Changes for page Humanoid Robot

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,20 +1,10 @@
	1	+As described in [[objectives>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Objectives/]], our goal is to give patients with dementia the autonomy and capability to take walks on their own, whenever they want. Three robots were made available to help us in achieving this goal: NAO, Pepper and MiRo. Our considerations are written below.
1	1
2		-= **TODO**=
3	3
4		-==Describe motivation for picking Miro==
5		-==Describe how Miro can be a supportive means for guiding patients with dementia==
	4	+Although [[Nao>>https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/nao]] is a cute, humanoid robot which could allow for nice interactions with our patients, it can only move by walking on its small robot legs. As our main goal is to facilitate walks, this robot did not seem suitable as its walking speed is low and it is likely to fall over with small bumps.
6	6
	6	+[[Pepper>>https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper]] is a larger humanoid robot with wheels, therefore not having the same problem NAO has. It has fully movable arms and a tablet on its chest, allowing for detailed interactions including gestures and user input. Although these features are nice, they are not required for our goal. These features also mean that Pepper is quite large, taking up a lot of space in each room or corridor.
7	7
8		-Our goal is to give patients with dementia the autonomy and capability to take walks on their own, whenever they want. Three robots were available to help us in achieving this goal:
9		-* NAO
10		-* Pepper
11		-* MiRo
12		------------
13		-* Although NAO is a cute, humanoid robot which could allow for nice interactions with our patients, it can only move by walking on its small robot legs. As our main goal is to facilitate walks, this robot did not seem suitable as its walking speed is low and it is likely to fall over with small bumps.
14		-* Pepper is a larger humanoid robot with wheels, therefore not having the same problem NAO has. It has fully movable arms and a tablet on its chest, allowing for detailed interactions including gestures and user input. Although these features are nice, they are not required for our goal. These features also mean that Pepper is quite large, taking up a lot of space in each room or corridor.
15		-* MiRo, on the other hand, is a small robot dog with wheels. We chose MiRo because it has all the necessary features to facilitate walks, without any downsides. Next to this, a dog is automatically associated with taking a walk. Also, the robot dog has dog like features, allowing it to respond to touch, make noises and move certain parts to resemble a dog. Its dog-like appearance and its ability to act like a dog will allow the dog to become a companion. By allowing the user to go on fun walks, responding to personalised voice commands and responding positively to the patients' touch, it will become a trusted friend.
	8	+Next to their unsuitability for taking walks, the abovementioned humanoid robots also have facial features and movements which lie in the uncanny valley [[(Mori et al., 2012)>>https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811]]. This may cause unexpected modals of interaction with the robot that cannot be accounted for.
16	16
17		-Although MiRo was the most desirable choice of the available robots, it is not perfect for our use case. MiRo is frail robot that cannot withstand any handling rougher than soft touches. As described in functions, we ideally would want a physical connection to the dog so that the PwD does not lose focus when walking with MiRo. However, given the frailty of MiRo, a physical attachment would likely result in damaging a €2.400 robot. Next to this, MiRo can only be used inside as it cannot go up steps or walk on any rough terrain. With the right robot, PwD could also take walks outside for example.
18		-
19		-
20		-
	10	+[[Miro>>https://www.miro-e.com/robot]], on the other hand, is a small robot dog with wheels. We ultimately chose MiRo because it has all the necessary features to facilitate walks, without any downsides. Next to this, a dog is automatically associated with taking a walk. Also, the robot dog has dog like features, allowing it to respond to touch, make noises and move certain parts to resemble a dog. Its dog-like appearance and its ability to act like a dog will allow the dog to become a companion. By allowing the user to go on fun walks, responding to personalised voice commands and responding positively to the patients' touch, it will become a trusted friend. More information and research on why MiRo is suitable for our goal can be found in [[Robotic partner>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Foundation/Human%20Factors/Robotic%20Partner/]]