Skip to Content

Wiki source code of 3. Human-Robot Collaboration

Version 9.1 by Marijn Roelvink on 2023/03/06 10:06
Show last authors
1 === Robots and PwDs ===
2
3 Technology is nowadays everywhere in our life, bringing information, support and enjoyment. However, for elderly people or people with dementia, the normal modes of technology (through smartphones or laptops) are harder to access due to their decreased mental and physical capabilities. The research from [1] shows that using a social robot can improve the elderly's  interaction with technology through the intuitive human-like voice interaction with the robot. Moreover, [1] also showed that interacting with robots through song, games or other activities enhanced the PwD's positive experiences.
4
5 In the next section we will highlight key insights taken from previous research to incorporate into our design. In the last section we will introduce two formal theories that we will use to develop our robot with.
6
7 === Lessons from previous research ===
8
9 //Adaptivity//
10
11 In the research of [2], several needs and results arise from the long term trials with social robots in a caring home. They found that the robots' function was mainly supportive in terms of entertainment rather than actual functional tasks. Also, the robot needs to be flexible and capable to adapt to dynamic situations in order to provide actual added value. This last insight is also supported by [3], stating that a robot needs to be able to adapt to a persons needs over time in order to not become repetitive.
12
13 //Communication styles//
14
15 [4] has done a ten-week case study on elderly interacting with Pepper. Here, they played different games with Pepper, including physical and cognitive exercises, as well as music quizzes. Several significant lessons emerged from these observations. First of all, the robot needs to speak slowly and clearly, and needs to be able to repeat or break down its instructions in smaller steps if the person does not understand it. Moreover, the interaction still requires some training for the residents. In the first sessions, the residents had to get used to the way the robot interacts, and needed more explicit instructions while after a while, some parts could be skipped as they better knew what to expect from the robot.
16
17 //Robot and caregivers//
18
19 Furthermore, the researchers from [4] noted that the presence of a caregiver was key for the residents as well as for moderation of the robot, as the robot still had some technical and physical limitations. They also concluded that the human-robot interaction was best done in a group setting due to the uncertainty of the residents in dealing with the robot. In the group, the residents could learn from each other and laugh together about the robot. As we are designing a robot for a one-on-one interaction, we will need to explore how the robot can not become threatening when the PwD starts getting acquainted with it.
20
21 === Human-robot theories ===
22
23 For the human-robot collaboration, we wil use the following theories to design our robot with:
24
25 **Theory of mind:** Sometimes during a human-robot interaction, the PwD might misinterpret information or might be inattentive. This could lead to a communication gap between the patient and the robot. In this case, the robot will be able to detect any such issues and inform the patient without annoying the PwD  [5]
26
27 **Shared Mental Models:** Since the robot and the PwD will be performing an activity where the robot guides the PwD in painting and the PwD paints, therefore a joint collaboration between the robot and the PwD is required. This is because the activities of the PwD and the robot will be interdependent. [6]
28
29
30 For disabled persons we can make a robot that paints for them through eye tracking: [[https:~~/~~/www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/10/2/54>>https://www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/10/2/54]]
31
32
33
34
35 1. M.-T. Chu, R. Khosla, S. M. S. Khaksar and K. Nguyen, "Service innovation through social robot engagement to improve dementia care quality", //Assistive Technology//, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 8-18, 2017.
36 1. D. Hebesberger, T. Koertner, C. Gisinger, J. Pripfl and C. Dondrup, "Lessons learned from the deployment of a long-term autonomous robot as companion in physical therapy for older adults with dementia a mixed methods study," 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand, 2016, pp. 27-34, doi: 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451730.
37 1. B. Irfan, A. Ramachandran, S. Spaulding, D. F. Glas, I. Leite and K. L. Koay, "Personalization in Long-Term Human-Robot Interaction," 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South), 2019, pp. 685-686, doi: 10.1109/HRI.2019.8673076.
38 1. Felix Carros, Johanna Meurer, Diana Löffler, David Unbehaun, Sarah Matthies, Inga Koch, Rainer Wieching, Dave Randall, Marc Hassenzahl, and Volker Wulf. 2020. Exploring Human-Robot Interaction with the Elderly: Results from a Ten-Week Case Study in a Care Home. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. [[https:~~/~~/doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376402>>https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376402]]
39 1. Sandra Devin, Rachid Alami. An Implemented Theory of Mind to Improve Human-Robot Shared Plans Execution. The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interation, Mar 2016, Christchurch, New Zealand. pp.319-326
40 1. Harbers, Maaike & Bradshaw, Jeffrey & Johnson, Matthew & Feltovich, Paul J. & Bosch, Karel & Meyer, John-jules. (2012). Explanation in Human-Agent Teamwork. 10.1007/978-3-642-35545-5_2.
41
42