Social robot

Last updated
Quori, a socially interactive robot platform for studying human-robot interaction, Immersive Kinematics Lab Quori socially interactive robot platform IMG 20200219 165323219 02.jpg
Quori, a socially interactive robot platform for studying human-robot interaction, Immersive Kinematics Lab

A social robot is an autonomous robot that interacts and communicates with humans or other autonomous physical agents by following social behaviors and rules attached to its role. Like other robots, a social robot is physically embodied (avatars or on-screen synthetic social characters are not embodied and thus distinct). Some synthetic social agents are designed with a screen to represent the head or 'face' to dynamically communicate with users. In these cases, the status as a social robot depends on the form of the 'body' of the social agent; if the body has and uses some physical motors and sensor abilities, then the system could be considered a robot.

Contents

Background

While robots have often been described as possessing social qualities (see for example the tortoises developed by William Grey Walter in the 1950s), social robotics is a fairly recent branch of robotics. Since the early 1990s artificial intelligence and robotics researchers have developed robots which explicitly engage on a social level.

The evolution of social robots began with autonomous robots designed to have little to no interaction with humans. Essentially, they were designed to take on what humans could not. Technologically advanced robots were sent out to handle hazardous conditions and the assignments that could potentially put humans in danger, like exploring the deep oceans or the surface of Mars. [1] Advancing these original intentions, robots are continually being developed to be inserted into human-related settings to establish their social aspect and access their influence on human interactions. Over time, social robots have been advanced to begin to have their own role in society.

Designing an autonomous social robot is particularly challenging, as the robot needs to correctly interpret people's action and respond appropriately, which is currently not yet possible. Moreover, people interacting with a social robot may hold very high expectancies of its capabilities, based on science fiction representations of advanced social robots. As such, many social robots are partially or fully remote controlled to simulate advanced capabilities. This method of (often covertly) controlling a social robot is referred to as a Mechanical Turk or Wizard of Oz, after the character in the L. Frank Baum book. Wizard of Oz studies are useful in social robotics research to evaluate how people respond to social robots.

Definition

A robot is defined in the International Standard of Organization as a reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for performance of a variety of tasks. As a subset of robots, social robots perform any or all of these processes in the context of a social interaction. It interacts socially with humans or evokes social responses from them. [2] The nature of the social interactions is immaterial and may range from relatively simple supportive tasks, such as passing tools to a worker, to complex expressive communication and collaboration, such as assistive healthcare. Hence, social robots are asked to work together with humans in collaborative workspaces. Moreover, social robots start following humans into much more personal settings like home, health care, and education. [3]

Social interactions are likely to be cooperative, but the definition is not limited to this situation. Moreover, uncooperative behavior can be considered social in certain situations. The robot could, for example, exhibit competitive behavior within the framework of a game. The robot could also interact with a minimum or no communication. It could, for example, hand tools to an astronaut working on a space station. However, it is likely that some communication will be necessary at some point.

Two suggested [4] ultimate requirements for social robots are the Turing Test to determine the robot's communication skills and Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics for its behavior. The usefulness to apply these requirements in a real-world application, especially in the case of Asimov's laws, is still disputed and may not be possible at all). However, a consequence of this viewpoint is that a robot that only interacts and communicates with other robots would not be considered to be a social robot: Being social is bound to humans and their society which defines necessary social values, norms and standards. [5] This results in a cultural dependency of social robots since social values, norms and standards differ between cultures.

This brings us directly to the last part of the definition. A social robot must interact within the social rules attached to its role. The role and its rules are defined through society. For example, a robotic butler for humans would have to comply with established rules of good service. It should be anticipating, reliable and most of all discreet. A social robot must be aware of this and comply with it. However, social robots that interact with other autonomous robots would also behave and interact according to non-human conventions. In most social robots the complexity of human-to-human interaction will be gradually approached with the advancement of the technology of androids (a form of humanoid robots) and implementation of a variety of more human-like communication skills [6]

Social interaction

Researches have investigated user engagement with a robot companion. Literature present different models regarding this concern. An example is a framework that models both causes and effects of engagement: features related to the user's non-verbal behaviour, the task and the companion's affective reactions to predict children's level of engagement. [7]

Many people are uneasy about interacting socially with a robot and, in general, people tend to prefer smaller robots to large humanoid robots. They also prefer robots to do tasks like cleaning the house rather than providing companionship. [8] In verbal social interactions people tend to share less information with robots than with humans. Despite initial reluctance to interact with social robots, exposure to a social robot may decrease uncertainty and increase willingness to interact with the robot, [9] and research shows that over time people speak for a longer time and share more information in their disclosures to a social robot. [10] [11] If people have an interaction with a social robot that is seen as playful (as opposed to focused on completing a task or being social) they may be more likely to engage with the robot in the future. [12]

Societal impacts

The increasingly widespread use of more advanced social robots is one of several phenomena expected to contribute to the technological posthumanization of human societies, through which process “a society comes to include members other than ‘natural’ biological human beings who, in one way or another, contribute to the structures, dynamics, or meaning of the society.” [13]

Uses in healthcare

Social robots have been used increasingly in healthcare settings and recent research has been exploring the applicability of social robots as mental health interventions for children. [14] A scoping review analyzed the impacts that robots such as Nao, Paro, Huggable, Tega and Pleo have on children in various intervention settings. [14] Results from this work highlighted that depression and anger may be reduced in children working with social robots, however anxiety and pain yielded mixed results. [14] Distress was found to be reduced in children who interacted with robots. [14] Finally, this scoping review found that affect was positively impacted by interaction with robots—such that children smiled for longer and demonstrated growth-mindsets when playing games. [14] It is worth noting that robots have increased benefits in that they can be used instead of animal-assisted therapy for children who are allergic or immunocompromised. [14] Sanitation is a necessary issue to consider, however with washable covers or sanitizable surfaces, this becomes less of a problem in medical settings. [14] Another review analyzed data from previous studies and found further support that social robots may reduce negative symptoms children experience in healthcare settings. [15] Social robots can be used as tools for distracting children from procedures, like getting a shot, and have demonstrated the ability to reduce stress and pain experience. [15] Children who interacted with both a psychotherapist and robot assistant for therapy experienced reduced anger, anxiety, and depression when coping with cancer compared to a control group. [15] There is some evidence that supports that free-play with a robot while hospitalized can help children experience more positive moods. [15] More work needs to be done to analyze the impact of social robots on children in psychiatric wards, as evidence revealed that some children may dislike the robot and feel it is dangerous. [15] Overall, further research should be conducted to fully understand the impact of social robots on reducing negative mental health symptoms in children, but there appears to be advantages of utilizing social robots in healthcare settings. [14] [15]

Social robots have been shown to have beneficial outcomes for children with Autism-spectrum disorder (ASD). [16] As many individuals with autism-spectrum disorder tend to prefer predictable interactions, robots may be a viable option for social interactions. [16] Previous research on the interactions between children with ASD and robots has demonstrated positive benefits, for instance shared attention, increased eye contact, and interpersonal synchrony. [16] Various types of robots have the potential to reap these benefits for children with ASD—from humanoid robots like KASPAR, to cartoonish robots such as Tito, to animal-like robots like Probo, to machine-like robots such as Nao. [16] One problem that may hinder the advantages of social robots as social interaction tools for children with ASD is the Uncanny Valley, as the eerily human-likeness of the robots may be overstimulating and anxiety-inducing. [16] It appears that social robots provide an opportunity to increase social skills in children with ASD, and future research should investigate this topic further.

Individuals with cognitive impairments, such as dementia and Alzheimer's disease, may also benefit from social robots. [17] [18] In their study, Moro et al. (2018) utilized 3 social robots types—a human-like robot, Casper; a character-like Robot, The Ed robot; and a tablet—to help six individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment make a cup of tea. [17] Results demonstrated that, to an extent, the humanoid robot was most engaging to individuals with cognitive impairments, likely due to the expressiveness of its face compared to the minimal expression of Ed and the tablet. [17] Participants also anthropomorphized the human-like and character-like robot more so than the tablet by addressing them and asking questions, further indicating a preference for the social robots. [17] Additionally, participants perceived the human-like robot to be useful in both social situations and in completing activities of daily living, whereas the character-like robot and tablet were seen as only useful for activities of daily living. [17] Another study by Moyle et al. (2019) investigated the impact that providing an individual with dementia a robot toy, Paro, versus a plush-toy would have on caregiver and family members' perception of the individuals' well-being. [18] This study highlighted the ways in which some long-term care facilities may have minimal stimulation for dementia patients, which can lead to boredom and increased agitation. [18] After completing the trial, caregivers and family members were asked to assess the individual with dementias' well-being and, overall, the group that interacted with Paro was perceived to be happier, more engaged, and less agitated. [18] One of the main issues with utilizing Paro, despite its perceived benefits, is the cost—future research must investigate more cost effective options for older adult care. [18] Another issue of conducting research between individuals with cognitive impairments and social robots is their ability to consent. [19] In some cases, informed consent by proxy can be utilized, however the benefits and risks should be weighed before conducting any research. [19] Long-term research could show that residents of care home are willing to interact with humanoid robots and benefit from cognitive and physical activation that is led by the robot Pepper. [20] Pepper was also used in assessing the feelings of safety and security the robot provided for older individuals. For these individuals, security is associated with trust and confidence developed by interpersonal relationships. Using videos and questionnaires, both safety and security ended up on the positive side for the participants and how they felt. [21] Another long-term study in a care home could show that people working in the care sector are willing to use robots in their daily work with the residents. [22] But it also revealed that even though that the robots are ready to be used, they do need human assistants, they cannot replace the human work force but they can assist them and give them new possibilities. [22]

Social robots have been used as mental well-being coaches, [23] for students, [24] in public, [25] and at the workplace. [26] Robotic mental well-being coaches can perform practices such as positive psychology [24] [26] and mindfulness. [25] [27] Users' perceptions of robotic mental well-being coaches have been shown to depend on the robot's appearance. [28]

The ethics of social robots' use in healthcare should also be mentioned. One potential risk of social robots is deception—there may be an expectation that the robot can perform certain functions when it actually cannot. [19] For example, with increased human-likeness and anthropomorphic traits, humans interacting with robots might assume the robot to have feelings and thoughts, which is misleading. [19] Isolating older adults from humans is also a risk of social robots in that these robots may make up a significant amount of the individual's social interaction. [19] Currently there is little evidence about the long-term impacts this limited human contact and increased robot interaction may have. [19] Some social robots also have a built in telepresence capacity that can be utilized such that individuals can videoconference with family, caregivers, and medical staff, which may decrease loneliness and isolation. [29] The video capability of some robots is a potential avenue for social interaction and increasing accessibility of medical assessments. [29] Dignity for persons interacting with robots should also be respected—individuals might find some robots, like the cuddly toy-like Paro, to be infantilizing, and future investigations should explore how to best increase autonomy of patients interacting with robots. [19] Furthermore, privacy is another ethical concern in that some social robots can collect and store video data or data from sensors. [19] The stored data is at risk to be stolen or hacked into, which negatively impacts individual privacy. [19] Safety of individuals interacting with robots is another concern in that robots may accidentally cause harm, like by bumping into someone and causing them to fall. [19] Ethical considerations should be taken into account before introducing robots into healthcare settings.

Presence in the Workplace

The presence of social robots within the workplace makes a difference in the daily work lives of the employees. Due to the robot's advanced technological knowledge, they are able to contribute and assist in completing tasks and contributing to the overall diversity of the work itself. Not to mention the work the robots contribute; they also alleviate the work piles and stress that are put on everyday employees. Social robots can be a key player in assisting when humans may not have the correct knowledge or skills to perform the task at hand, as well as reduce the exposure human employees have to accidents and health risks within the workplace.

Workplace difficulties arise when employees face illnesses, heavy workloads, or other obstacles preventing them from performing to their full potential. When these productivity and quality levels may be in danger, social robots offer a new solution and can be used to assist employees where necessary. This is especially true when it comes to the possible stress and depression employees face in being overworked. [21] These robots can play a crucial role in alleviating pieces of tasks and the overall work demand for individual employees. In instances like Europe has been facing with a lack of labor force within the service industry, social robots play a crucial role in entering and restoring relatively normal workplace functionality. [21]

Examples

One of the most well-known social robots currently in development is Sophia, developed by Hanson Robotics. Sophia is a social humanoid robot that can display more than 50 facial expressions, and is the first non-human to be given a United Nations title. [30]

SoftBank Robotics has developed multiple social, semi-humanoid robots which are frequently used in research, including Pepper and Nao. Pepper is used both commercially and academically, as well as being used by consumers in over a thousand homes in Japan.

Other notable examples of social robots include ASIMO by Honda, Jibo, Moxi, and Kaspar, designed by University of Hertfordshire to help children with autism learn responses from the robot through games and interactive play. [31] Anki's robots Cozmo and Vector also fell into the category of social robots, but all were shut down between 2018 and 2019.

Social robots do not necessarily have to be humanoid. The most famous example of a non-humanoid social robot is Paro the seal.

See also

Further references

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Humanoid robot</span> Body shape similar to a human

A humanoid robot is a robot resembling the human body in shape. The design may be for functional purposes, such as interacting with human tools and environments, for experimental purposes, such as the study of bipedal locomotion, or for other purposes. In general, humanoid robots have a torso, a head, two arms, and two legs, though some humanoid robots may replicate only part of the body. Androids are humanoid robots built to aesthetically resemble humans.

Proxemics is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behavior, communication, and social interaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Multi-agent system</span> Built of multiple interacting agents

A multi-agent system is a computerized system composed of multiple interacting intelligent agents. Multi-agent systems can solve problems that are difficult or impossible for an individual agent or a monolithic system to solve. Intelligence may include methodic, functional, procedural approaches, algorithmic search or reinforcement learning.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swarm robotics</span> Coordination of multiple robots as a system

Swarm robotics is an approach to the coordination of multiple robots as a system which consist of large numbers of mostly simple physical robots. ″In a robot swarm, the collective behavior of the robots results from local interactions between the robots and between the robots and the environment in which they act.″ It is supposed that a desired collective behavior emerges from the interactions between the robots and interactions of robots with the environment. This approach emerged on the field of artificial swarm intelligence, as well as the biological studies of insects, ants and other fields in nature, where swarm behaviour occurs.

Developmental robotics (DevRob), sometimes called epigenetic robotics, is a scientific field which aims at studying the developmental mechanisms, architectures and constraints that allow lifelong and open-ended learning of new skills and new knowledge in embodied machines. As in human children, learning is expected to be cumulative and of progressively increasing complexity, and to result from self-exploration of the world in combination with social interaction. The typical methodological approach consists in starting from theories of human and animal development elaborated in fields such as developmental psychology, neuroscience, developmental and evolutionary biology, and linguistics, then to formalize and implement them in robots, sometimes exploring extensions or variants of them. The experimentation of those models in robots allows researchers to confront them with reality, and as a consequence, developmental robotics also provides feedback and novel hypotheses on theories of human and animal development.

Human-centered computing (HCC) studies the design, development, and deployment of mixed-initiative human-computer systems. It is emerged from the convergence of multiple disciplines that are concerned both with understanding human beings and with the design of computational artifacts. Human-centered computing is closely related to human-computer interaction and information science. Human-centered computing is usually concerned with systems and practices of technology use while human-computer interaction is more focused on ergonomics and the usability of computing artifacts and information science is focused on practices surrounding the collection, manipulation, and use of information.

Robotic pets are artificially intelligent machines that are made to resemble actual pets. While the first robotic pets produced in the late 1990s were not too advanced, they have since grown technologically. Many now use machine learning, making them much more realistic. Most consumers buy robotic pets with the aim of getting similar companionship that real pets offer, without some of the drawbacks that come with caring for live animals. The pets on the market currently have a wide price range, from the low hundreds into the several thousands of dollars. Multiple studies have been done to show that we treat robotic pets in a similar way as actual pets, despite their obvious differences. However, there is some controversy regarding how ethical using robotic pets is, and whether or not they should be widely adopted in elderly care.

In artificial intelligence, an embodied agent, also sometimes referred to as an interface agent, is an intelligent agent that interacts with the environment through a physical body within that environment. Agents that are represented graphically with a body, for example a human or a cartoon animal, are also called embodied agents, although they have only virtual, not physical, embodiment. A branch of artificial intelligence focuses on empowering such agents to interact autonomously with human beings and the environment. Mobile robots are one example of physically embodied agents; Ananova and Microsoft Agent are examples of graphically embodied agents. Embodied conversational agents are embodied agents that are capable of engaging in conversation with one another and with humans employing the same verbal and nonverbal means that humans do.

Human–robot interaction (HRI) is the study of interactions between humans and robots. Human–robot interaction is a multidisciplinary field with contributions from human–computer interaction, artificial intelligence, robotics, natural language processing, design, psychology and philosophy. A subfield known as physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) has tended to focus on device design to enable people to safely interact with robotic systems.

Neurorobotics is the combined study of neuroscience, robotics, and artificial intelligence. It is the science and technology of embodied autonomous neural systems. Neural systems include brain-inspired algorithms, computational models of biological neural networks and actual biological systems. Such neural systems can be embodied in machines with mechanic or any other forms of physical actuation. This includes robots, prosthetic or wearable systems but also, at smaller scale, micro-machines and, at the larger scales, furniture and infrastructures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robotics</span> Design, construction, use, and application of robots

Robotics is the interdisciplinary study and practice of the design, construction, operation, and use of robots.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sex robot</span> Hypothetical anthropomorphic robot sex doll

Sex robots or sexbots are anthropomorphic robotic sex dolls that have a humanoid form, human-like movement or behavior, and some degree of artificial intelligence. As of 2018, although elaborately instrumented sex dolls have been created by a number of inventors, no fully animated sex robots yet exist. Simple devices have been created which can speak, make facial expressions, or respond to touch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human–computer interaction</span> Academic discipline studying the relationship between computer systems and their users

Human–computer interaction (HCI) is research in the design and the use of computer technology, which focuses on the interfaces between people (users) and computers. HCI researchers observe the ways humans interact with computers and design technologies that allow humans to interact with computers in novel ways. A device that allows interaction between human being and a computer is known as a "Human-computer Interface (HCI)".

Technoself studies, commonly referred to as TSS, is an emerging, interdisciplinary domain of scholarly research dealing with all aspects of human identity in a technological society focusing on the changing nature of relationships between the human and technology. As new and constantly changing experiences of human identity emerge due to constant technological change, technoself studies seeks to map and analyze these mutually influential developments with a focus on identity, rather than technical developments. Therefore, the self is a key concept of TSS. The term "technoself", advanced by Luppicini (2013), broadly denotes evolving human identity as a result of the adoption of new technology, while avoiding ideological or philosophical biases inherent in other related terms including cyborg, posthuman, transhuman, techno-human, beman, digital identity, avatar, and homotechnicus though Luppicini acknowledges that these categories "capture important aspects of human identity". Technoself is further elaborated and explored in Luppicini's "Handbook of Research on Technoself: Identity in a Technological Environment".

A companion robot is a robot created to create real or apparent companionship for human beings. Target markets for companion robots include the elderly and single children. Companions robots are expected to communicate with non-experts in a natural and intuitive way. They offer a variety of functions, such as monitoring the home remotely, communicating with people, or waking people up in the morning. Their aim is to perform a wide array of tasks including educational functions, home security, diary duties, entertainment and message delivery services, etc.

Human-Robot Collaboration is the study of collaborative processes in human and robot agents work together to achieve shared goals. Many new applications for robots require them to work alongside people as capable members of human-robot teams. These include robots for homes, hospitals, and offices, space exploration and manufacturing. Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) is an interdisciplinary research area comprising classical robotics, human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, process design, layout planning, ergonomics, cognitive sciences, and psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leila Takayama</span> Human–computer interaction specialist

Leila A. Takayama is an associate professor of Human–computer interaction at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She has previously held positions at Google X and Willow Garage. She was elected as a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader in 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julie Carpenter</span> American Researcher, Educator, Author, Speaker, Human-Robot Interaction Specialist

Julie Carpenter, born Julie Gwyn Wajdyk, is an American researcher whose work focuses on human behavior with emerging technologies, especially within vulnerable and marginalized populations. She is best known for her work in human attachment to robots and other forms of artificial intelligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aude Billard</span> Swiss physicist

Aude G. Billard is a Swiss physicist in the fields of machine learning and human-robot interactions. As a full professor at the School of Engineering at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Billard’s research focuses on applying machine learning to support robot learning through human guidance. Billard’s work on human-robot interactions has been recognized numerous times by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and she currently holds a leadership position on the executive committee of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society (RAS) as the vice president of publication activities.

A socially assistive robot (SAR) aids users through social engagement and support rather than through physical tasks and interactions.

References

  1. ↑ Weir, K. (2018, January 1). The dawn of social robots. Monitor on Psychology, 49(1). https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/01/cover-social-robots
  2. ↑ Leite, Iolanda; Martinho, Carlos; Paiva, Ana (April 2013). "Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey". International Journal of Social Robotics. 5 (2): 291–308. doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y. ISSN   1875-4791. S2CID   3721600.
  3. ↑ Lin, Chaolan; Šabanović, Selma; Dombrowski, Lynn; Miller, Andrew D.; Brady, Erin; MacDorman, Karl F. (2021). "Parental Acceptance of Children's Storytelling Robots: A Projection of the Uncanny Valley of AI". Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 8 (579993): 579993. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.579993 . ISSN   2296-9144. PMC   8172185 . PMID   34095237.
  4. ↑ David Feil-Seifer, Kristine Skinner and Maja J. Matarić, "Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics", Interaction Studies: Psychological Benchmarks of Human-Robot Inteaction [sic], 8(3), 423-429 Oct, 2007
  5. ↑ Taipale, S., Vincent, J., Sapio, B., Lugano, G. and Fortunati, L. (2015) Introduction: Situating the Human in Social Robots. In J. Vincent et al., eds. Social Robots from a Human Perspective, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1-17
  6. ↑ "Implications of interpersonal communication competence research on the design of artificial behavioral systems that interact with humans" . Retrieved 3 March 2017.
  7. ↑ Castellano, Ginevra; Pereira, André; Leite, Iolanda; Paiva, Ana; McOwan, Peter W. (2009). "Detecting user engagement with a robot companion using task and social interaction-based features". Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on Multimodal interfaces. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: ACM Press. pp. 119–126. doi:10.1145/1647314.1647336. ISBN   9781605587721. S2CID   3358106.
  8. ↑ Ray, Celine; Mondada, Francesco; Siegwart, Roland (September 2008). "What do people expect from robots?". 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. pp. 3816–3821. doi:10.1109/IROS.2008.4650714. ISBN   978-1-4244-2057-5. S2CID   9253964.
  9. ↑ Haggadone, Brad A.; Banks, Jaime; Koban, Kevin (2021-04-07). "Of robots and robotkind: Extending intergroup contact theory to social machines". Communication Research Reports. 38 (3): 161–171. doi:10.1080/08824096.2021.1909551. ISSN   0882-4096. S2CID   233566369.
  10. ↑ Laban, Guy; Morrison, Val; Kappas, Arvid; Cross, Emily S. (2022-04-28). "Informal Caregivers Disclose Increasingly More to a Social Robot over Time". CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. CHI EA '22. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1–7. doi:10.1145/3491101.3519666. ISBN   978-1-4503-9156-6. S2CID   248419331.
  11. ↑ Laban, Guy; Kappas, Arvid; Morrison, Val; Cross, Emily S. (2023-11-30). "Building Long-Term Human–Robot Relationships: Examining Disclosure, Perception and Well-Being Across Time". International Journal of Social Robotics. doi: 10.1007/s12369-023-01076-z . hdl: 20.500.11850/665165 . ISSN   1875-4805. S2CID   265613586.
  12. ↑ Banks, Jaime; Koban, Kevin; Chauveau, Philippe (2021-04-15). "Forms and Frames: Mind, Morality, and Trust in Robots across Prototypical Interactions". Human-Machine Communication. 2 (1): 81–103. doi: 10.30658/hmc.2.4 .
  13. ↑ Gladden, Matthew (2018). Sapient Circuits and Digitalized Flesh: The Organization as Locus of Technological Posthumanization (second ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Defragmenter Media. p. 19. ISBN   978-1-944373-21-4.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kabacińska, Katarzyna; Prescott, Tony J.; Robillard, Julie M. (2020-07-27). "Socially Assistive Robots as Mental Health Interventions for Children: A Scoping Review". International Journal of Social Robotics. 13 (5): 919–935. doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00679-0. ISSN   1875-4791. S2CID   225508287.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Moerman, Clara J; van der Heide, Loek; Heerink, Marcel (December 2019). "Social robots to support children's well-being under medical treatment: A systematic state-of-the-art review". Journal of Child Health Care. 23 (4): 596–612. doi:10.1177/1367493518803031. ISSN   1367-4935. PMID   30394806. S2CID   53219310.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 Sartorato, Felippe; Przybylowski, Leon; Sarko, Diana K. (July 2017). "Improving therapeutic outcomes in autism-spectrum disorders: Enhancing social communication and sensory processing through the use of interactive robots". Journal of Psychiatric Research. 90: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.02.004. PMID   28213292.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 Moro, Christina; Lin, Shayne; Nejat, Goldie; Mihailidis, Alex (2019-01-01). "Social Robots and Seniors: A Comparative Study on the Influence of Dynamic Social Features on Human–Robot Interaction". International Journal of Social Robotics. 11 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1007/s12369-018-0488-1. ISSN   1875-4805. S2CID   68237859.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 Moyle, Wendy; Bramble, Marguerite; Jones, Cindy J; Murfield, Jenny E (2017-11-19). ""She Had a Smile on Her Face as Wide as the Great Australian Bite": A Qualitative Examination of Family Perceptions of a Therapeutic Robot and a Plush Toy". The Gerontologist. 59 (1): 177–185. doi:10.1093/geront/gnx180. hdl: 10072/375764 . ISSN   0016-9013. PMID   29165558.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Körtner, T. (June 2016). "Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people". Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie. 49 (4): 303–307. doi:10.1007/s00391-016-1066-5. ISSN   0948-6704. PMID   27220734. S2CID   20690764.
  20. ↑ Carros, Felix; Meurer, Johanna; Löffler, Diana; Unbehaun, David; Matthies, Sarah; Koch, Inga; Wieching, Rainer; Randall, Dave; Hassenzahl, Marc; Wulf, Volker (21 April 2020). "Exploring Human-Robot Interaction with the Elderly: Results from a Ten-Week Case Study in a Care Home". Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–12. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376402. ISBN   9781450367080. S2CID   218483496.
  21. 1 2 3 Korn, Oliver, ed. (2019). "Social Robots: Technological, Societal and Ethical Aspects of Human-Robot Interaction". Human–Computer Interaction Series. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17107-0. ISBN   978-3-030-17106-3. ISSN   1571-5035. S2CID   195766172.
  22. 1 2 Carros, Felix; Schwaninger, Isabel; Preussner, Adrian; Randall, Dave; Wieching, Rainer; Fitzpatrick, Geraldine; Wulf, Volker (May 2022). "Care Workers Making Use of Robots: Results of a Three-Month Study on Human-Robot Interaction within a Care Home". CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517435 . ISBN   9781450391573. S2CID   248419908.
  23. ↑ Axelsson, Minja; Spitale, Micol; Gunes, Hatice (2023-03-13). "Adaptive Robotic Mental Well-being Coaches". Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Stockholm Sweden: ACM. pp. 733–735. doi:10.1145/3568294.3579968. ISBN   978-1-4503-9970-8. S2CID   257406260.
  24. 1 2 Jeong, Sooyeon; Alghowinem, Sharifa; Aymerich-Franch, Laura; Arias, Kika; Lapedriza, Agata; Picard, Rosalind; Park, Hae Won; Breazeal, Cynthia (August 2020). "A Robotic Positive Psychology Coach to Improve College Students' Wellbeing". 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). Naples, Italy: IEEE. pp. 187–194. doi:10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223588. hdl:10230/56627. ISBN   978-1-7281-6075-7. S2CID   221534231.
  25. 1 2 Axelsson, Minja; Spitale, Micol; Gunes, Hatice (2023-03-13). "Robotic Coaches Delivering Group Mindfulness Practice at a Public Cafe". Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI '23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 86–90. doi:10.1145/3568294.3580048. ISBN   978-1-4503-9970-8. S2CID   257406411.
  26. 1 2 Spitale, Micol; Axelsson, Minja; Gunes, Hatice (2023-03-13). "Robotic Mental Well-being Coaches for the Workplace". Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Stockholm Sweden: ACM. pp. 301–310. doi:10.1145/3568162.3577003. ISBN   978-1-4503-9964-7. S2CID   257430702.
  27. ↑ Axelsson, Minja; Racca, Mattia; Weir, Daryl; Kyrki, Ville (October 2019). "A Participatory Design Process of a Robotic Tutor of Assistive Sign Language for Children with Autism". 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). New Delhi, India: IEEE. pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956309. ISBN   978-1-7281-2622-7. S2CID   209486269.
  28. ↑ "Robots may improve mental health at work if they look right, scientists say". The Independent. 2023-03-15. Retrieved 2023-04-06.
  29. 1 2 Moyle, Wendy; Arnautovska, Urska; Ownsworth, Tamara; Jones, Cindy (December 2017). "Potential of telepresence robots to enhance social connectedness in older adults with dementia: an integrative review of feasibility". International Psychogeriatrics. 29 (12): 1951–1964. doi:10.1017/S1041610217001776. hdl: 10072/376115 . ISSN   1041-6102. PMID   28879828. S2CID   22545504.
  30. ↑ Nations, United. "At UN, robot Sophia joins meeting on artificial intelligence and sustainable development". United Nations. Retrieved 2024-02-29.
  31. ↑ Byrne, Patrick (25 December 2011). "Robot at Hertfordshire University aids autistic children". BBC News. Retrieved 28 Sep 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.