Socializing robots: constructing robotic sociality in the design and use of the assistive robot PARO

źAbanović, Selma; Chang, Wan-Ling

doi:10.1007/s00146-015-0636-1

Cited by 52 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Robots that provide emotional support are also popular in elderly care, especially when older subjects are in nursing homes living far from their families and loved ones (Salichs, Encinar, Salichs, Castro‐González, & Malfaz, ; Shibata & Wada, ; Tao, Wei, Wang, & Chen, ; Whelan et al., ). The use of PARO for the emotional support of the elderly in nursing homes showed similar results in socio‐emotional needs between children and the elderly (Šabanović & Chang, ). CuDDler is another example of a companion robot for elderly care developed in Singapore and used for patients with dementia and visual impairment (Moyle et al., ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…While both children and elderly need emotional support, the elderly tend to be more affected by the robots’ resemblance to humans or pets. This requires more studies and broader evaluation when testing robots for accompanying the elderly (Šabanović & Chang, ). However, to date none of the robotic pets proposed have rendered human care completely indispensable (Klein & Cook, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Robotics in Nursing: A Scoping Review

Maalouf

Sidaoui

Elhajj

et al. 2018

J of Nursing Scholarship

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Driven by the shortage in qualified nurses and the high percentage of aging populations, the past decade has witnessed a significant growth in the use of robots in nursing, especially in countries like Japan. This article is a scoping review of the different tracks in which robots are used in nursing. Whereas assistive robots are used for physical care, including service and monitoring tasks, social assistive robots focus on the cognitive and emotional well‐being of patients in need of companionship. Methods A total of six electronic databases were used in the search for journal papers and conference proceedings. The key words used in searching the databases were nursing OR nurses, AND robots OR robotics. Topics covering surgical robotics, nursing education robotics, and clinical procedures were excluded. Findings A total of 1,758 articles were retrieved, from which 69 articles were included in the final review. The analysis of the chosen papers led to the categorization of robots into two main categories: assistive robots and social assistive robots. Conclusions After a detailed review of the state of the art in assistive robots and social assistive robots, an insight into the future of robotics in this field is provided. The recommendations include the need to intensify research on human robot interaction, greater focus on monitoring robots, and analysis of the psychological barriers that need to be surmounted to achieve more tolerance and higher acceptance of robots. Clinical Relevance For researchers and developers to provide suitable technological solutions, a full understanding of robotics in nursing is needed. An overview of the most recent applications and their proper categorization is key to finding areas for contribution.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotics in Nursing: A Scoping Review

Maalouf

Sidaoui

Elhajj

et al. 2018

J of Nursing Scholarship

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another oft-cited theory in the design of robots is Konrad Lorenz’s (1971) Baby Schema (cf. Breazeal, 2002; Breazeal and Foerst, 1999; Foerst, 1999; Gn, 2017; Mara and Appel, 2015; Šabanović and Chang, 2015; Tsuburaya et al, 2009), a set of features that were common to both young children and baby animals, including ‘a relatively large head, predominance of the brain capsule, large and low-lying eyes, bulging cheek region, short and thick extremities, a springy elastic consistency, and clumsy movements’ (Lorenz, 1971: 154–162). Such characteristics would, Lorenz argued, elicit positive affective responses from parents and other caregivers, including bonding and attachment formation, the desire to nurture and protect, the desire to take the child into one’s arms and the urge to look at the infant for longer periods (Glocker et al, 2009; Golle et al, 2013; Lorenz, 1971).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do home robots want? The ambivalent power of cuteness in robotic relationships

Caudwell

Lacey

2019

Convergence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wave of social, domestic robots is poised to enter our homes. Robots such as Jibo, Kuri and Olly are networked with other ‘smart’ devices and use cameras and voice control to provide companionship, care and household management. These robots are proposed as members of the family, and as such must encourage intimacy and trust with their human caregivers. In this article, we explore the nexus between the cute aesthetic of home robots and the kinds of affective relationships this aesthetic enables with the human user. Our argument is that the cuteness of home robots creates a highly ambivalent relationship of power between (human) subject and (robotic/digital) object, whereby the manifestation of consciousness and the production of lasting emotional bonds require home robots to exceed the affective and semiotic limitations, even as their cute appearance may encourage the production of intimacy. By exceeding the borders established by their own design, home robots are able to manifest as conscious beings, a manifestation which both destabilizes the power differential between user and robot and, paradoxically, points to the possibility of their own replacement. To explore these ideas, we discuss three soon-to-be-released social robots: Mayfield Robotics’ Kuri, Emotech’s Olly and Jibo Inc.’s Jibo. Each promises a unique personality that will integrate them as a member of the family.

show abstract

“…During the past decade, the widening applications of robots in everyday settings have brought issues concerning long-term human-robot relationships to the fore -an exigency evident in a spate of publications that could be viewed as a nascent relational turn (Jones, 2013) or what Šabanović and Chang (2016) term a 'social turn' in robotics. It is expressed in research interest in users' subjective experiences, social and cultural factors affecting people's perceptions and societal concerns about robots.…”

Section: Pinpointing Robot Socialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since robots are becoming commercially available, HRI researchers too are leaving the lab -or take the lab to the 'wild' -and opportunities arise to observe the dynamics of multiparty interactions. Studies investigating how Paro (a baby seal robot developed by AIST in Japan) was used in elderly care homes found that the presence of the robot encouraged residents to communicate with each other, on which basis the researchers surmised that the robot's presence strengthened the residents' interpersonal ties Shibata, 2006, 2009; see also Šabanović and Chang, 2016). However, when observational data are quantified so as to demonstrate behavioural probabilities, the social act in Mead's sense vanishes from sight.…”

Section: Pinpointing Robot Socialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes a robot ‘social’?

Jones

2017

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rhetorical moves that construct humanoid robots as social agents disclose tensions at the intersection of science and technology studies (STS) and social robotics. The discourse of robotics often constructs robots that are like us (and therefore unlike dumb artefacts). In the discourse of STS, descriptions of how people assimilate robots into their activities are presented directly or indirectly against the backdrop of actor-network theory, which prompts attributing agency to mundane artefacts. In contradistinction to both social robotics and STS, it is suggested here to view a capacity to partake in dialogical action (to have a 'voice') as necessary for regarding an artificial as authentically social. The theme is explored partly through a critical reinterpretation of an episode that Morana Alač reported and analysed towards demonstrating her bodies-in-interaction concept. This paper turns to 'body' with particular reference to Gibsonian affordances theory so as to identify the level of analysis at which dialogicality enters social interactions.

show abstract

Socializing robots: constructing robotic sociality in the design and use of the assistive robot PARO

Cited by 52 publications

References 46 publications

Robotics in Nursing: A Scoping Review

Robotics in Nursing: A Scoping Review

What do home robots want? The ambivalent power of cuteness in robotic relationships

What makes a robot ‘social’?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About