Cognitive Computation

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 954–967 | Cite as

Development of a Socially Believable Multi-Robot Solution from Town to Home

  • Filippo CavalloEmail author
  • Raffaele Limosani
  • Alessandro Manzi
  • Manuele Bonaccorsi
  • Raffaele Esposito
  • Maurizio Di Rocco
  • Federico Pecora
  • Giancarlo Teti
  • Alessandro Saffiotti
  • Paolo Dario


Technological advances in the robotic and ICT fields represent an effective solution to address specific societal problems to support ageing and independent life. One of the key factors for these technologies is that they have to be socially acceptable and believable to the end-users. This paper aimed to present some technological aspects that have been faced to develop the Robot-Era system, a multi-robotic system that is able to act in a socially believable way in the environments daily inhabited by humans, such as urban areas, buildings and homes. In particular, this paper focuses on two services—shopping delivery and garbage collection—showing preliminary results on experiments conducted with 35 elderly people. The analysis adopts an end-user-oriented perspective, considering some of the main attributes of acceptability: usability, attitude, anxiety, trust and quality of life.


Service robotics Social robotics Multi-robot cooperation Smart environments Ambient-assisted living 



The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 288899 (Robot-Era Project).


  1. 1.
    McKinsey Global Institute. Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. McKinsey and Company, 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dario Paolo, Verschure PFMJ, Prescott Tony. Robot companions for citizens. Procedia Comput Sci. 2011;7:4751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International federation of robotics. World Robotics 2013 Industrial Robots, 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eurostat. European social statistics—edition 2013, 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pereira A et al. iCat, the chess player: The influence of embodiment in the enjoyment of a game. Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 3. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kidd CD, Taggart W, Turkle S. A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2006). IEEE, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stiehl WD, et al. The huggable: A therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 emerging technologies. ACM, 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giraff Technologies company website:
  9. 9.
    Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Orlandini A, Tiberio L. Evaluating telepresence robots in the field. Agents Artif Intell Commun Comput InfSci. 2013;358:433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    iRobot/AVA company website:
  11. 11.
    Ackerman E, Guizzo E. Mystery robot revealed: RoboDynamics Luna is fully programmable adult-size personal robot. IEEE Spectrum, 11 May 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DOMEO project website:
  13. 13.
    Simonov Mikhail, Frisiello Antonella, Bazzani Marco. Using humanoid robot in ambient-assisted living. Global Telemed Health Updates Knowl Resour. 2012;5:438–42.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowet D, Frank H, Florence: A multipurpose robotic platform to support elderly at home. Proceedings of the 2012 workshop on ambient intelligence infrastructures (WAmIi), Nov 2012.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ven A, Sponselee A, Schouten B. Robo M.D.: a home care robot for monitoring and detection of critical situations. European conference on cognitive ergonomics (ECCE 2010), Delft, The Netherlands, p. 375–376.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Badii A, et al. Companionable: graceful integration of mobile robot companion with a smart home environment. Gerontechnology. 2009;8(3):181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cavallo F, Aquilano M, Bonaccorsi M, Limosani R, Manzi A, Carrozza MC, Dario P. On the design, development and experimentation of the ASTRO assistive robot integrated in smart environments. 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2013), Karlsruhe, Germany, 6–10 May 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferri G, et al. DustCart, an autonomous robot for door-to-door garbage collection: From DustBot project to the experimentation in the small town of Peccioli. 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2011), p. 655–660.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanda T, et al. An affective guide robot in a shopping mall. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chi G, et al. Robot collaboration through agent cooperation in a smart environment. 2012 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics (AIM). IEEE, 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Veloso M, et al. Cobots: collaborative robots servicing multi-floor buildings. 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2012.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robot-Era Project,
  23. 23.
    Bevilacqua R, Felici E, Marcellini F, Klemcke S, Nedopil C, Glende S, Filippo C, Aquilano M, Carrozza MC, Dario P. Robot-Era project (FP7-ICT-2011.5.4): From the end-users perspective to robotics. preliminary findings. Proceedings of the AAL—ambient assisted living forum 2012, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 24–27 Sept 2012.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quigley M, et al. ROS: An open-source robot operating system. ICRA workshop on open source software, 2009, vol. 3, No. 3.2.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saffiotti A, et al. The PEIS-Ecology project: vision and results. 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2008), p. 2329–2335.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Ferri, G, et al. DustCart, a mobile robot for urban environments: experiments of pollution monitoring and mapping during autonomous navigation in urban scenarios. 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2010) workshop on networked and mobile robot olfaction in natural, dynamic environments, Anchorage, AK, 7 May 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fox D, Burgard W, Thrun S. The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance. Robot Autom Mag. IEEE. 1997;4(1):23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dellaert F, Dieter F, Wolfram B, Sebastian T. Monte Carlo localization for mobile robots.” Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vol. 2, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Samih E, Moreira A. Requirements and metrics for location and tracking for ambient assisted living. International conference on indoor positioning and indoor navigation (IPIN), 2012.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gu Yanying, Lo Anthony, Niemegeers Ignas. A survey of indoor positioning systems for wireless personal networks. Commun Surv Tutor IEEE. 2009;11(1):13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blumenthal J, Grossmann R, Golatowski F, Timmermann D. Localization in ZigBee based sensor networks. 1st European ZigBee developers conference (EuZDC), Munchen-Dornach, Deutschland, 2007.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang Y, et al. Bluetooth positioning using RSSI and triangulation methods. 2013 IEEE consumer communications and networking conference (CCNC), 2013.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Whitehouse K, Karlof C, Culler D. A practical evaluation of radio signal strength for ranging-based localization. Mob Comput Commun Rev. 2007;11(1):41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Di Rocco M, Pecora F, Saffiotti A. When robots are late: configuration planning for multiple robots with dynamic goals. IROS, 2013.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dechter R, Meiri I, Pearl J. Temporal constraint networks. Artif Intell. 1991;49:61–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Di Rocco M, Pecora F, Saffiotti A. Closed loop configuration planning with time and resources. Proceedings of the ICAPS 2013 workshop on planning and robotics, 2013.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cesta A, Oddi A, Smith SF. A constraint-based method for project scheduling with time windows. J Heuristics. 2002;8(1):109–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Barberger-Gateau P, et al. Instrumental activities of daily living as a screening tool for cognitive impairment and dementia in elderly community dwellers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(11):1129–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dillon A. User acceptance of information technology. In: Karwowski W, editor. Encyclopedia of human factors and ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis; 2001.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003.
  43. 43.
    Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes, Archives of psychology 140. New York, NY: Science Press; 1932.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Cavallo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raffaele Limosani
    • 1
  • Alessandro Manzi
    • 1
  • Manuele Bonaccorsi
    • 1
  • Raffaele Esposito
    • 1
  • Maurizio Di Rocco
    • 2
  • Federico Pecora
    • 2
  • Giancarlo Teti
    • 3
  • Alessandro Saffiotti
    • 2
  • Paolo Dario
    • 1
  1. 1.BioRobotics InstituteScuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Center for Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems (AASS)Orebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  3. 3.Robotech SrlPeccioliItaly

Personalised recommendations