Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Social Robot

Last modified by Sofia Vlachopanou on 2025/04/24 23:04
Hide last authors
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 1 == **1.1 Introduction ** ==
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 2
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 3 In the context of our project, the choice of the robot plays an important role in supporting the interaction design, specifically for reducing caregiver workload and enhancing the engagement of PwDs during group conversation activities. Selecting the right robot requires careful consideration of factors such as physical appearance, interaction capabilities, ease of programming, and suitability for the target user group (elderly participants).
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 4
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 5 We considered several available social robots as potential candidates for our application, including Navel, NAO, Pepper, and Miro-E. Each of these robots offers different features, but not all align well with the specific socio-cognitive goals and practical constraints of our use case.
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 6
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 7 == **1.2  Comparison of Social Robots** ==
Vlad Florea 5.3 8
9
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 10 * NAO and Miro-E are relatively small and risk appearing toy-like, which can negatively affect how elderly participants perceive the robot. Previous research suggests that older adults tend to prefer life-sized humanoid robots over smaller, animal-like, or toy-like designs, as they find these more socially engaging. [1] This makes NAO and Miro-E less suitable for our setting.
11 * Navel provides a highly human-like figure and advanced interaction capabilities. However, it does not have a tablet interface, which we consider essential for providing visual prompts that can support PwDs who may struggle with hearing or memory.
12 * **Pepper**, on the other hand, presents an optimal balance between physical presence, ease of programming, and interactive features. Pepper is a life-sized humanoid robot, designed specifically for social interaction scenarios. It includes a large tablet interface, allowing multimodal interaction (voice and visual support), which is especially helpful for our user group where redundancy in information presentation (visual + auditory) can improve understanding and engagement. Moreover, Pepper has been successfully deployed in previous studies with elderly populations, including those with dementia, where its interaction was found to be engaging and supportive of well-being [2].
Vlad Florea 5.3 13
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.4 14 [[1.1 Pepper Robot>>image:1740857394953-812.png]]
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 15
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 16 == **1.3 Why Pepper is the Right Fit for This Use Case** ==
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 17
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 18 The main reasons for choosing Pepper are:
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 19
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 20 * **Support for Multimodal Communication:** The combination of speech and a large, easy-to-read tablet allows for better accessibility, helping PwDs follow the conversation even if they have hearing or cognitive difficulties.
21 * **Acceptance:** Pepper’s humanoid design avoids the toy-like perception of smaller robots, while still being approachable and friendly. Studies confirm that this form factor increases acceptance and engagement among elderly users [1].
22 * **Ease of Development:** Pepper offers Python-based programming and a well-documented SDK, which simplifies the implementation of our interaction logic and chatbot features within the time constraints of the course project.
23 * **Proven Use in Healthcare and Elderly Care:** Previous research has shown that Pepper can effectively support social interaction with older adults and even with people with psychiatric disorders [3]. These studies suggest that Pepper is not only technically capable but also socially appropriate for therapeutic and care environments.
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 24
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 25 == **1.4 Considerations** ==
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 26
Sofia Vlachopanou 5.5 27 While Pepper provides many advantages, there are also some limitations that we considered:
28
29 * **Limited mobility:** Pepper is not designed for dynamic physical assistance or complex navigation. However, this is not required for our use case, where the robot remains stationary during conversation sessions and have just to do simple paths roaming around the discussion groups.
30 * **Fixed speech recognition capabilities:** Pepper’s built-in speech recognition may not handle group conversations well. To address this, we plan to integrate external speech recognition tools (e.g., Google Speech-to-Text or Whisper), as discussed in the previous section.
31
32 == **2.0 References:** ==
33
Vlad Florea 5.3 34 [1]Broekens, Joost, Marcel Heerink, and Henk Rosendal. "Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review." //Gerontechnology// 8.2 (2009): 94-103.
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 35
Vlad Florea 5.3 36 [2]Liao Y-J, Jao Y-L, Boltz M, et al. Use of a Humanoid Robot in Supporting Dementia Care: A Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Open Nursing. 2023;9. doi:10.1177/23779608231179528
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 37
Vlad Florea 5.3 38 [3] Neerincx, M.A., van Vught, W., Blanson Henkemans, O., Oleari, E., Broekens, J., Peters, R., Kaptein, F., Demiris, Y., Kiefer, B., Fumagalli, D. and Bierman, B. (2019). Socio-Cognitive Engineering of a Robotic Partner for Child’s Diabetes Self-Management. //Frontiers in Robotics and AI//, 6. doi:https:~/~/doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00118.
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 39
Vlad Florea 5.3 40 [4]** **Abdel-Hamid, Ossama, et al. “Convolutional Neural Networks for Speech Recognition.” //IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing//, vol. 22, no. 10, Oct. 2014, pp. 1533–1545, www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CNN_ASLPTrans2-14.pdf, https:~/~/doi.org/10.1109/taslp.2014.2339736. Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.
41
42
Nikolaos Soumpeniotis 4.2 43