## 3 Experimental Environment and Results
### Findings from the Observations  
Functionality. During the tests, a general observation was that the Pepper robot operated more slowly than the Double 3 robot, which participants frequently commented on, often reflecting their reactions through body language. Although one participant noted that the Double 3 robot was also slow, none of the participants could walk at their normal pace due to the slower speeds of both robots. Occasionally, Pepper's connection issues further slowed its movements, causing it to veer off course near doorways or to travel too far, which extended the duration of certain tests. Both robots encountered some minor technical issues. Pepper exhibited longer response times, which led participants to display puzzled expressions or, in some cases, laugh. Additional issues included start-up delays and difficulties in movement patterns, such as standing too close to shelves and struggling to wave. Technical disruptions like unexpected movements were also observed with Pepper. While some participants adapted well to these disruptions, others found them challenging, which impacted the overall testing process. In contrast, no major issues were reported with the Double 3 robot; it generally functioned as expected, with participants perceiving it as relatively stable. Following the robots, especially Double 3, appeared relatively straightforward for participants. However, Pepper was perceived as slow and somewhat jerky in its movements. There were also misunderstandings regarding positioning, particularly with Double 3, as some participants initially thought they should walk in front rather than follow. This caused brief moments of confusion, though participants quickly adapted. Despite certain challenges with Pepper's speed and movement, most participants managed to keep pace. The results highlight, hence, notable differences in user perceptions of the Pepper and Double 3 robots, influenced by their respective designs and operational modes. While Pepper's humanoid embodiment aimed to foster emotional engagement, technical issues, including slower movement speeds and response delays, occasionally detracted from its performance. These challenges were recognized as factors potentially shifting focus away from embodiment to functionality. It is also acknowledged that the Double 3 robot, optimized for teleoperation, had an advantage in delivering smoother and more predictable interactions due to its design. These disparities underline the importance of considering both embodiment and operational functionality when evaluating user experiences. Despite these differences, participants reported valuable insights into the unique strengths and weaknesses of each robot, contributing to the study's broader understanding of HRI. Communication. The instructions provided by the robots were generally perceived as clear, with minimal need for repetition. However, some participants struggled to remember specific instructions and mentioned missing the human-like aspect of gestures to indicate item locations. In one instance, a participant decided to locate the item independently when the Pepper robot failed to respond for an extended period due to a malfunction. When a participant attempted spontaneous questions with [PERSON], communication was perceived as limited and inefficient due to [PERSON]'s slower response times, which created confusion. Most participants, however, had little difficulty locating items after reaching their destinations. Some encountered minor issues with Double 3, likely due to the storage setup rather than any deficiency in the robot's instructions. A few participants struggled to locate items with [PERSON], often due to its orientation, which sometimes led to misleading pointing gestures. User Behavior, Experience, and Attitude. Participants' body language revealed signs of uncertainty or impatience, particularly when [PERSON] took longer to establish eye contact or respond.