Applied Social Robotics—Building Interactive Robots with LEGO Mindstorms

  • Andreas KippEmail author
  • Sebastian Schneider
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 457)


Teaching Social Robotics is a requiring and challenging task due to the interdisciplinary of this research field. We think that it can not be taught in a solely theoretical manner. To help students to gain more interest in the topic and to foster their curiosity we restructured a paper club like lecture to create a bridge between a theoretical topic and practical applications. This paper describes our approach to create a lecture covering theory, methods and how to transfer those to applied informatics. Described is the given theoretical input and how students learn to transfer these to a robot they build on their own. We also evaluate how the new structure was accepted and what lessons can be learned for this lecture style.


Social robotics Educational toys Applied techniques 



This research/work was supported by the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology CITEC (EXC 277) at Bielefeld University, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).


  1. 1.
    Fong, T., et al.: A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3), 143166 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epley, N., et al.: On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114(4), 864 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiSalvo, C.F., et al.: All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 321–326. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mori, M., et al.: The uncanny valley [from the field]. Robot. Autom. Mag. IEEE 19(2), 98–100 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Powers, A., et al.: Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to im- prove human-robot cooperation. Human-Computer Interaction Institute, p. 105 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moshkina, L., et al.: Human perspective on affective robotic behavior: a longitudinal study. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005 (IROS 2005), pp. 1444–1451. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartneck, C., et al.: The influence of peoples culture and prior experiences with aibo on their attitude towards robots. Ai Soc. 21(1–2), 217230 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, S.-l., et al.: Human mental models of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2005. ICRA 2005, pp. 2767–2772. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feil-Seifer, D., et al.: Defining socially assistive robotics. In: 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005, ICORR 2005, pp. 465–468. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burghart, C., et al.: Evaluation criteria for human robot interaction. In: Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Robot-Human Interaction, p. 23 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leite, I., et al.: Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(2), 291308 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Picard, R.W., et al.: Affective Computing, vol. 252, ch. 2. MIT press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dautenhahn, K.: Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human robot interaction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 362(1480), 679704 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russell, S., et al.: A modern approach. In: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 25, p. 34. Prentice- Hall, Egnlewood Cliffs (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reeves, B., et al.: The media equation: how people treat computers, television,? new media like real people? places. Comput. Math. Appl. 5(33), 128 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. In: Basic books (2005), Chap. 6Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marsella, S., et al.: Computational models of emotion. In: A Blueprint for Affective Computing—A Sourcebook and Manual, pp. 2146 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bartneck, C., et al.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 7181 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feil-Seifer, D., et al.: Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact. Stud. 8(3), 423439 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations