## 5 Results
### Human-Robot Interaction Design
#### 5.2.1 Auditory Communication  
Participants desired communication between themselves and the robot to be through speech (\(n=205\)) and sounds (\(n=3\)), accounting for 92% of Japanese participants and 81% of US participants (44 of 48, and 35 of 43, respectively).  
Speech communication, both from the human and the robot, was the most indicated communication preference, some of which is functional, polite, or social. Participants provided examples of functional communication, such as acknowledgment of commands (\(n=16\)). People wanted the robot to \"confirm commands\" [PJ18] and for the robot to \"haveconversational niceties like saying please and thank you\" [PJ18]. It was also requested for the robot to be able to ask simple questions such as, \"Have you had breakfast\" [PJ21] or \"May I begin\" [PU38,PJ18] that functionally fit the role of a home-helper robot. Voice activation (\(n=9\)), such as using a wake word or \"wake name\" [PU30] was also popular as many participants related this to popular virtual assistants, like Amazon's Alexa and Apple's Siri. Providing counts and initiation/disengaging statements like (\(n=13\)) \"ready, 1, 2, 3\" [PJ18] or simply saying \"start or stop\" [PU38]) was also requested. Participants wanted a \"pleasant\" (\(n=1\)) or \"reassuring\" (\(n=1\)) tone as an indication of the robot about to do, finish, or start a task. Some wanted the ability to customize speech based on individual needs or preferences (\(n=9\)). Some participants reported wanting the ability to \"choose the voice\" [PU10], allowing users to choose an accent, such as \"British\" or \"American boy band\" [PU-10,11], or change the gender of the voice for their robot [PJ10]. One participant noted that they \"just don't want the robot to do the task in silence\" or that the robot shouldn't talk \"more than necessary\" [PJ18], which speaks to the robot's verbosity or chatiness.  
62.5% of Japanese participants and 48.8% of US participants wanted the ability to have more social communication (\(n=36\)) and interactions with the robot beyond giving commands (30 of 48 Japanese participants, and 21 of 43 US participants), while a minority specified that they only wanted to communicate their commands (5 JP, 10.4%; and 21 US, 32.6%). Seven participants explained that they would like to be able to talk to the robot similarly to how they talk to smart systems like Alexa, Google Nest, or Siri (\(n=15\)) [PU-04,08,11,19,30,31,35]. Instances of this included, \"ask [PERSON] questions or say, _play me music_\" [PU24] or \"sometimes we'll just talk to [PERSON] and [PERSON] talks back to us\" [PU30]. The concept of the robot singing or playing music (\(n=2\)) was appealing; \"if the robot could play songs for me, it would be fun\" [PJ27] or if it \"sang songs to me when I go to bed\" [PJ36]. These latter examples are an indication that OAs might want to form relationships to some extent with a caregiving robot.  
**Formed Attitudes Against Auditory Communication.** A few participants noted instances in which verbal interaction might be disruptive; for example, \"I get up every day at 3:45 in the morning. My wife doesn't, I don't wanna be yelling at a robot, _\"Hey, come get me out of bed.\"_ Yeah. If it's sitting in the corner and it sees me sit up, which I do and sit with my feet on the ground and kind of get myself oriented before I try to stand, if it sees me do that and moves in the position of _Okay, here I am, boss_. You know? That would be cool\" [PU35]. The concept of a caregiving robot being able to pick up on the Care Receiver's cues and/or monitor the human was appreciated [PU35,PJ35]; \"What I thought was amazing was that even though the robot and human were not talking to each other, the robot sensed the assistance needed from the human's movements and appearance and gave it to the man\" [PJ35]. PJ44 noted that they would like to communicate with the robot through a physical controller in cases where they were unable to speak.