1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interaction Studies
  4. Volume 21, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the development of robot use cases in an elderly care facility in the context of exploring the method of (ISR) when used on top of a user-centered design approach. Integrative Social Robotics is a new proposal for how to generate responsible, i.e. culturally and ethically sustainable, social robotics applications. Starting point for the discussion are the five principles that characterize an ISR approach, which are discussed in application to the three use cases for robot support in a Danish elderly care facility developed within the project. The discussion by an interdisciplinary design team explores what attention to the five principles of ISR can offer for use case development. We report on the consequences of this short-time exposure to the basic ideas of ISR for use case development and discuss the value of approaching robot development from an ISR perspective.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.18058.fis
2020-01-24
2024-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/is.18058.fis
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Admoni, H., Dragan, A., Srinivasa, S. S., & Scassellati, B.
    (2014) Deliberate Delays During Robot-to-Human Handovers Improve Compliance with Gaze Communication, Proceedings of HRI’14, Bielefeld, Germany 2014 10.1145/2559636.2559682
     https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559682 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrade, O., A. A. Pereira, S. Walter, R. Almeidac, R. Loureiro, D. Compagna, and P. J. Kyberd
    (2014) Bridging the gap between robotic technology and health care. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol.10 2014 10.1016/j.bspc.2013.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2013.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrist, S., Spannan, E., and Mutlu, B.
    (2013) Rhetorical Robots: Making Robots More Effective Speakers Using Linguistic Cues of Expertise. InProceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’13). IEEE Press. Piscataway, NJ, USA. 341–348.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrist, S., Tan, X. Z., Gleicher, M. & Mutlu, B.
    (2014) Conversational Gaze Aversion for Humanlike Robots. Proceedings of HRI’14, Bielefeld, Germany. 10.1145/2559636.2559666
     https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559666 [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrist, S., Ziadee, M., Boukaram, H., Mutlu, B., and Sakr, M.
    (2015) Effects of Culture on the Credibility of Robot Speech: A Comparison between English and Arabic. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’15). ACM. New York, NY, USA. 157–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnold, Th., and Scheutz, M.
    (2017) Beyond moral dilemmas: exploring the ethical landscape in HRI. Proceedings of the2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 445–452. 10.1145/2909824.3020255
     https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020255 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bajones, M., Fischinger, D., Weiss, A., Wolf, D., Vincze, M., de la Puente, P., Körtner, T., Weninger, M., Papoutsakis, K., Michel, D. and Qammaz, A.
    (2018) Hobbit: Providing Fall Detection and Prevention for the Elderly in the Real World. Journal of Robotics. 10.1155/2018/1754657
     https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1754657 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bajones, M., Fischinger, D., Weiss, A., Wolf, D., Vincze, M., de la Puente, P., Körtner, T., Weninger, M., Papoutsakis, K., Michel, D. and Qammaz, A., Panteleris, P., Foukarakis, M., Adami, I., Ioannidi, D., Leonidis, A., Antono, M., Argyros, A., Mayer, P., Panek, P., Eftring, H. and Frennert, S.
    (2019) Results of Field Trials with a Mobile Service Robot for Older Adults in 16 Private Households. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 9(2), 1-27. 10.1145/3368554
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3368554 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bijker, W. E., Douglas, D. G., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T.
    (2012) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, US: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, W.-L., S. Šabanović, and L. Huber
    (2013) “Situated analysis of interactions between cognitively impaired older adults and the therapeutic robot Paro,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR 2013), Bristol, UK. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑02675‑6_37
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_37 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheon, EunJeong and Norman Makoto Su
    (2018) Futuristic Autobiographies: Weaving Participant Narratives to Elicit Values around Robots. Proceedings of theACM Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’18), Chicago, Illinois, Full paper conditionally accepted. New York: ACM. 10.1145/3171221.3171244
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171244 [Google Scholar]
  12. Collingridge, D.
    (1980) The Social Control of Technology. London: St. Martin’s Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Darling, K., Nandy, P., & Breazeal, C.
    (2015) Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction (pp.770–775). Presented at theRobot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on, IEEE.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dechesne, F., Warnier, M. and van den Hoven, J.
    (2013) Ethical requirements for reconfigurable sensor technology – a challenge for value sensitive design, Ethics and Information Technology15, 3, 173–181. 10.1007/s10676‑013‑9326‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9326-1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dignum, V., Dignum, F., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Clodic, A., Gentile, M., Mascarenhas, S., and Augello, A.
    (2018) Design for Values for Social Robot Architectures. Envisioning Robots in Society–Power, Politics, and Public Space: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018/TRANSOR 2018, 311, 43–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fischer, K.
    (2011) Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. InProceedings of HRI’11, March6–9th 2011 Lausanne, Switzerland, pp.53–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fischer, K., K. Foth, K. Rohlfing, and B. Wrede
    (2011) Mindful tutors – linguistic choice and action demonstration in speech to infants and to a simulated robot. Interaction Studies12 (1), 134–161. 10.1075/is.12.1.06fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.12.1.06fis [Google Scholar]
  18. Fischer, K., Jensen, L. C., Suvei, S.-D. and Bodenhagen, L.
    (2016) Between Legibility and Contact: The Role of Gaze in Robot Approach. IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2016), New York City. 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745186
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745186 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jensen, L. C., Fischer, K., Kirstein, F., Shukla, D., Erkent, Ö. and Piater, J.
    (2017) It Gets Worse Before it Gets Better: Timing of Instructions in Close Human-Robot Collaboration. Proceedings of HRI’17, Vienna, Austria. 10.1145/3029798.3038426
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038426 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer, K., Niebuhr, O., Jensen, L. C. and Bodenhagen, L.
    (2019a). Speech Melody Matters. How robots can profit from speaking like Steve jobs. Transactions in Human-Robot Interaction. 9, 1, Article 4.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fischer, K., Jung, M., Jensen, L. C. and aus der Wieschen, M.
    (2019b) Emotional Expression by Robots: When and Why. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Daegu, Korea.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. FOA
    FOA (2018) Rekrutteringsudfordringer for social- og sundhedspersonale i kommunerne – Centrale nøgletal vedrørende social- og sundhedspersonale i kommunerne.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Forlizzi, Jodi
    (2007) “How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home,” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. ACM 2007, pp.129–136.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2018): Moving Beyond User-Centered Design. ACM Interactions, p.22–23. 10.1145/3239558
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3239558 [Google Scholar]
  25. Friedman, B.
    (2004) Value sensitive design. InW. S. Bainbridge (Ed.), Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (pp.769–774). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group, LLC.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., & Borning, A.
    (1997) Value sensitive design and information systems. InP. Zhang, & D. Galetta (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems (pp.348–372). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fussel, S. R., Kiessler, S., Setlock, L. D. and Yew, V.
    (2008) How People Anthropomorphize Robots. Proceedings of HRI’08, Amsterdam, p.145–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gadow, S. A.
    (1985) Nurse and patient: the caring relationship. In: Caring, Curing, Coping: Nurse, Physician, Patient Relationships (edsA. H. Bishop & J. R. Scudder), pp.31–43. University of Alabama Press, University, AL.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Graf, B., Reiser, U., Hagele, M., Mauz, J. and P. Klein
    (2009) Robotic home assistant care-o-bot 3-product vision and innovation platform. IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO) 2009, pp.139–144. 10.1109/ARSO.2009.5587059
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2009.5587059 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawes, N., Burbridge, C., Jovan, F., Kunze, L., Lacerda, B., Mudrova, L., Young, J., Wyatt, J., Hebesberger, D., Kortner, T. and Ambrus, R.
    (2017) The STRANDS project: Long-term autonomy in everyday environments. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 24(3), pp.146–156. 10.1109/MRA.2016.2636359
     https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2016.2636359 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hebesberger, D., Dondrup, C., Koertner, T., Gisinger, C., & Pripfl, J.
    (2016) 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. InThe Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp.27–34). IEEE Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hegel, F., Eyssel, F., & Wrede, B.
    (2010, September). The social robot‘Flobi’: Key concepts of industrial design. InRO-MAN (pp.107–112).
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Holtzblatt, K., J. B. Wendell, and S. Wood
    (2018) Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 125, 13–34. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  35. Jensen, Lars Christian
    (2018) Effects of Contingent Robot Response to the Situatedness of Human-Robot Interactions. PhD Thesis, University of Southern Denmark.
  36. Jensen, Lars Christian, Fischer, Kerstin, Suvei, Stefan-Daniel and Bodenhagen, Leon
    (2017a) Timing of Multimodal Robot Behaviors during Human-Robot Collaboration. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Ro-Man 2017, IEEE. 10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172435
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172435 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jensen, L. C., Fischer, K., Kirstein, F., Shukla, D., Erkent, Ö. and Piater, J.
    (2017b) It Gets Worse Before it Gets Better: Timing of Instructions in Close Human-Robot Collaboration. Proceedings of HRI’17, Vienna, Austria. 10.1145/3029798.3038426
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038426 [Google Scholar]
  38. Juel, W. K., F. Haarslev, K. Fischer, E. Marchetti, D. Shaikh, P. Manoonpong, C. Hauch, L. Bodenhagen, and N. Krüger
    (2018) “The SMOOTH Robot: Design for a Novel Modular Welfare Robot,” inICRA 2018 Workshop on Elderly Care Robotics – Technology and Ethics, WELCARO 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kahn Jr, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B. T., Shen, S., Gary, H. E., & Ruckert, J. H.
    (2015) Will People Keep the Secret of a Humanoid Robot?: Psychological Intimacy in HRI. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.173–180). ACM.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kalegina, A., Schroeder, G., Allchin, A., Berlin, K., & Cakmak, M.
    (2018) Characterizing the Design Space of Rendered Robot Faces. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.96–104). ACM.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kirchberger, I., C. Meisinger, M. Heier, A.-K. Zimmermann, B. Thorand, C. S. Autenrieth, A. Peters, K.-H. Ladwig, and A. Döring
    (2012) “Patterns of multimorbidity in the aged population. results from the kora-age study,” PLoS ONE, vol.7, no.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lee, Hee Rin, Selma Šabanović, Wan Ling Chang, Shinichi Nagata, Jennifer A. Piatt, Casey C. Bennett, David Hakken
    (2017): Steps Toward Participatory Design of Social Robots: Mutual Learning with Older Adults with Depression. HRI 2017: 244–253.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee, M. K., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Rybski, P., Antanitis, J., and Savetsila, S.
    (2012) Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment. InProceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2012), 319–326.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Lohan, K. S., K. J. Rohlfing, K. Pitsch, J. Saunders, H. Lehmann, C. L. Nehaniv, K. Fischer and B. Wrede
    (2012) Tutor spotter: Proposing a feature set and evaluating it in a robotic system. International Journal of Social Robotics4(2):131–146. 10.1007/s12369‑011‑0125‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0125-8 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lohse, M. N., van Berkel, E., M. A. G. van Dijk, M. P. Joosse, D. E. Karreman, V. Evers
    (2013) The influence of approach speed and functional noise on users’ perception of a robot, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1670–1675.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Mondada, Lorenza
    (2009): Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space. Journal of Pragmatics41: 1977–1997. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mutlu, B. and J. Forlizzi
    (2008) “Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction,” inHRI ’08. 10.1145/1349822.1349860
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349860 [Google Scholar]
  48. Nass, C.
    (2010) The Man Who Lied to his Laptop: What Machines Teach us about Human Relationships. New York: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2004) Etiquette Equality: Exhibitions and Expectations of Computer Politeness. Communications of the ACM47(4), 35–37. 10.1145/975817.975841
     https://doi.org/10.1145/975817.975841 [Google Scholar]
  50. Preece, Jenny; Sharp, Helen & Rogers, Yvonne
    (2015): Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Rehm, M., Krummheuer, A. L., & Rodil, K.
    (2018) Developing a New Brand of Culturally-Aware Personal Robots Based on Local Cultural Practices in the Danish Health Care System. InProceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) IEEE. doi:  10.1109/IROS.2018.8594478
     https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2018.8594478 [Google Scholar]
  52. Riek, Laurel D.
    (2017) Healthcare robotics. Communications of the ACM, vol.60, no.11, pp.68–78, 11 2017 10.1145/3127874
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3127874 [Google Scholar]
  53. Robertson, J.
    (2017) Robo Sapiens Japanicus: Robots, Gender, Family, and the Japanese Nation. University of California Press. 10.1525/california/9780520283190.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520283190.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Šabanović, S.
    (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 439–450. 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0066‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0066-7 [Google Scholar]
  55. Šabanović, S., Bennett, C. C., Chang, W. L., & Huber, L.
    (2013) PARO robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. InRehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp.1–6). IEEE. 10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650427
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650427 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50 (4), 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sharkey, A. & Sharkey, N.
    (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology14 (1):27–40. 10.1007/s10676‑010‑9234‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 [Google Scholar]
  58. Scheutz, M. & Arnold, T.
    (2016): Are we ready for sex robots?Proceedings of HRI’16, p.351–358.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Seibt, J.
    (2016) Integrative social robotics: A new method paradigm to solve the description and the regulation problem?inWhat Social Robots Can and Should Do, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov, and S. Schack Andersen, Eds.IOS Press 2016, pp.104–115.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (2017) Towards an Ontology of Simulated Social Interactions – Varieties of the ‘As-If’ for Robots and Humans, in: Hakli, R., Seibt, J. (eds.), Sociality and Normativity for Robots – Philosophical Investigations, Springer, 11–41. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑53133‑5_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53133-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2018) Forms of Co-Working in OASIS (Ontology of Asymmetric Social Interactions), in: Coeckelbergh, M. , (eds.), Envisioning Robots in Society. Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 133–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Seibt, J., Damholdt, M. and Vestergaard, C.
    (2018) Five principles of integrative social robotics: Five principles of integrative social robotics, inEnvisioning Robots in Society. Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018, M. Coeckelberg (eds.). Netherlands: IOS Press, 28–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (2020) Integrative Social Robotics, Value-Driven Design, and Transdisciplinarity (Special Issue: Envisioning Social Robotics: Current Challenges and New Interdisciplinary Methodologies), inInteractive Studies, Vol21 (1):111–144. 10.1075/is.18061.sei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18061.sei [Google Scholar]
  64. Simon, H. A.
    (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Sparrow, R. and Sparrow, L.
    (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines16 (2):141–161. 10.1007/s11023‑006‑9030‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6 [Google Scholar]
  66. Strupka, E., Niebuhr, O. and Fischer, K.
    (2016) Influence of Robot Gender and Speaker Gender on Prosodic Entrainment in HRI. Interactive Session at the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2016), New York City.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Tronto, J.
    (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Turkle, S.
    (2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. van den Hoven, J.
    (2005) E-democracy, E-Contestation and the Monitorial Citizen. Ethics and Information Technology, 7 (2), pp.51–59. 10.1007/s10676‑005‑4581‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-4581-4 [Google Scholar]
  70. van Wynsberghe, A.
    (2013) Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design. Sci Eng Ethics19: 407–433. 10.1007/s11948‑011‑9343‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6 [Google Scholar]
  71. Weiss, A., Igelsböck, J., Wurhofer, D., & Tscheligi, M.
    (2011) Looking forward to a “robotic society”?. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(2), 111–123. 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0076‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0076-5 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wensveen, S. A., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J.
    (2004) Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. InProceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp.177–184). ACM.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/is.18058.fis
Loading
Integrative Social Robotics Hands-on
Interaction Studies 21, 145 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18058.fis
/content/journals/10.1075/is.18058.fis
/content/journals/10.1075/is.18058.fis
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): integrative social robotics; interdisciplinarity; use case development; user-centered design

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error