The When, Where, and How

Hanheide, Marc; Hebesberger, Denise; Krajník, Tomáš

doi:10.1145/2909824.3020228

Cited by 26 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They explicitly stated that the two heights tested were 188 cm, or the height of the badminton coach that the robotic avatar was representing, and 153 cm, or the average height of a Korean sixth-grade student. In contrast, although they do not report on the robot's height, the authors of [153] explained how their robot featured a touchscreen built to be height-accessible to walking and wheelchair-using participants alike. Finally, 19 studies [154][155][156] reported on participant handedness, albeit with no mention of ambidexterity; only one study [157] mentioned one ambidextrous participant.…”

Section: The Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Seaborn

Barbareschi

Chandra

2023

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical voices within and beyond the scientific community have pointed to a grave matter of concern regarding who is included in research and who is not. Subsequent investigations have revealed an extensive form of sampling bias across a broad range of disciplines that conduct human subjects research called “WEIRD”: Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Recent work has indicated that this pattern exists within human–computer interaction (HCI) research, as well. How then does human–robot interaction (HRI) fare? And could there be other patterns of sampling bias at play, perhaps those especially relevant to this field of study? We conducted a systematic review of the premier ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (2006–2022) to discover whether and how WEIRD HRI research is. Importantly, we expanded our purview to other factors of representation highlighted by critical work on inclusion and intersectionality as potentially underreported, overlooked, and even marginalized factors of human diversity. Findings from 827 studies across 749 papers confirm that participants in HRI research also tend to be drawn from WEIRD populations. Moreover, we find evidence of limited, obscured, and possible misrepresentation in participant sampling and reporting along key axes of diversity: sex and gender, race and ethnicity, age, sexuality and family configuration, disability, body type, ideology, and domain expertise. We discuss methodological and ethical implications for recruitment, analysis, and reporting, as well as the significance for HRI as a base of knowledge.

show abstract

Section: The Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Seaborn

Barbareschi

Chandra

2023

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We present the following interactive system as a case-study in this paper, to show how our proposed taxonomy can be used for a realworld use case. In this example case [31,32], an autonomous mobile robot has been deployed in a care home for a total of just over a year, in the context of the STRANDS project 1 . This experiment was split over three individual deployments, following an iterative design principle, spread over a duration of three years.…”

Section: Trust Loss As a Risk: A Case-studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies

Tolmeijer

Weiss

Hanheide

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a taxonomy that categorizes HRI failure types and their impact on trust to structure the broad range of knowledge contributions. We further identify research gaps in order to support fellow researchers in the development of trustworthy robots. Studying trust repair in HRI has only recently been given more interest and we propose a taxonomy of potential trust violations and suitable repair strategies to support researchers during the development of interaction scenarios. The taxonomy distinguishes four failure types: Design, System, Expectation, and User failures and outlines potential mitigation strategies. Based on these failures, strategies for autonomous failure detection and repair are presented, employing explanation, verification and validation techniques. Finally, a research agenda for HRI is outlined, discussing identified gaps related to the relation of failures and HR-trust. CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing → User models; Interaction design theory, concepts and paradigms; HCI theory, concepts and models; Empirical studies in HCI; • Computer systems organization → Robotics.

show abstract

“…Similarly, the robot can stimulate the user it accompanies to perform everyday activities [66]. Other functionalities are fall detection [67], meal assistance [68], or information and stimulation through messaging. In the aforementioned ALMI project, the TIAGo robot uses both its speech interaction for voice instructions and its object manipulation capabilities to help a user with mild motor and cognitive impairments prepare a meal.…”

Section: Expected Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socially Assistive Robots in Smart Environments to Attend Elderly People—A Survey

Cruces,

Jerez,

Bandera

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The When, Where, and How

Cited by 26 publications

References 19 publications

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Not Only WEIRD but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction Research

Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies

Socially Assistive Robots in Smart Environments to Attend Elderly People—A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About