PUB - Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld

Explanation has been identified as an important capability for AI-based systems, but research on systematic strategies for achieving understanding in interaction with such systems is still sparse. Negation is a linguistic strategy that is often used in explanations. It creates a contrast space between the affirmed and the negated item that enriches explaining processes with additional contextual information. While negation in human speech has been shown to lead to higher processing costs and worse task performance in terms of recall or action execution when used in isolation, it can decrease processing costs when used in context. So far, it has not been considered as a guiding strategy for explanations in human-robot interaction. We conducted an empirical study to investigate the use of negation as a guiding strategy in explanatory human-robot dialogue, in which a virtual robot explains tasks and possible actions to a human explainee to solve them in terms of gestures on a touchscreen. Our results show that negation vs. affirmation 1) increases processing costs measured as reaction time and 2) increases several aspects of task performance. While there was no significant effect of negation on the number of initially correctly executed gestures, we found a significantly lower number of attempts—measured as breaks in the finger movement data before the correct gesture was carried out—when being instructed through a negation. We further found that the gestures significantly resembled the presented prototype gesture more following an instruction with a negation as opposed to an affirmation. Also, the participants rated the benefit of contrastive vs. affirmative explanations significantly higher. Repeating the instructions decreased the effects of negation, yielding similar processing costs and task performance measures for negation and affirmation after several iterations. We discuss our results with respect to possible effects of negation on linguistic processing of explanations and limitations of our study.