Fig 2 - uploaded by Antonis A. Argyros
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
One option to address the challenge of demographic transition is to build robots that enable aging in place. Falling has been identified as the most relevant factor to cause a move to a care facility. The Hobbit project combines research from robotics, gerontology, and human–robot interaction to develop a care robot which is capable of fall prevent...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... lower part of the Hobbit system is a mobile platform (see Fig. 2) with differential drive kinematics. It has a circular cross-section with a diameter of about 45 cm. This combination allows the robot to turn on the spot within its footprint, which is important when navigating in narrow and cluttered domestic environments. The platform houses the batteries (24 V, 18 Ah) that power all electrical ...
Citations
... Other work conducted focus group interviews, directly asking potential users to describe the functionality that could be expected from these platforms [60][61][62]. This second approach also included demonstrations, usually with limited autonomy [63,64]. In the end, only a limited set of these identified functionalities have been implemented in SARs. ...
The aging of the population in developed and developing countries, together with the degree of maturity reached by certain technologies, means that the design of care environments for the elderly with a high degree of technological innovation is now being seriously considered. Assistive environments for daily living (Ambient Assisted Living, AAL) include the deployment of sensors and certain actuators in the home or residence where the person to be cared for lives so that, with the help of the necessary computational management and decision-making mechanisms, the person can live a more autonomous life. Although the cost of implementing such technologies in the home is still high, they are becoming more affordable, and their use is, therefore, becoming more popular. At a time when some countries are finding it difficult to provide adequate care for their elderly, this option is seen as a help for carers and to avoid collapsing health care services. However, despite the undoubted potential of the services offered by these AAL systems, there are serious problems of acceptance today. In part, these problems arise from the design phase, which often does not sufficiently take into account the end users—older people but also carers. On the other hand, it is complex for these older people to interact with interfaces that are sometimes not very natural or intuitive. The use of a socially assistive robot (SAR) that serves as an interface to the AAL system and takes responsibility for the interaction with the person is a possible solution. The robot is a physical entity that can operate with a certain degree of autonomy and be able to bring features to the interaction with the person that, obviously, a tablet or smartphone will not be able to do. The robot can benefit from the recent popularization of artificial intelligence-based solutions to personalize its attention to the person and to provide services that were unimaginable just a few years ago. Their inclusion in an AAL ecosystem should, however, also be carefully assessed. The robot’s mission should not be to replace the person but to be a tool to facilitate the elderly person’s daily life. Its design should consider the AAL system in which it is integrated, the needs and preferences of the people with whom it will interact, and the services that, in conjunction with this system, the robot can offer. The aim of this article is to review the current state of the art in the integration of SARs into the AAL ecosystem and to determine whether an initial phase of high expectations but very limited results have been overcome.
... Österreich Pionierforschungen und Modellprojekte auf (Fischinger et al., 2016). Der ...
... They cause less impact and consequently also damage to the object's surface than rigid grippers [2,3]. Due to these advantages, soft robotic gripping is increasingly employed in various fields, such as food industry, medical and care, automotive, home applications, etc., for handling various shapes, sizes, and materials [4,5]. Soft gripping can be achieved using Technical Editor: Jovana Jovanova. ...
Fin ray soft robotic fingers are inspired by the structure and movement of fish fins, enabling flexible and adaptive grasping capabilities. Addressing the challenges of resource efficiency in terms of reduced energy consumption and material expense, this work focuses on further optimizing inherently low-energy fin-ray fingers towards lightweight design. Soft grippers are used frequently in dynamically changing environments and have become inevitable in handling tasks for delicate objects. However, these grippers generally show limited performance and payload-carrying capacity in high-force application scenarios. To address these limitations, topology optimization technique is used here to obtain both gripping capabilities and high factor of safety (FOS) of fingers. The performance of various structures of fin-ray and optimized fingers are analyzed: rectangular, trapezoidal, straight struts, and inclined struts for angles + 45°, − 45°. The topologically optimized structure has 15.2% less mass compared to considered fin-ray finger’s average mass. The deflection coefficient ( C d ) is calculated to select the best structure of the fingers based on grasping scenario, and its value should be minimum. The straight strut finger with thickness of t = 2 mm shows best wrapping capabilities compared to all fingers with C d = 0.1574. The topologically optimized finger’ C d = 0.1896 at volume fraction of 0.1. Even though the C d is slightly higher, its FOS is 1.71 times higher. An experimental setup is developed to validate the simulation results with the help of a UR3e robotic arm and an AXIA80 force sensor. The grasping demonstration of soft robotic gripper is performed on various objects: coffee cup and wooden block.
... Some questionnaires that were used were inspired by established models such as the technology acceptance model (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and the Almere model (Heerink et al., 2010). Standardized questionnaires applied included the Godspeed (Bangor et al., 2008;Bartneck et al., 2009;Piasek & Wieczorowska-Tobis, 2018), the system usability scale (SUS) (Bartneck et al., 2009;Bevilacqua et al., 2015;Cavallo et al., 2018;DiNuovo et al., 2018;Fischinger et al., 2016;Körtner et al., 2014), the user experience questionnaire (Schrepp et al., 2014) and the AttrakDif (Gerlowska et al., 2018;Hassenzahl et al., 2003). The final sample of papers, shown in Table 3, include author(s), year of publication, aim of study, population, method, context, and users' experience with robots. ...
... Participants were positive or indifferent to the tasks they tried out with the robot Vincze et al., 2014). They expressed appreciation for various functions including carrying objects, emergency recognition, fitness programs, reminders (Pripfl, et al., 2016b), walking support, assistance rising from a chair or from a fall , and notably picking up dropped objects (Fischinger et al., 2016;Körtner et al., 2014;Pripfl, 2016a;Pripfl, Körtner, Batko-Klein, Hebesberger, Weninger, Gisinger, Frennert, et al., 2016b). However, some users found the robot too slow (Fischinger et al., 2016;Körtner et al., 2014;Pripfl, et al., 2016b). ...
... They expressed appreciation for various functions including carrying objects, emergency recognition, fitness programs, reminders (Pripfl, et al., 2016b), walking support, assistance rising from a chair or from a fall , and notably picking up dropped objects (Fischinger et al., 2016;Körtner et al., 2014;Pripfl, 2016a;Pripfl, Körtner, Batko-Klein, Hebesberger, Weninger, Gisinger, Frennert, et al., 2016b). However, some users found the robot too slow (Fischinger et al., 2016;Körtner et al., 2014;Pripfl, et al., 2016b). While a subset of participants perceived the robot more as a toy (Bajones et al., 2020; and not contributing significantly to their independence (Pripfl, 2016a;Pripfl, Körtner, Batko-Klein, Hebesberger, Weninger, Gisinger, Frennert, et al., 2016b), they believed it could be helpful in the future (Bajones et al., 2020;Fischinger et al., 2016;Körtner et al., 2014). ...
The aim of this scoping review was to gather, summarize, and map the knowledge of peoples' experiences on humanoid robots, capable of assisting people with activities of daily living. The review was guided by the framework of Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR. We found 44 papers describing nine robots that could assist with a variety of tasks listed in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. The mixed population experienced little or no anxiety toward the robots, and most accepted the robots' ability to monitor for safety reasons. Some participants disliked the robots' large size and slow movements. Most of the participants found the robots easy to use. They wanted improvements in the robots' functionality and the ability to personalize services. Several of the participants found the services interesting and useful, but not for themselves. The experiences of humanoid robotic assistance showed an insufficient level of technical readiness for assisting in physical assistance, a lack of personalization and readiness for use in home settings. The practical relevance of these findings lies in guiding future research and development toward a more individualized approach focusing on user needs and experiences to enhance the efficacy and integration of humanoid robots in health-care.
... The use of the FRE in soft robotic fingers has a wide range of applications and design methodologies. The literature indicates a broad range of applications for FRE-based grippers, from handling fragile agricultural products to intricate tasks in medical and cyber-physical systems [13][14][15][16]. ...
... The last section showed that there is a perceived need for robotic reminder systems from different stakeholders. This assumption that reminders are prototypical tasks for SARs, is often taken for granted while focusing on the technical development of robot systems but seldom realized or thoroughly tested with the target users (e.g., Fischinger et al., 2016;Kostavelis et al., 2016;Mahajan and Vidhyapathi, 2017). For the technical studies (see Table 1 second row), we distinguish three different types of studies: 1) Classical engineering with no user involvement, 2) development of reminder functionality and evaluation in lab with or without target users, and 3) development of reminder functionality and evaluation with target users in the field. ...
Reminding is often identified as a central function of socially assistive robots in the healthcare sector. The robotic reminders are supposed to help people with memory impairments to remember to take their medicine, to drink and eat, or to attend appointments. Such standalone reminding technologies can, however, be too demanding for people with memory injuries. In a co-creation process, we developed an individual reminder robot together with a person with traumatic brain injury and her care personnel. During this process, we learned that while current research describe reminding as a prototypical task for socially assistive robots, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a reminder nor that it is based on complex sequences of interactions that evolve over time and space, across different actions, actors and technologies. Based on our data from the co-creation process and the first deployment, we argue for a shift towards a sequential and socially distributed character of reminding. Understanding socially assistive robots as rehabilitative tools for people with memory impairment, they need to be reconsidered as interconnected elements in institutional care practices instead of isolated events for the remindee.
... What is novel about our study is that it integrates perspectives from a variety of healthcare professions and it explores the multidimensionality of caregiving including the socialemotional and spiritual-existential dimensions in addition to the physical ones. This exploration makes several contributions to the HRI field: (1) it offers ideas for robot applications that originate from professionals intimately familiar with different aspects of caregiving, (2) it gives a snapshot of how robots are perceived from the point of view of care providers, (3) it highlights concerns about robotic caregiving that need to be mitigated in order for robots to be a successful addition to the care ecosystem, and finally, (4) it gives a critical analysis of the robots potential to fulfill or complement the deeper and more subtle aspects of humanistic care. ...
As AI-enabled robots enter the realm of healthcare and caregiving, it is important to consider how they will address the dimensions of care and how they will interact not just with the direct receivers of assistance, but also with those who provide it (e.g., caregivers, healthcare providers, etc.). Caregiving in its best form addresses challenges in a multitude of dimensions of a person’s life: from physical to social-emotional and sometimes even existential dimensions (such as issues surrounding life and death). In this study, we use semi-structured qualitative interviews administered to healthcare professionals with multidisciplinary backgrounds (physicians, public health professionals, social workers, and chaplains) to understand their expectations regarding the possible roles robots may play in the healthcare ecosystem in the future. We found that participants drew inspiration in their mental models of robots from both works of science fiction but also from existing commercial robots. Participants envisioned roles for robots in the full spectrum of care, from physical to social-emotional and even existential-spiritual dimensions, but also pointed out numerous limitations that robots have in being able to provide comprehensive humanistic care. While no dimension of care was deemed as exclusively the realm of humans, participants stressed the importance of caregiving humans as the primary providers of comprehensive care, with robots assisting with more narrowly focused tasks. Throughout the paper, we point out the encouraging confluence of ideas between the expectations of healthcare providers and research trends in the human–robot interaction (HRI) literature.
... According to their trials, DustCart was able to navigate in the urban environment to interact with human users avoiding static and dynamic obstacles. Hobbit is also a service robot used as a care robot, experimented in a domestic environment to find the effectiveness of its control and mechanical systems (Fischinger et al., 2016). Much of the research discussed above focused on the achievements and challenges in the human-robot interaction of service robots. ...
As autonomous cleaning robots advance, we expect certain features, such as higher area coverage and robustness. To explore these features and their challenges, we need tools and strategies that allow us to develop them rapidly. In this paper, we present lessons learned and results while performing 3 months long field trials on the autonomy of a self‐reconfigurable floor‐cleaning robot. The autonomy here includes path planning and navigation of the robot for coverage in a public food court. The environment of the food court is often subjected to alterations due to human activities. One of the main contributions of this paper is proposing a task‐level execution system to deploy the cleaning robot in an actual use case scenario. We also provide in‐depth discussions on the solutions and the implementation strategies we found in accomplishing goals. These findings would be helpful in conducting autonomy development targeted for field deployments of self‐reconfigurable robots and cleaning robots.
... The mainly positive reactions to the SAR indicate a positive attitude towards the system, for most of the participants. This is in line with previous studies that mainly used selfassessment to investigate user acceptance [37,38]. These earlier results can now be backed up by means of another research method focusing not on self-reported measures but on measurements of behaviour and emotion. ...
Due to demographic change and transformations in domestic structures as well as working environments, the need for formal care continues to increase. This process leads to a significantly greater number of care workers that will be needed in the future. Concurrently, the demands on caregivers concerning the amount of care and quality of care are increasing. Socially-assistive robots (SARs) are a promising resource in this regard. At the same time, research that directly addresses the target group of elderly persons with cognitive impairments is underrepresented. This study reports observations regarding the interaction between a SAR and elderly people with cognitive impairments. Seven observational and behavioural measures were conducted during the interaction between residents of a nursing home and the SAR named “James”. Twelve participants from two residential homes took part in the study. Data were analysed by using content analysis and interpreted along a technology acceptance model. Verbal comments and observable emotions of the SAR were predominantly positive, only a few participants reacted negatively to the SAR “James”. There was also hardly any shyness to touch the robot. The participants made eye contact and responded adequately to the robot’s requests. Tasks which were set by the SAR in group settings led to a higher communication between the participants than tasks in single-user settings. The mainly upbeat emotions and interaction with the SAR indicates a positive attitude towards the system. Long-term studies are needed to investigate the sustainability of robot acceptance.
... As systems become more advanced, the opportunity to move research out of a sterile lab environment into the real world presents an exciting frontier for research. This type of "in the wild" research has included work on self-driving cars (Beggiato et al., 2015;Endsley, 2017;Tenhundfeld et al., 2020Tenhundfeld et al., , 2019, robotics (Fischinger et al., 2016;Koay et al., 2007), and AI (Brandtzaeg et al., 2022;Pentina et al., 2023;Tenhundfeld et al., 2022). These technologies allow for meaningful assessments of human-machine interactions in environments that are more ecologically valid by dent of the fact that they are conducted in circumstances which more clearly mirror the situations in which the technologies are used normally. ...
Few advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have seemed to be quite as captivating for the public as was the release of ChatGPT by OpenAI. This chatbot has been able to provide remarkably accurate answers to factual questions, write workable code in a variety of programming languages, and generate human-like text passages on any number of topics. Because, at the time of writing, this technology is so new, there is a need to understand the capabilities and limitations of the system. This includes understanding the nature of collaborative and iterative writing. This paper reviews an attempt to write a conference proceedings paper on the ways in which to use ChatGPT to study human-AI interaction. Evaluation of output and the iterative processes required shows the strengths of ChatGPT’s context awareness, while highlighting its limitations in attempts to provide academic references. Additionally, metrics of passage similarity to prior passages is assessed.
