Development of a nursing-care assistant robot RIBA that can lift a human in its arms

Mukai, Toshiharu; Hirano, Shinya; Nakashima, Hiroatsu; Kato, Yutaka; Sakaida, Yoshihisa; Guo, Shuxiang; Hosoe, Shigeyuki

doi:10.1109/iros.2010.5651735

Cited by 228 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current and potential applications of touch in robotics span the domains of medical care, telecommunications, and entertainment Mittendorfer et al, 2015;Mukai et al, 2010;Nishio et al, 2007;Park et al, 2012;Robinson et al, 2015;Rus & Trolley, 2015;Stiehl et al, 2006; examples are presented in Table 1). These include elderly individuals touching a robotic pet to feel empathy and connection (Robinson et al, 2015), patients in a hospital who are lifted by a medical robot (Mukai et al, 2010), and more controversially, individuals who have intimate relationships with robots (Levy, 2007). State-of-the-art social robots increasingly feature touch-sensors (Mittendorfer et al, 2015) and materials that look and feel like human skin (Nishio et al, 2007;Park et al, 2012) or animal fur (Stiehl et al, 2006).…”

Section: Touching Robotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Touching a Mechanical Body: Tactile Contact With Body Parts of a Humanoid Robot Is Physiologically Arousing

Reeves

2017

Journal of Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large literature describes the use of robots' physical bodies to support communication with people. Touch is a natural channel for physical interaction, yet it is not understood how principles of interpersonal touch might carry over to a robot. Exploring how interpersonal rules surrounding body accessibility and touch apply to a robot is critical toward understanding the extent to which people treat the act of touching body regions as a sign of closeness-even if the body belongs to a robotand is important to the field of humanoid social robotics. Thirty-one students participated in an interactive anatomy lesson with a small, humanoid robot. Participants either touched or pointed to an anatomical region of the robot in each of 26 trials while their skin conductance response was measured. Touching less accessible regions of a robot's body (e.g., its buttocks and genitals) was more physiologically arousing than touching more accessible regions (e.g., its hands and feet). No differences in physiological arousal were found when just pointing to those same anatomical regions. A social robot elicited tactile responses in human physiology, a result that signals people treat touching body parts as an act of closeness in itself that does not require a human recipient. The power of touching a humanoid body with identifiable body parts should caution mechanical and interaction designers about the positive and negative effects of human-robot interaction.

show abstract

Section: Touching Robotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Touching a Mechanical Body: Tactile Contact With Body Parts of a Humanoid Robot Is Physiologically Arousing

Reeves

2017

Journal of Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within this paper we focus on robot-initiated touch. Various robotic systems for healthcare involve robotinitiated touch, including facial massage [20], skin care [41], patient transfer [30], surgery [18], and hygiene [19].…”

Section: Human-robot Touchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether or not the addition of social design elements would improve responses remains an open question. Some healthcare robots have integrated social design elements, such as the large teddy-bear-like RIBA robot that is designed for lifting patients [30]. One potential risk is that people might not respond well to some socially-oriented design choices in a large healthcare robot.…”

Section: Instrumental Vs Affective Touchmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Responses to Robot-Initiated Touch in a Nursing Context

Chen

King

Thomaz

et al. 2013

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical human-robot interaction has the potential to be useful in a number of domains, but this will depend on how people respond to the robot's actions. For some domains, such as healthcare, a robot is likely to initiate physical contact with a person's body. In order to investigate how people respond to this type of interaction, we conducted an experiment with 56 people in which a robotic nurse autonomously touched and wiped each participant's forearm. On average, participants had a favorable response to the first time the robot touched them. However, we found that the perceived intent of the robot significantly influenced people's responses. If people believed that the robot intended to clean their arms, the participants tended to respond more favorably than if they believed the robot intended to comfort them, even though the robot's manipulation behavior was the same. Our results suggest that roboticists should consider this social factor in addition to the mechanics of physical interaction. Surprisingly, we found that participants in our study responded less favorably when given a verbal warning prior to the robot's actions. In addition to these main results, we present post-hoc analyses of participants' galvanic skin responses (GSR), open-ended responses, attitudes towards robots, and responses to a second trial.

show abstract

“…A supplementary literature review (Khan, 1998;Dautenhahn et al, 2005;Harmo et al, 2005;Becker et al, 2007;Boissy et al, 2007;Ray et al, 2008;Faucounau et al, 2009) yielded another seven. The resulting 34 robot services were consolidated to 25 by joining similar ones and by omitting services that required a robot that can leave the house (e.g., taking out the garbage, going shopping) or that were considered unfeasible with current general-purpose domestic service robot hardware (e.g., lifting people requires very specialized robots able to carry heavy weight; Mukai et al, 2010). A questionnaire was generated, which first explicated the general concept of a robot that would sometimes be remotely assisted by family members or professional operators, and then the 25 robot services, supported by illustrations and still pictures of videos as in the focus groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-Robot Interaction for Semi-Autonomous Assistive Robots : Empirical Studies and an Interaction Concept for Supporting Elderly People at Home

Mast¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present text summarizes the published and submitted articles of my doctoral research in human-robot interaction. The research addresses current shortcomings of autonomous service robots operating in domestic environments by considering the concept of a semi-autonomous robot that would be supported by human remote operators whenever the robot cannot handle a task autonomously. The main research objective was to investigate how to design the human-robot interaction for a robotic system to assist elderly people with physical tasks at home according to this conceptual idea. The research procedure followed the principles of human-centered design and is structured into four phases:In the first phase, the context of use of the system to be designed was determined. A focus group study yielded characteristics and attitudes of several potential user groups. A survey determined the demands of elderly people and informal caregivers for services a semi-autonomous assistive robot may provide. An ethnographic study investigated the living conditions of elderly people and determined technical challenges for robots operating in this type of environment. Another ethnographic study investigated the work environment in teleassistive service centers and determined the feasibility of extending their range of services to incorporate robotic teleassistance.In the second phase, two studies were carried out to understand the interaction requirements. The first study determined common types of failure of current autonomous robots and required human interventions to resolve such failure states. The second study investigated how the human assistance could be provided considering a range of potential interaction devices.In the third phase, a human-robot interaction concept with three user groups and dedicated user interfaces was designed. The concept and user interfaces were refined in an iterative process based on the results of evaluations with prospective users and received encouraging results for user satisfaction and user experience.In the fourth and final phase the utility of two specific user interface features was investigated experimentally. The first experiment investigated the utility of providing remote operators with global 3D environment maps during robot navigation and identified beneficial usage scenarios. The second experiment investigated the utility of stereoscopic display for remote manipulation and robot navigation. Results suggested temporal advantages under stereoscopic display for one of three investigated task types and potential advantages for the other two. II III List of PublicationsPublications the present research summary is based on:Mast, M., Burmester, M., Berner, E., Facal, D., Pigini, L., & Blasi, L. (2010). Semiautonomous teleoperated learning in-home service robots for elderly care: a qualitative study on needs and perceptions of elderly people, family caregivers, and professional caregivers.

show abstract

Development of a nursing-care assistant robot RIBA that can lift a human in its arms

Cited by 228 publications

References 11 publications

Touching a Mechanical Body: Tactile Contact With Body Parts of a Humanoid Robot Is Physiologically Arousing

Touching a Mechanical Body: Tactile Contact With Body Parts of a Humanoid Robot Is Physiologically Arousing

An Investigation of Responses to Robot-Initiated Touch in a Nursing Context

Human-Robot Interaction for Semi-Autonomous Assistive Robots : Empirical Studies and an Interaction Concept for Supporting Elderly People at Home

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About