On the design of cross-platform social robots: A multi-purpose reminder robot as an example

Hsu, Kuo-Hsun; Tsai, Wei-Shan; Yang, H.-Z.; Huang, Li-Yung; Zhuang, Wen-Hong

doi:10.1109/icasi.2017.7988399

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, socially assistive robots (SARs) have been developed to help address many societal challenges such as an aging population and the increased demand for healthcare [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Namely, SARs have been developed to aid with activities of daily living (ADLs) including meal preparation and eating [ 7 , 8 , 9 ], clothing recommendation and dressing [ 10 ], monitoring [ 11 , 12 , 13 ], reminders [ 14 , 15 , 16 ], rehabilitation [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], and social behavioral interventions for children living with autism [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis on Remote HRI and In-Person HRI: What Is a Socially Assistive Robot to Do?

Liang

Nejat

2022

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related social distancing measures, in-person activities have been significantly reduced to limit the spread of the virus, especially in healthcare settings. This has led to loneliness and social isolation for our most vulnerable populations. Socially assistive robots can play a crucial role in minimizing these negative affects. Namely, socially assistive robots can provide assistance with activities of daily living, and through cognitive and physical stimulation. The ongoing pandemic has also accelerated the exploration of remote presence ranging from workplaces to home and healthcare environments. Human–robot interaction (HRI) researchers have also explored the use of remote HRI to provide cognitive assistance in healthcare settings. Existing in-person and remote comparison studies have investigated the feasibility of these types of HRI on individual scenarios and tasks. However, no consensus on the specific differences between in-person HRI and remote HRI has been determined. Furthermore, to date, the exact outcomes for in-person HRI versus remote HRI both with a physical socially assistive robot have not been extensively compared and their influence on physical embodiment in remote conditions has not been addressed. In this paper, we investigate and compare in-person HRI versus remote HRI for robots that assist people with activities of daily living and cognitive interventions. We present the first comprehensive investigation and meta-analysis of these two types of robotic presence to determine how they influence HRI outcomes and impact user tasks. In particular, we address research questions regarding experience, perceptions and attitudes, and the efficacy of both humanoid and non-humanoid socially assistive robots with different populations and interaction modes. The use of remote HRI to provide assistance with daily activities and interventions is a promising emerging field for healthcare applications.

show abstract