Co-designing Socially Assistive Sidekicks for Motion-based AAC

Valencia, Stephanie; Luria, Michal; Pavel, Amy; Bigham, Jeffrey P.; Admoni, Henny

doi:10.1145/3434073.3444646

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only 39 studies directly reported on disability status: participants who were visually impaired [123,124], autistic [125,126], hearing impaired [127], mobility impaired [128,129], cognitively impaired, including dementia [130,131], medical conditions including cerebral palsy [132,133] and Parkinson's disease [134], and/or generically described as having disabilities [135,136]. 18 described participants as healthy [137,138], able-bodied [139,140], or typically developing [141].…”

Section: Disabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies focused on participants' familiarity with broad subsets of technological products, such as video games [171,174], VR systems [105,175], smartphones [176,177], and social media [178,179]. Some studies covered details about familiarity with specific types of technology, such as the Rviz visualization widget [180], maps in the game Unreal Tournament 2004 [181], and Alternative Augmented Communication (AAC) products [128]. Frequent or expert users were reported as participating more often than novices.…”

Section: Domain Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Seaborn

Barbareschi

Chandra

2023

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical voices within and beyond the scientific community have pointed to a grave matter of concern regarding who is included in research and who is not. Subsequent investigations have revealed an extensive form of sampling bias across a broad range of disciplines that conduct human subjects research called “WEIRD”: Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Recent work has indicated that this pattern exists within human–computer interaction (HCI) research, as well. How then does human–robot interaction (HRI) fare? And could there be other patterns of sampling bias at play, perhaps those especially relevant to this field of study? We conducted a systematic review of the premier ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (2006–2022) to discover whether and how WEIRD HRI research is. Importantly, we expanded our purview to other factors of representation highlighted by critical work on inclusion and intersectionality as potentially underreported, overlooked, and even marginalized factors of human diversity. Findings from 827 studies across 749 papers confirm that participants in HRI research also tend to be drawn from WEIRD populations. Moreover, we find evidence of limited, obscured, and possible misrepresentation in participant sampling and reporting along key axes of diversity: sex and gender, race and ethnicity, age, sexuality and family configuration, disability, body type, ideology, and domain expertise. We discuss methodological and ethical implications for recruitment, analysis, and reporting, as well as the significance for HRI as a base of knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Disabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Domain Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Seaborn

Barbareschi

Chandra

2023

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples include prototyping practices in virtual, physical, and video-based contexts [70]. Another avenue of RtD is through the documentation of participatory design approaches with specific end-user populations, such as designing creative robots with children [3] and designing augmented communication robots with users that have cerebral palsy [62]. To properly evaluate the produced design artifacts, an inspection of several disparate artifacts is required, in order to identify trends and patterns across many different contexts.…”

Section: Research Through Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Design Metaphors to Understand User Expectations of Socially Interactive Robot Embodiments

Changxiao¹,

Hadiwijoyo²,

Chen³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The physical design of a robot suggests expectations of that robot's functionality for human users and collaborators. When those expectations align with the true capabilities of the robot, interaction with the robot is enhanced. However, misalignment of those expectations can result in an unsatisfying interaction. This paper uses Mechanical Turk to evaluate user expectation through the use of design metaphors as applied to a wide range of robot embodiments. The first study (N=382) associates crowd-sourced design metaphors to different robot embodiments. The second study (N=803) assesses initial social expectations of robot embodiments. The final study (N=805) addresses the degree of abstraction of the design metaphors and the functional expectations projected on robot embodiments. Together, these results can guide robot designers toward aligning user expectations with true robot capabilities, facilitating positive human-robot interaction.CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → HCI theory, concepts and models; Empirical studies in HCI; • Computer systems organization → Robotics.

show abstract

“…Focusing then on more specific application of the robot and the interaction(s) that it should engage in, the methods for PD might include focus groups similarly as those in Step 1 but could also include more novel and/or creative PD activities such as script writing ( Björling and Rose, 2019 ), role playing (including also stakeholder teleoperation of the robot) ( Björling and Rose, 2019 ; Alves-Oliveira et al, 2017 ), and accessible, “low-tech” prototyping ( Valencia et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: A Blueprint For End-to-end Participatory Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

LEADOR: A Method for End-To-End Participatory Design of Autonomous Social Robots

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participatory design (PD) has been used to good success in human-robot interaction (HRI) but typically remains limited to the early phases of development, with subsequent robot behaviours then being hardcoded by engineers or utilised in Wizard-of-Oz (WoZ) systems that rarely achieve autonomy. In this article, we present LEADOR (Led-by-Experts Automation and Design Of Robots), an end-to-end PD methodology for domain expert co-design, automation, and evaluation of social robot behaviour. This method starts with typical PD, working with the domain expert(s) to co-design the interaction specifications and state and action space of the robot. It then replaces the traditional offline programming or WoZ phase by an in situ and online teaching phase where the domain expert can live-program or teach the robot how to behave whilst being embedded in the interaction context. We point out that this live teaching phase can be best achieved by adding a learning component to a WoZ setup, which captures implicit knowledge of experts, as they intuitively respond to the dynamics of the situation. The robot then progressively learns an appropriate, expert-approved policy, ultimately leading to full autonomy, even in sensitive and/or ill-defined environments. However, LEADOR is agnostic to the exact technical approach used to facilitate this learning process. The extensive inclusion of the domain expert(s) in robot design represents established responsible innovation practice, lending credibility to the system both during the teaching phase and when operating autonomously. The combination of this expert inclusion with the focus on in situ development also means that LEADOR supports a mutual shaping approach to social robotics. We draw on two previously published, foundational works from which this (generalisable) methodology has been derived to demonstrate the feasibility and worth of this approach, provide concrete examples in its application, and identify limitations and opportunities when applying this framework in new environments.

show abstract

Co-designing Socially Assistive Sidekicks for Motion-based AAC

Cited by 22 publications

References 41 publications

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Using Design Metaphors to Understand User Expectations of Socially Interactive Robot Embodiments

LEADOR: A Method for End-To-End Participatory Design of Autonomous Social Robots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About