User—robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy

  • Adriana Tapus
  • Cristian Ţăpuş
  • Maja J. Matarić
Special Issue

Abstract

This paper describes a hands-off socially assistive therapist robot designed to monitor, assist, encourage, and socially interact with post-stroke users engaged in rehabilitation exercises. We investigate the role of the robot’s personality in the hands-off therapy process, focusing on the relationship between the level of extroversion–introversion of the robot and the user. We also demonstrate a behavior adaptation system capable of adjusting its social interaction parameters (e.g., interaction distances/proxemics, speed, and vocal content) toward customized post-stroke rehabilitation therapy based on the user’s personality traits and task performance. Three validation experiment sets are described. The first maps the user’s extroversion–introversion personality dimension to a spectrum of robot therapy styles that range from challenging to nurturing. The second and the third experiments adjust the personality matching dynamically to adapt the robot’s therapy styles based on user personality and performance. The reported results provide first evidence for user preference for personality matching in the assistive domain and demonstrate how the socially assistive robot’s autonomous behavior adaptation to the user’s personality can result in improved human task performance.

Keywords

Rehabilitation robotics Socially assistive robotics Social human–robot interaction Learning and adaptive systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Aigner P, McCarragher B (1998) Shared control framework applied to a robotic aid for the blind. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA’98), Leuven, Belgium, pp 712–722Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apple W, Streeter LA and Krauss RM (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions. J Personal Soc Psychol 37: 715–727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura A (1969). Principles of behavior modification. Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berlin M, Gray J, Thomaz AL, Breazeal C (2006) Perspective taking: an organizing principle for learning in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewer BR, Klatzky R and Matsuoka Y (2003). Feedback distortion to overcome learned nonuse: a system overview. IEEE Eng Med Biol 3: 1613–1616 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown B, Strong W and Rencher A (1975). Acoustic determinants of the perceptions of personality from speech. Int J Sociol Language 6: 11–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgar CG, Lum PS, Shor PC and Loos MV (2000). Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the palo alto va/stanford experience. J Rehabil Res Develop 37(6): 639–652 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen H and Pacchierotti E (2005). Embodied social interaction for robots. In: Dautenhahn, K (eds) Artificial intelligence and simulation of behavior convention (AISB’05)., pp 40–45. Hertsfordshire, UK Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DiCaprio NS (1983). Personality theories: a guide to human nature. Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eriksson J, Matarić MJ, Winstein C (2005) Hands-off assistive robotics for post-stroke arm rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR’05), Chicago, IL, USA, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ewen RB (2003) An introduction to theories of personality. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eysenck HJ (1953). The structure of human personality. Methuen, London Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eysenck HJ (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personal Individ Diff 12: 773–790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eysenck HJ and Eysenck SB (1968). Manual: Eysenck Personality Inventory. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, USA Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2005) Defining socially assistive robotics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR’05), Chicago, IL, USA, pp~465–468Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghahramanlou M, Arnoff J, Wozniak MA, Kittner SJ, Price TR (2001) Personality influences psychological adjustment and recovery from stroke. In: Proceedings of the American Stroke Association’s 26th international stroke conference, Fort Lauderdale, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gockley R, Matarić MJ (2006) Encouraging physical therapy compliance with a hands-off mobile robot. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI’06), Salt Lake City, USA, pp 150–155Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goetz J, Kiesler S (2002) Cooperation with a robotic assistant. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computer–human interaction (CHI’02), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp 578–579Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hall ET (1966). Hidden dimension. Doubleday, Gordon City Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harkins S, Becker LA and Stonner D (1975). Extraversion-introversion and the effects of favorability and set size on impression formation. Bull Psychonomic Soc 5: 300–302 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harwin WS, Ginige A and Jackson RD (1988). A robot workstation for use in education of the physically handicapped. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35(2): 127–131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kohl N, Stone P (2004) Policy gradient reinforcement learning for fast quadrupedal locomotion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA’04), New Orleans, USA, vol 3, pp 2619–2624Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Fasoli S, Palazzolo J, Rohrer B, Edelstein L and Hogan N (2002). Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 8(4): 54–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levine SL, Bell D, Jaros L, Simpson R, Koren Y and Borenstein J (1999). The navchair assistive wheelchair navigation system. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7(4): 443–451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCarthy C, Pollack M (2002) A plan-based personalized cognitive orthotic. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on AI planning and scheduling, Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCrae R, Costa P (1996) Toward a new generation of personality theories: theoretical contexts for the five factor model. The five factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives, pp 51–87Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Michaud F, Clavet A (2001) Robotoy contest—designing mobile robotic toys for autistic children. In: Proceedings of the American Society for engineering education (ASEE’01), Alberqueque, NM, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Michaud F, Laplante JF, Larouche H, Duquette A, Caron S, Masson P (2005) Asutonomous spherical mobile robot to study child development. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 35(4):471–480Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Michaud F, Salter T, Duquette A, Laplante JF (2007) Perspectives on mobile robots used as tools for pediatric rehabilitation. Assist Technol 19:14–29Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Michaud F and Theberge-Turmel C (2002). Mobile robotic toys and autism. In: Billard, A, Dautenhahn, K, Canamero, L and Edmonds, B (eds) Socially intelligent agents—creating relationships with computers and robots., pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller N, Jenkins O, Kallmann M, Drumwright E, Matarić MJ (2004) Motion capture from inertial sensing for untethered humanoid teleoperation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robotics (Humanoids-2004), Santa Monica, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Montemerlo M, Pineau J, Roy N, Thrun S, Verma V (2002) Experiences with a mobile robotics guide for the elderly. In: Proceedings of the 18th AAAI national conference on artificial intelligence, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp 587–592Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morris LW (1979). Extraversion and introversion: an interactional perspective. Hemisphere, Washington, DC Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murray JB (1990). Review of research on the myers-briggs type indicator. Percept Motor Skills 70: 1187–1202 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nakajima H, Morishima Y, Yamada R, Brave S, Maldonado H, Nass C and Kawaji S (2004). Social intelligence in a human-machine collaboration system: Social responses to agents with mind model and personality. J Jpn Soc Artif Intell 19(3): 184–196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nakajima H, Nass SBC, Yamada R, Morishima Y, Kawaji S (2003) The functionality of human–machine collaboration systems mind model and social behavior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Washington, USA, pp 2381–2387Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nass C and Lee MK (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction and consistency-attraction. J Exp Psychol Appl 7(3): 171–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Fact Sheet (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nicolescu M, Matarić MJ (2001) Learning and interacting in human–robot domains. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet special issue on Socially Intelligent Agents—The Human in the LoopGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pittman J (1994). Voice in social interaction: an interdisciplinary approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Plaisant C, Druin A, Lathan C, Dakhane K, Edwards K, Vice JM, Montemayor J (2000) A storytelling robot for pediatric rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/SIGCAPH conference on assistive technologies (ASSETS’00), Washington, DC, USA, pp 50–55Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reinkensmeyer DJ, Pang CT, Nesseler JA and Painter CC (2002). Web-based tele-rehabilitation of the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 10(2): 102–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Robins B, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Universal Access in the Information Society (UAIS)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roy N, Baltus G, Fox D, Gemperle F, Goetz J, Hirsch T, Magaritis D, Montemerlo M, Pineau J, Schulte J, Thrun S (2000) Towards personal service robots for the elderly. In: Proceedings of the workshop on interactive robots and entertainment, Pittsburgh, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scassellatti B (2005) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat and understand autism. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium of robotics research (ISSR’05), San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Scassellatti B (2005) Quantitative metrics of social response for autism diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN’05), Nashville, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Simpson R, Levine S (1997) Development and evaluation of voice control for a smart wheelchair. In: Proceedings of the rehabilitation engineering society of North America annual conference, Washington, DC, USA, pp 417–419Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Singh S, Barto AG, Chentanez N (2005) Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the advances in neural information processing systems 17 (NIPS), Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Steven D, Frank G, Sara G, Hisamitsu K, Adam S, Haoyong Y, Long Y (2000) Pamm - a robotic aid to the elderly for mobility assistance and monitoring. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation ICRA’00, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 570–576Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stiehl WD, Lieberman J, Breazeal C, Basel L, Cooper R, Knight H, Lalla L, Maymin A, Purchase S (2006) The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: Proceedings of the IEEE consumer communications and networking conference, Las Vegas, NV, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sutton R, McAllester D, Singh S and Mansour Y (2000). Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. Adv Neural Informat Process Syst 12: 1057–1063 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tapus A and Matarić MJ (2006). Towards socially assistive robotics. Int J Robotics Soc Jpn (JRSJ) 24(5): 14–16 Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Trouvain J, Barry WJ (2000) The prosody of excitement in horse race commentaires. In: Proceedings of the ISCA—Workshop on speech and emotion, Newcastle, Northern Ireland, pp 86–91Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tusing KJ and Dillard JP (2000). The sounds of dominance: Vocal precursors of perceived dominance during interpersonal influence. Human Commun Res 26(1): 148–171 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wada J, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K (2000) Analysis of factors that bring mental effects to elderly people in robot assisted activity. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS’02), Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 1152–1157Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Kaouri C, Boekhorst R, Nehaniv C, Werry I, Lee D (2005) Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids’05), Tsukuba International Congress Center, Tsukuba, Japan, pp 450–455Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Walton M (2003) Meet paro, the therapeutic robot seal. In: CNNGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Woods S, Dautenhahn K, Kaouri C, Boekhorst R, Koay KL (2005) Is this robot like me? links between human and robot personality traits. In: Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids’05), Tsukuba International Congress Center, Tsukuba, Japan, pp 375–380Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yanco H (2002) Evaluating the performance of assistive robotic systems. In: Proceedings of the workshop on performance metrics for intelligent systems. Gaithersburg, MD, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana Tapus
    • 1
  • Cristian Ţăpuş
    • 2
  • Maja J. Matarić
    • 1
  1. 1.Robotics Research Lab/Interaction Lab, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Mojave Research Lab, Department of Computer ScienceCalifornia Institute of Technology (Caltech)PasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations