Extensive assessment and evaluation methodologies on assistive social robots for modelling human–robot interaction – A review

Abstract

a b s t r a c tAssessment and evaluation methodologies as well as combinations of them, for modelling of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), are reviewed extensively and thoroughly in this paper. However, based on the types of robots and the kinds of interactions involved in the modelling of HRI, we concentrate just on the assistive social robot types. A comprehensive review has been done on each of these extensive evaluation and assessment methodologies applied for testing the usability of assistive social robots, user acceptance towards robots and robot acceptance in terms of behavioural adaptation during the HRI. The evaluation methodologies are reviewed based on the primary and non-primary basis, while the assessment methodologies are reviewed based on the type(s) of modelling approaches. We then discussed the weaknesses, strengths and uniqueness of each type of the past research work done on the evaluation and assessment methodologies. Comparison and contrast tables are also illustrated. Lastly, this paper provides our recommended directions, new vision, as well as our inspirations and new insights for future researches by highlighting the key areas for enhancing each of the past evaluation and assessment methodologies so that a better modelling approach for HRI can be achieved. Contributions of this review paper are also discussed thoroughly.

Socially Assistive Robots: Measuring Older Adults' Perceptions

“…First, for both phases of testing with participants, sample sizes were small and larger samples are needed to more fully evaluate the psychometric properties of the RAS. There is a pressing need to enhance existing evaluation and assessment methodologies for HRI (Sim & Loo, 2015). Second, the experimental sample comprised volunteers with high levels of education and interest in testing the SAR.…”

“…Human Robot Interaction (HRI) science is a fairly new interdisciplinary field of research; as such, there is lack of consensus on the measurement strategies of individuals’ acceptance and subsequent use of robots (Broadbent, 2017; Dautenhahn, 2007; Sim & Loo, 2015). Moreover, there are numerous dimensions of HRI, further complicating assessment and evaluation strategies (Broadbent, 2017; Dautenhahn, 2007).…”

“…Several human factors that influence whether an individual will accept and use SARs are beginning to emerge (Broadbent, 2017; Sim & Loo, 2015). The first is how an individual perceives the robot, which in turn influences his/her intention to use the robot technology (Heerink, Kröse, Evers & Wielinga, 2009, 2010).…”

“…The first is how an individual perceives the robot, which in turn influences his/her intention to use the robot technology (Heerink, Kröse, Evers & Wielinga, 2009, 2010). The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use Technology (UTAUT) framework proposed by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003) has been used to varying degrees in HRI studies (Heerink et al, 2009, 2010; Sim & Loo, 2015). Key constructs of the UTAUT are performance expectancy (i.e., will the technology achieve goals?…”

“…Moderators include gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use. Another factor is anxiety, which has been postulated by some to interfere with individuals’ use and interaction with a robot (Sim & Loo, 2015). Attitude, which encompasses positive or negative feelings toward use of the robot, may also influence individuals’ acceptance (Heerink et al, 2009).…”