Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discovery Report Following 5 Years of Research Project on Socially Assistive Robotics

  • Service and Interactive Robotics (A Tapus, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Robotics Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This study contributes to the field of socially assistive robotics (SAR). We focus our research on the perception and projections of SAR and the interconnections between their tasks, roles, appearances, and behaviors. We explore how humanoid and non-humanoid appearance and behavior influence people’s expectations and roles they give to robots. We also tackle broader questions related to projections, identification, and interpretations of SAR in everyday life.

Recent Findings

Regarding robots’ roles, first studies on the “robotic etiquette” showed that older population saw companion robots as butlers, disabled people see robots as assistants, and only young participants gave roles as being a friend. Even if SAR has as main goal the rehabilitation or medical care, the devices built in this field will also enter people’s homes. Based on appearance and intention scenarios of human-robot experiences, design researchers propose opportunities of projection and discussions and push the human-robot interaction (HRI) community to taking into consideration the more subtle and unspoken needs, values, and expectations on social robots. A larger perspective should be considered in order to deeply understand how to well-design SAR for people and society.

Summary

This report presents the results of qualitative and quantitative experimentations in a 5-year research project on socially assistive robotics—Romeo consortium. We conducted a mixed study on 72 participants on the perception, projection, and identification of three robot representations (2 humanoid and one non-humanoid). Results show strong correlations between the appearance, behavior, and roles of the robot representations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Dunne A, Raby F. Design for debate [Internet]. 2007. Available from: http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/36/0

    Google Scholar 

  2. • Ocnarescu I, Cossin I. Rethinking the why of socially assistive robotics through design. In: International Conference on Social Robotics. 2017. This paper shows how design tools and methods could be useful for the socially assistive robotics community to bring insights from the field, build quick and dirty prototypes, and imagine intention scenarios to open discussions with study participants.

  3. Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ. Defining socially assistive robotics. In: IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. 2005. p. 465–8.

  4. Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, de Witte L. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J Am Med Dir Assoc [Internet]. 2012 Feb [cited 2016 May 11];13(2):114–120.e1. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861010003476

  5. Abdi J, Al-Hindawi A, Ng T, Vizcaychipi MP. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2).

  6. •• Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F. Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human-Computer Interact. 2004;19(1):25–59. Very relevant human sciences paper for the SAR community. Before designing robots for elders, one should understand people, their habits, and their way of living. The experience of aging is described as system of people, products, and activities taking place in a local environment of the home and the surrounding community.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tapus A, Matarić MJ, Scassellati B. The grand challenges in socially assistive robotics. Robot Autom. 2007;14:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Herrmann G, Pearson MJ, Lenz A. Preface ICSR 2013. In: Guido Herrmann, Martin J. Pearson, Alexander Lenz, Paul Bremner, Adam Spiers UL, editor. Social Robotics - 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013, Bristol, UK, October 27-29, 2013, Proceedings. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 594.

  9. Alves-Oliveira P, Petisca S, Correia F, Maia N, Paiva A. Social robots for older adults : framework of activities for aging in place with robots. Int Conf Soc Robot. 2015;(March 2016).

  10. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Patience A, Knock B, Kerse N, Day K, et al. Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas J Ageing. 2012;31(2):115–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schutte M. Socially assistive robots in the elderly care. The attitudes of healthcare professionals towards the use of socially assistive robots. 2019.

  12. •• Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B. What older people expect of robots: a mixed methods approach. In: Social robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 19–29. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 8239). From a methodological point of view, this paper was the starting point of our study. Frennert et al. focus on expectations and preconceptions of assistive robots for older people. We continued Frennert et al.’s study on other dimensions: roles and representations.

  13. Li Y, Tee K, Ge S, Li H. Building companionship through human-robot collaboration. In: Social robotics [Internet]. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 1–7. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 8239). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_1

  14. Mead R, Mataric M. Robots have needs too : how and why people adapt their proxemic behavior to improve robot social signal understanding. J Human-Robot Interact. 2016;5(2):48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bartneck C, Forlizzi J. A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. RO-MAN 2004 13th IEEE Int Work Robot Hum Interact Commun [Internet]. 2004;591–4. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1374827

  16. Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B. Older people’s involvement in the development of a social assistive robot. In: Social robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 8–18. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 8239).

  17. Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P. Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot. 2010;2(4):451–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deng E, Mutlu B, Mataric M. Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Found Trends Robot. 2019;7(4):251–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C, Walters ML, Koay KL, Werry I. What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robot Syst IROS. 2005;2005:1488–93.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Huber A, Lammer L, Weiss A, Vincze M. Designing adaptive roles for socially assistive robots: a new method to reduce technological determinism and role stereotypes. J Human-Robot Interact [Internet]. 2014;3(2):100. Available from: http://humanrobotinteraction.org/journal/index.php/HRI/article/view/157

  21. Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proc - IEEE Int Work Robot Hum Interact Commun. 2003:55–60.

  22. Ferland F, Agrigoroaie R, Tapus A. Assistive humanoid robots for the elderly with mild cognitive impairment. Humanoid Robot A Ref. 2017:1–20.

  23. Lohse M, Hegel F, Wrede B. Domestic applications for social robots: an online survey on the influence of appearance and capabilities. J Phys Agents [Internet]. 2008;2(2):21–32 Available from: http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/12585.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dinet J, Vivian R. Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Trav Hum. 2014;77(2):105–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Breazeal C. Designing sociable robots. Intelligent robotics and autonomous agents series: The MIT Press; 2002. 281 p.

  26. Breazeal C. Toward sociable robots. Vol. 42, Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 2003. p. 167–75.

  27. Sirkin D, Mok B, Yang S, Ju W. Mechanical ottoman : how robotic furniture offers and withdraws support. Proc Tenth Annu ACM/IEEE Int Conf Human-Robot Interact. 2015:11–8.

  28. Fischer K, Yang S, Mok B, Maheshwari R, Sirkin D, Ju W. Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: a robotic trash can in the field. In: AAAI Spring Symposium; 2015. p. 10–6

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tisseron S. Des robots et des hommes : lesquels craindre ? Etudes (Paris). 2014;(4210):33–44.

  30. Knobel M, Lankshear C. DIY media: creating, sharing and learning with new technologies (new literacies and digital epistemologies): Peter Lang Publishing Inc.; 2010. 266 p.

  31. Hoffman G, Ju W. Designing robots with movement in mind. J Human-Robot Interact [Internet]. 2014;3(1):89–122 Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.Hoffman.

  32. Woods SN, Walters ML, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K. Methodological issues in HRI: a comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. Proc - IEEE Int Work Robot Hum Interact Commun. 2006:51–8.

  33. Sirkin D, Ju W. Using embodied design improvisation as a design research tool. Int Conf Hum Behav Des. 2014;(October):1–7.

  34. Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Koay KL. Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton Robots. 2008;24(2):159–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hendriks B, Meerbeek B, Boess S, Pauws S, Sonneveld M. Robot vacuum cleaner personality and behavior. Int J Soc Robot. 2011;3(2):187–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. 312 p.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K. Psychological and social effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. In: 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat No03CH37422). 2003. p. 3996–4001 vol.3.

  38. Suchman L. Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication title. Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (December 25, 1987) Language: English; 1987. 224 p.

  39. Ocnarescu IC, Rodio F, Eve A, Labrune J-B, Bouchard C, Améziane A. Beyond TechCards: a first step toward the investigation of new dimensions of intermediate representations to support the creative process of emerging technologies. The International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference: In; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Birmingham C, Hu Z, Mahajan K, Reber E, Mataric M. Can I trust you? A user study of robot mediation of a support group. ArXiv. 2020;abs/2002.0.

  41. Heerink M. How elderly users of a socially interactive robot experience adaptiveness, adaptability and user control. In: 2011 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI). 2011. p. 79–84.

  42. Cruz-Maya A, Tapus A. Negotiating with a robot: analysis of regulatory focus behavior. Proc - IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom. 2018:4578–84.

  43. Breazeal C. Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2003;59(1–2):119–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Howard A, Tapus A, Kajitani I. Socially assistive robots [from the guest editors]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. 2019;26(2):10–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ostrowski AK, Dipaola D, Partridge E, Park HW, Breazeal C. Older adults living with social robots: promoting social connectedness in long-term communities. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. 2019;26(June):59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Takayama L, Dooley D, Ju W. Expressing thought: improving robot readability with animation principles. HRI 2011 - Proc 6th ACM/IEEE Int Conf Human-Robot Interact. 2011;(May):69–76.

  47. Auger J. Living with robots: a speculative design approach. J Human-Robot Interact [Internet]. 2014;3(1):20–42 Available from: http://hri-journal.org/index.php/HRI/article/view/155.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank collaborators from Approche Association: Charles Fattal, Sophie Schmutz, Salvador Cabanilles, Violaine Leynaert, and Jennifer Lucas; from project leader Aldebaran Robotics (SoftBank Robotics): Alexandre Mazel and Rodolphe Gelin; and to designers and researchers from Strate School of Design: Frédérique Pain, Dominique Sciamma, Estelle Berger, Citial Bocher, Berengère Denier, Déborah Hocini, Constance Charvin, among others. A special thanks to Wendy Ju for her guidance in synthetizing this research. This research is supported by Bpifrance - project PSPC ROMEO2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strate School of Design, Sèvres, France

    Ioana Ocnarescu & Isabelle Cossin

Authors
  1. Ioana Ocnarescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabelle Cossin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioana Ocnarescu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Service and Interactive Robotics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ocnarescu, I., Cossin, I. Discovery Report Following 5 Years of Research Project on Socially Assistive Robotics. Curr Robot Rep 1, 269–278 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00031-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00031-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation