Its origins and role in development,” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 103-130, 1995.
9. [9] T. Kuziraoka, “Aspects of Proto-Communication,” Minerva Shobo, 1997 (in Japanese).
10. [10] M. Isozaki, “An Experimental Study of The Determinants of Social Facilitation,” The Japanese J. of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 49-60, 1979.
11. [11] T. Suenaga, K. Andow, and T. Ohshima, “Social Facilitation: History, Current Studies, and Future Perspectives,” Japanese Psychological Review, Vol.24, No.4, pp. 423-457, 1981 (in Japanese).
12. [12] N. Riether, F. Hegel, B. Wrede, and G. Horstmann, “Social facilitation with social robots?,” Proc. of the 7th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’12), pp. 41-47, 2012.
13. [13] R. Zhu, K. Yuukita, and T. Nishimori, “Social Facilitation and Inhibition Effects with Robot Standing Behind,” Japan J. of Educational Technology, Vol.44, No.Suppl., pp. 33-36, 2021 (in Japanese).
14. [14] T. Ohtani, “Paradigm and Design of Qualitative Study: From Research Methodology to SCAT,” Nagoya University Publisher, 2019.
15. [15] T. Ohtani, “‘SCAT’ a qualitative data analysis method by four-step coding: easy startable and small scale data-applicable process of theorization,” Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of Nagoya University (Educational Sciences), Vol.54, pp. 27-44, 2007.
16. [16] C. Breazeal, K. Dautenhahn, and T. Kanda, “Social Robotics,” Springer Handbook of Robotics, 2nd ed., 2016.
17. [17] J. Watanabe and D. Chen, “Watashitachino well-being wo tsukuriautameni,” BNN Publisher, 2020 (in Japanese).
18. [18] R. Calvo, D. Peters, J. Watanabe, and D. Chen, “Positive Computing: Technology for Wellbeing and Human Potential,” BNN Publisher, 2017 (in Japanese).
19. [19] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” American Psychologist, Vol.55, pp. 66-78, 2000.