Paper published in a book (Scientific congresses, symposiums and conference proceedings)
From social robots to creative humans and back
GUBENKO, Alla; Lubart, Todd; HOUSSEMAND, Claude
2022 • In Hedblom, Maria H.; Kantosalo, Anna Aurora; Confalonieri, Robertoet al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Creativity
[en] The research on physically and socially situated artificial agents could complement and enrich computational
models of creativity. This paper discusses six perspective lines of inquiry at the intersection of creativity and
social robotics. It provides a description of ways in
which the field of social robotics may influence (and
be influenced by) creativity research in psychology and
speculates how human-machine co-creation will affect
the notions of both human and artificial creativity. By
discussing potential research areas, the authors hope to
outline an agenda for future collaboration between creativity scholars in psychology, social robotics, and computer science.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Author, co-author :
GUBENKO, Alla ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Education and Social Work (DESW)
Lubart, Todd
HOUSSEMAND, Claude ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Education and Social Work (DESW)
External co-authors :
no
Language :
English
Title :
From social robots to creative humans and back
Publication date :
July 2022
Event name :
Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Creativity
Event organizer :
the Association for Computational Creativity
Event place :
Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Event date :
from 27-06-2022 to 01-07-2022
Audience :
International
Main work title :
Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Creativity
Author, co-author :
Confalonieri, Roberto
Kutz, Oliver
Veale, Tony
Editor :
Hedblom, Maria H.
Kantosalo, Anna Aurora
Publisher :
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
Agostini, A.; Aein, M. J.; Szedmak, S.; Aksoy, E. E.; Piater, J.; and Worgotter, F. 2015. Using structural bootstrapping for object substitution in robotic executions of human-like manipulation tasks. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).
Ali, S.; Devasia, N.; Park, H. W.; and Breazeal, C. 2021. Social robots as creativity eliciting agents. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8:673730.
Alves-Oliveira, P.; S. Tulli, P. W.; Merhej, R.; Gandum, J.; and Paiva, A. 2019. Sparking creativity with robots: A design perspective. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI).
Alves-Oliveira, P.; Arriaga, P.; Cronin, M. A.; and Paiva, A. 2020. Creativity encounters between children and robots. In in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction.
Amabile, T. M. 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of personality and social psychology 43(5):997–1013.
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology 45(2):357–376.
Antunes, A.; Jamone, L.; Saponaro, G.; Bernardino, A.; and Ventura, R. 2016. From human instructions to robot actions: Formulation of goals, affordances and probabilistic planning. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 5449–5454.
Augello, A.; I. Infantino, A. L.; Pilato, G.; Rizzo, R.; and Vella, F. 2016. Artwork creation by a cognitive architecture integrating computational creativity and dual process approaches. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 15:74–86.
Awaad, I.; Kraetzschmar, G. K.; and Hertzberg, J. 2015. The role of functional affordances in socializing robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 7(4):421–438.
Bainbridge, L. 1983. Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6):775–779.
Belpaeme, T.; Kennedy, J.; Ramachandran, A.; Scassellati, B.; and Tanaka, F. 2018a. Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics 3(21):eaat5954.
Belpaeme, T.; Vogt, P.; den Berghe, R. V.; Bergmann, K.; Göksun, T.; Haas, M. D.; Kanero, J.; Kennedy, J.; Küntay, A.; Oudgenoeg-Paz, O.; and Papadopoulos, F. 2018b. Guidelines for designing social robots as second language tutors. International Journal of Social Robotics 10(3):325–341.
Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Buisine, S.; Vandendriessche, C.; Glaveanu, V.; and Lubart, T. 2017. Engineering students’ use of creativity and development tools in conceptual product design: What, when and how? Thinking Skills and Creativity 24:104–117.
Bretan, M., and Weinberg, G. 2016. A survey of robotic musicianship. Communications of the ACM 59(5):100–109.
Broo, D. G. 2021. Transdisciplinarity and three mindsets for sustainability in the age of cyber-physical systems. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 100290.
Ceha, J.; Law, E.; Kulić, D.; Oudeyer, P.-Y.; and Roy, D. 2021. Identifying functions and behaviours of social robots during learning activities: Teachers’ perspective. International Journal of Social Robotics 1–15.
Chase, C. C.; Chin, D. B.; Oppezzo, M. A.; and Schwartz, D. L. 2009. Teachable agents and the protegé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18(4).
Cheok, A. D., and Zhang, E. Y. 2020. Electrical machine for remote kissing and engineering measurement of its remote communication effects, including modified turing test. Journal of Future Robot Life 1(1):111–134.
Chu, V.; Fitzgerald, T., and Thomaz, A. L. 2016. Learning object affordances by leveraging the combination of human-guidance and self-exploration. In 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 221–228. IEEE.
Colton, S., and Saunders, A. P. . R. 2018. Issues of authenticity in autonomously creative systems. In Proceeding of the 9th ICCC, 272–279.
Dahlstedt, P. 2012. Between material and ideas: A process-based spatial model of artistic creativity. In McCormack, J., and d’Inverno, M., eds., Computers and Creativity. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 205–233.
Ecutti, L.; Chemero, A.; and Lee, S. W. 2021. Technology may change cognition without necessarily harming it. Nature Human Behaviour 5(8):973–975.
Engeström, Y. 1987a. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation. In Engeström, Y.; Miettinen, R.; and Punamäki, R., eds., Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. 377–404.
Engeström, Y. 1987b. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work 14(1):133–156.
Favela, L. H.; Amon, M. J.; Lobo, L.; and Chemero, A. 2021. Empirical evidence for extended cognitive systems. Cognitive Science 45(11).
Finke, R. A.; Ward, T. B.; and Smith, S. M. 1992. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fitzgerald, T.; Goel, A. K.; and Thomaz, A. 2017. Human-robot co-creativity: Task transfer on a spectrum of similarity. In 8th ICCC, 104–111.
Frey, C. B., and Osborne, M. A. 2013. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization? Oxford Martin School.
Friston, K. J.; Lin, M.; Frith, C. D.; Pezzulo, G.; Hobson, J. A.; and Ondobaka, S. 2017. Active inference, curiosity and insight. Neural computation 29(10):2633–2683.
Gemeinboeck, P., and Saunders, R. 2010. Zwischenräume: The machine as voyeur. In Conf. on Transdisciplinary Imaging at the Intersections between Art, Science and Culture, 100–109.
Gemeinboeck, P., and Saunders, R. 2013. Creative machine performance: Computational creativity and robotic art. In ICCC, 215–219.
Gilhooly, K. J.; Fioratou, E.; Anthony, S. H.; and Wynn, V. 2007. Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology 98(4):611–625.
Glăveanu, V. P. 2012. What can be done with an egg? creativity, material objects and the theory of affordances. Journal of Creative Behavior 46(3):192–208.
Glăveanu, V. P. 2013. Rewriting the language of creativity: The five a’s framework. Review of General Psychology 17(1):69–81.
Gomez Cubero, C.; Pekarik, M.; Rizzo, V.; and Jochum, E. 2021. The robot is present: Creative approaches for artistic expression with robots. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8:233.
Griffin, A. S., and Guez, D. 2014. Innovation and problem solving: a review of common mechanisms. Behavioural Processes 109:121–134.
Gubenko, A.; Kirsch, C.; Smilek, J. N.; Lubart, T.; and Houssemand, C. 2021. Educational robotics and robot creativity: An interdisciplinary dialogue. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8:178.
Guckelsberger, C.; Kantosalo, A.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; and Takala, T. 2021. Embodiment and computational creativity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00949.
Guckelsberger, C.; Salge, C.; and Colton, S. 2017. Addressing the “why?” in computational creativity: A non- anthropocentric, minimal model of intentional creative agency. In 8th ICCC, 128–135.
Guilford, J. P. 1967. The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hollan, J.; Hutchins, E.; and Kirsh, D. 2000. Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7(2):174–196.
Huang, C.-M., and Mutlu, B. 2012. Robot behavior toolkit: Generating effective social behaviors for robots. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI’12, 25–32. IEEE.
Hélie, S., and Sun, R. 2010. Incubation, insight and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review 117(3):994–1024.
Ingold, T. 2010. The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1):92–102.
Jacob, M., and Magerko, B. 2018. Creative arcs in improvised human-computer embodied performances. In 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, 1–6.
Jordanous, A. 2016. Four pppperspectives on computational creativity in theory and in practice. Connection Science 28(2):194–216.
Kahn, P. H.; Kanda, T.; H. Ishiguro, B. T. G.; Shen, S.; Ruckert, J. H.; and Gary, H. E. 2016. Human creativity can be facilitated through interacting with a social robot. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
Kanda, T.; Hirano, T.; Eaton, D.; and Ishiguro, H. 2004. Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human–Computer Interaction 19(1):61–84.
Kantosalo, A.; Ravikumar, P. T.; Grace, K.; and Takala, T. 2020. Modalities, styles and strategies: An interaction framework for human-computer co-creativity. In ICCC, 57–64.
Kaptelinin, V., and Nardi, B. A. 2006. Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT press.
Karimi, P.; Grace, K.; Maher, M. L.; and Davis, N. 2018. Evaluating creativity in computational co-creative systems. In 9th ICCC, 104–111.
Kaufman, J. C., and Beghetto, R. A. 2009. Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology 13(1):1–12.
Kim, Y., and Tscholl, M. 2021. Young children’s embodied interactions with a social robot. Educational Technology Research and Development 69(4):2059–2081.
Kimmel, M., and Hristova, D. 2021. The micro-genesis of improvisational co-creation. Creativity Research Journal 33(4):347–375.
Klahr, D.; Fay, A.; and Dunbar, K. 1993. Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive psychology 25(1):111–146.
Kober, J.; Bagnell, J.; and Peters, J. 2013. Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. The International Journal of Robotics Research 32(1238-1274).
Koehorst, M. M.; van Deursen, A. J.; van Dijk, J. A.; and de Haan J. 2019. Exploring the creative industries: Toward a classification by process and job functions. Journal of Innovation Management 7(3):69–95.
Koppula, H. S., and Saxena, A. 2015. Anticipating human activities using object affordances for reactive robotic response. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 38(1):14–29.
Kuutti, K. 1996. Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction 1744.
Law, T.; Kasenberg, D.; and Scheutz, M. 2020. Mate or weight? perceptions of a robot as agent or object in a creative problem solving task. Tufts University, Medford, Human-Robot Interaction laboratory. hrilab.tufts.edu/publications/law2020mate.pdf.
Leont’ev, A. N. 1978. Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Li, J. 2015. The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (77):23–37.
Lindblom, J., and Alenljung, B. 2020. The anemone: Theoretical foundations for ux evaluation of action and intention recognition in human-robot interaction. Sensors 20(15):4284.
Lubart, T.; Esposito, D.; Gubenko, A.; and Houssemand, C. 2021. Creativity in humans, robots, humbots. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications 8(1):23–37.
Malafouris, L. 2014. Creative thinging: The feeling of and for clay. Pragmatics & Cognition 22(1):140–158.
Malinin, L. H. 2019. How radical is embodied creativity? implications of 4e approaches for creativity research and teaching. Frontiers in psychology 10:2372.
Matheson, H. E., and Kenett, Y. 2020. The role of the motor system in generating creative thoughts. NeuroImage 213:116697.
Matheson, H. E., and Kenett, Y. 2021. A novel coding scheme for assessing responses in divergent thinking: An embodied approach. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 15(3):412.
Movellan, J.; Eckhardt, M.; Virnes, M.; and Rodriguez, A. 2009. Sociable robot improves toddler vocabulary skills. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction - HRI’09, 307–308.
Mubin, O.; Stevens, C. J.; Shahid, S.; Mahmud, A. A.; and Dong, J.-J. 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning 1:1–7.
Nair, L., and Chernova, S. 2020. Feature guided search for creative problem solving through tool construction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7:205.
Nardi, B. A. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models and distributed cognition. In Nardi, B. A., ed., Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press. 69–102.
Newen, A.; Bruin, L. D.; and Gallagher, S. 2018. The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nyga, D.; Roy, S.; Paul, R.; Park, D.; Pomarlan, M.; Beetz, M.; and N.Roy. 2018. Grounding robot plans from natural language instructions with incomplete world knowledge. In in Conference on Robot Learning, 714–723.
OECD. 2021. AI and the Future of Skills, Volume 1: Capabilities and Assessments, Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: Éditions OCDE.
Onnasch, L., and Roesler, E. 2021. A taxonomy to structure and analyze human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics 13(4):833–849.
Ortiz Jr, C. L. 2016. Why we need a physically embodied turing test and what it might look like. AI magazine 37(1):55–62.
Pan, Y.; Kim, M. G.; and Suzuki, K. 2010. A robot musician interacting with a human partner through initiative exchange. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME 2010), 166–169.
Park, H. W.; Rosenberg-Kima, R.; Rosenberg, M.; Gordon, G.; and Breazeal, C. 2017. Growing growth mindset with a social robot peer. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, 137–145.
Paré, Z. 2012. Robot drama research: From identification to synchronization. In International Conference on Social Robotics, 308–316. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Qin, M.; Brawer, J.; and Scassellati, B. 2021. Rapidly learning generalizable and robot-agnostic tool-use skills for a wide range of tasks. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8.
Rhodes, M. 1961. An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42(7):305–310.
Sarathy, V., and Scheutz, M. 2018. Macgyver problems: Ai challenges for testing resourcefulness and creativity. Advances in Cognitive Systems 6:31–44.
Saunders, R.; Gemeinboeck, P.; Lombard, A.; Bourke, D.; and Kocabali, B. 2010. Curious whispers: An embodied artificial creative system. In 1st ICCC, 100–109.
Schön, D. A. 1992. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Routledge.
Steinfeld, A.; T, F.; Kaber, D.; Lewis, M.; Scholtz, J.; Schultz, A.; and Goodrich, M. 2006. Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In Proceeding of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction - HRI’06, 33–40. New York: ACM Press.
Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Suwa, M.; Gero, J.; and Purcell, T. 2000. Unexpected discoveries and s-invention of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design studies 21(6):539–567.
Tanaka, F.; Cicourel, A.; and Movellan, J. R. 2007. Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(46):17954–17958.
Torrance, E. P. 1981. Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Ventura, D. 2016. Mere generation: Essential barometer or dated concept. In 7th ICCC, 17–24.
Vicente, K. J., and Rasmussen, J. 1990. The ecology of human-machine systems ii: Mediating direct perception in complex work domains. Ecological Psychology 2:207–249.
Vigorito, C. M., and Barto, A. G. 2008. Hierarchical representations of behavior for efficient creative search. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems, 135–141.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1987. Thinking and speech. In Rieber, R., and Carton, A., eds., The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. Problems of General Psychology. New York: Plenum Press. 39–285.
Waefler, T. 2021. Progressive intensity of human-technology teaming. In in Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Systems V), 28–36. Springer International Publishing.
Wagman, J. B.; Cialdella, V. T.; and Stoffregen, T. A. 2019. Higher order affordances for reaching: Perception and performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 72(5):1200–1211.
Wallas, G. 1926. The Art of Thought. London: UK: Jonathan Cape.
Wilson, A. L. 1993. The promise of situated cognition. New directions for adult and continuing education (57):71–79.
Wilson, M. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review 9(4):625–636.
Zaga, C.; Lohse, M.; Truong, K. P.; and Evers, V. 2015. The effect of a robot’s social character on children’s task engagement: Peer versus tutor. In International conference on social robotics, 704–713. Springer, Cham.
Zimmerman, C. 2007. The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental review 27(2):172–223.
