Robots in Education and Care of Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Study on Acceptance by Experienced and Future Professionals

TNS Opinion & Social, Public Attitudes towards Robots, 2012 European Commission (2012) Eurobarometer Special 382: Public Attitudes towards Robots, no. May. Brussels, Belgium Wolbring G, Yumakulov S (2014) Social Robots: views of Staff of a Disability Service Organization. Int J Soc Robot 6(March):457–468 Moon AJ, Danielson P, van der Loos HFM (2012) Survey-based discussions on morally contentious applications of interactive robotics. Int J Soc Robot 4:77–96 Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16:141–161 Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R, Peca A, Pintea S, Pintea S, David D, Vanderborght B (2015) A Survey of Expectations About the Role of Robots in Robot-Assisted Therapy for children with ASD: ethical acceptability, ttust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Sci Eng Ethics 22:1–19 Ray C, Mondada F, Siegwart R (2008) What do people expect from robots?. In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems IROS, pp 3816–3821 Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C, Walters ML, Koay KL, Werry I (2005) What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler?. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and Systems IROS, pp 1488–1493 Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1:319–330 Kanda T, Miyashita T, Osada T, Haikawa Y, Ishiguro H (2008) Analysis of humanoid appearances in human-robot interaction. Robot IEEE Trans 24(3):725–735 Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:143–166 Miller DP (1998) Assistive robotics: an overview, in assistive technology and artificial intelligence. Springer, New York, pp 126–136 Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2005) Defining socially assistive robotics, Rehabilitation robotics, ICORR 2005. In: 9th international conference, pp 465–468 Tapus A, Mataric MJ, Scasselati B (2007) ocially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 14:35–42 Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2011) Automated detection and classification of positive vs. negative robot interactions with children with autism using distance-based features. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 323–330 McColl D, Nejat G (2014) Recognizing emotional body language displayed by a human-like social robot. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):261–280 Fasola J, Matarić MJ (2013) A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. J Human–Robot Interact 2(2):3–32 Yousuf MA, Kobayashi Y, Kuno Y, Yamazaki K, Yamazaki A (2012) Establishment of spatial formation by a mobile guide robot. In: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 281–282 Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2009) Toward socially assistive robotics for augmenting interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders, in springer tracts. Adv Robot 54:201–210 Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Univers Access Inf Soc 4(2):105–120 Diehl JJ, Schmitt LM, Villano M, Crowell CR (2012) The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Res Autism Spectr Disord 6(1):249–262 Scassellati B, Admoni H, Matarić M (2012) Robots for use in autism research. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:275–294 Conti D, Di Nuovo S, Trubia G, Buono S, Di Nuovo A (2015) Use of robotics to stimulate imitation in children with autism spectrum disorder: a pilot study in a clinical setting. In: IEEE RO-MAN, pp 1–6 Blanson OA, Bierman BPB, Janssen J, Neerincx MA, Looije R, Van der Bosch H, Van der Giessen JAM (2013) Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns 92(2):174–181 Looije R, Cnossen F, Neerincx MA (2006) Incorporating guidelines for health assistance into a socially intelligent robot. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 515–520 Belpaeme T, Baxter PE, Read R, Wood R, Cuayáhuitl H, Kiefer B, Racioppa S, Kruijff-Korbayová I, Athanasopoulos G, Enescu V (2012) Multimodal child-robot interaction: building social bonds. J Human–Robot Interact 1(2):33–53 Fridin M (2014) Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: a tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Comput Educ 70:53–64 Han JHJ, Jo MJM, Park SPS, Kim SKS (2005) The educational use of home robots for children, Rom. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication Rabbitt SM, Kazdin AE, Scassellati B (2014) Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin Psychol Rev 35:35–46 Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58(3):978–988 Dockrell S, Earle D, Galvin R (2010) Computer-related posture and discomfort in primary school children: the effects of a school-based ergonomic intervention. Comput Educ 55:276–284 Tanaka F, Movellan JR, Fortenberry B, Aisaka K (2006) Daily HRI evaluation at a classroom environment: reports from dance interaction experiments. In: Proceedings of the 1st annual conference on human–robot interaction HRI, pp 3–9 Fridin M, Belokopytov M (2014) Embodied robot versus virtual agent: involvement of preschool children in motor task performance. Int J Hum Comput Interact 30(6):459–469 Chang C-W, Lee J-H, Wang C-Y, Chen G-D (2010) Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Comput Educ 55(4):1572–1578 Lehmann H, Iacono I, Dautenhahn K, Marti P, Robins B (2014) Robot companions for children with down syndrome: a case study. Interact Stud 15(1):99–112 Houwen S, van der Putten A, Vlaskamp C (2014) A systematic review of the effects of motor interventions to improve motor, cognitive, and/or social functioning in people with severe or profound intellectual disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 35(9):2093–2116 Gillesen J, Boere S, Barakova E (2010) WikiTherapist. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual European conference on cognitive ergonomics-ECCE ’10 Thill S, Pop CA, Belpaeme T, Ziemke T, Vanderborght B (2012) Robot-assisted therapy for autism spectrum disorders with (partially) autonomous control: challenges and outlook. Paladyn 3(4):209–217 Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Vanderkooi OG, Kuhn S (2013) Reducing children’s pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine 31(25):2772–2777 Taddio A, Appleton M, Bortolussi R, Chambers C, Dubey V, Halperin S, Hanrahan A, Ipp M, Lockett D, MacDonald N, Midmer D, Mousmanis P, Palda V, Pielak K, Riddell RP, Rieder M, Scott J, Shah V (2010) Reducing the pain of childhood vaccination: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (summary). CMAJ 182:1989–1995 Uman LS, Chambers CT, McGrath PJ, Kisely S (2008) A systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents: an abbreviated cochrane review. J Pediatr Psychol 33:842–854 Chen K, Chan AHS (2011) A review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology 10(1):1–12 Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103 Smarr C-A, Prakash A, Beer JM, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2012) Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 56(1):153–157 Klamer T, Ben Allouch S (2010) Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. In: Pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (PervasiveHealth), 2010 IEEE 4th international conference, pp 1–8 Baroni I, Nalin M, Baxter P, Pozzi C, Oleari E, Sanna A, Belpaeme T (2014) What a robotic companion could do for a diabetic child. In: Robot and human interactive communication. 2014 RO-MAN: the 23rd IEEE international symposium, pp 936–941 Salter T, Werry I, Michaud F (2008) Going into the wild in child-robot interaction studies: issues in social robotic development. Intell Serv Robot 1(2):93–108 Woods S (2006) Exploring the design space of robots: children’s perspectives. Interact comput 18:1390–1418 Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley [from the field]. Robot Autom Mag IEEE 19(2):98–100 MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–337 Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quat 13:319–340 Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quat 27:425–478 De Graaf MMA, Ben Allouch S (2013) Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot Auton Syst 61:1476–1486 Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: A suggested toolkit. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 528–533 De Ruyter B, Saini P, Markopoulos P, Van Breemen A (2005) Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interact Comput 17:522–541 Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2:361–375 Fridin M, Belokopytov M (2014) Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Comput Human Behav 33:23–31 Conti D, Cattani A, Di Nuovo S, Di Nuovo A (2015) A cross-cultural study of acceptance and use of robotics by future psychology practitioners. In: 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 555–560 Gouaillier D, Hugel V, Blazevic P, Kilner C, Monceaux J, Lafourcade P, Marnier B, Serre J, Maisonnier B (2009) Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 769–774 Nalin M, Baroni I, Sanna A, Pozzi C (2012) Robotic companion for diabetic children: emotional and educational support to diabetic children, through an interactive robot. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp 260–263 Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail L, Hanapiah FA, Mohamed S, Piah HA, Zahari NI (2012) Initial response of autistic children in human-robot interaction therapy with humanoid robot NAO. In: IEEE 8th international colloquism on signal process and its Application, pp 188–193 López Recio D, Márquez Segura E, Márquez Segura L, Waern A (2013) The NAO models for the elderly. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 187–188 Kim KJ, Park E, Shyam Sundar S (2013) Caregiving role in human-robot interaction: a study of the mediating effects of perceived benefit and social presence. Comput Hum Behav 29:1799–1806 Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail LI, Mohamed S, Hanapiah FA, Zahari NI (2012) Initial response in HRI—a case study on evaluation of child with autism spectrum disorders interacting with a humanoid robot NAO. Procedia Eng 41:1448–1455 Kim A, Han J, Jung Y, Lee K (2013) The effects of familiarity and robot gesture on user acceptance of information. In: Human–robot interaction (HRI), 2013 8th ACM/IEEE international conference pp 159–160 Pot E, Monceaux J, Gelin R, Maisonnier B (2009) Choregraphe: a graphical tool for humanoid robot programming. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 46–51 Kline P (2000) The handbook of psychological testing, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York Heerink M (2011) Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In: Human–robot interaction (HRI), 2011 6th ACM/IEEE international conference, pp 147–148 Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18(1):50–60 Hu PJ-H, Clark THK, Ma WW (2003) Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study. Inf Manag 41(2):227–241 Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230 Baek Y, Jung J, Kim B (2008) What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Comput Educ 50(1):224–234 Shin D-H, Choo H (2011) Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: social presence in human-robot interaction. Interact Stud 12(3):430–460 Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 46:186–204 Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations? The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human–robot interaction. In: HRI ’08 proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, pp 287–294 Li D, Rau P, Li Y (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2:175–186 Dillon A (2002) Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human-computer interactions. Can J Inf Libr Sci 26:57