Báo cáo Khám Phá Sau 5 Năm Nghiên Cứu Về Robot Hỗ Trợ Xã Hội

Dunne A, Raby F. Design for debate [Internet]. 2007. Available from: http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/36/0 • Ocnarescu I, Cossin I. Rethinking the why of socially assistive robotics through design. In: International Conference on Social Robotics. 2017. This paper shows how design tools and methods could be useful for the socially assistive robotics community to bring insights from the field, build quick and dirty prototypes, and imagine intention scenarios to open discussions with study participants. Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ. Defining socially assistive robotics. In: IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. 2005. p. 465–8. Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, de Witte L. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J Am Med Dir Assoc [Internet]. 2012 Feb [cited 2016 May 11];13(2):114–120.e1. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861010003476 Abdi J, Al-Hindawi A, Ng T, Vizcaychipi MP. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2). •• Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F. Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human-Computer Interact. 2004;19(1):25–59. Very relevant human sciences paper for the SAR community. Before designing robots for elders, one should understand people, their habits, and their way of living. The experience of aging is described as system of people, products, and activities taking place in a local environment of the home and the surrounding community. Tapus A, Matarić MJ, Scassellati B. The grand challenges in socially assistive robotics. Robot Autom. 2007;14:1–7. Herrmann G, Pearson MJ, Lenz A. Preface ICSR 2013. In: Guido Herrmann, Martin J. Pearson, Alexander Lenz, Paul Bremner, Adam Spiers UL, editor. Social Robotics - 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013, Bristol, UK, October 27-29, 2013, Proceedings. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 594. Alves-Oliveira P, Petisca S, Correia F, Maia N, Paiva A. Social robots for older adults : framework of activities for aging in place with robots. Int Conf Soc Robot. 2015;(March 2016). Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Patience A, Knock B, Kerse N, Day K, et al. Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas J Ageing. 2012;31(2):115–20. Schutte M. Socially assistive robots in the elderly care. The attitudes of healthcare professionals towards the use of socially assistive robots. 2019. •• Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B. What older people expect of robots: a mixed methods approach. In: Social robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 19–29. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 8239). From a methodological point of view, this paper was the starting point of our study. Frennert et al. focus on expectations and preconceptions of assistive robots for older people. We continued Frennert et al.’s study on other dimensions: roles and representations. Li Y, Tee K, Ge S, Li H. Building companionship through human-robot collaboration. In: Social robotics [Internet]. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 1–7. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 8239). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_1 Mead R, Mataric M. Robots have needs too : how and why people adapt their proxemic behavior to improve robot social signal understanding. J Human-Robot Interact. 2016;5(2):48–68. Bartneck C, Forlizzi J. A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. RO-MAN 2004 13th IEEE Int Work Robot Hum Interact Commun [Internet]. 2004;591–4. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1374827 Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B. Older people’s involvement in the development of a social assistive robot. In: Social robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013. Springer International Publishing; 2013. p. 8–18. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 8239). Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P. Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot. 2010;2(4):451–60. Deng E, Mutlu B, Mataric M. Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Found Trends Robot. 2019;7(4):251–356. Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C, Walters ML, Koay KL, Werry I. What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robot Syst IROS. 2005;2005:1488–93. Huber A, Lammer L, Weiss A, Vincze M. Designing adaptive roles for socially assistive robots: a new method to reduce technological determinism and role stereotypes. J Human-Robot Interact [Internet]. 2014;3(2):100. Available from: http://humanrobotinteraction.org/journal/index.php/HRI/article/view/157 Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proc - IEEE Int Work Robot Hum Interact Commun. 2003:55–60. Ferland F, Agrigoroaie R, Tapus A. Assistive humanoid robots for the elderly with mild cognitive impairment. Humanoid Robot A Ref. 2017:1–20. Lohse M, Hegel F, Wrede B. Domestic applications for social robots: an online survey on the influence of appearance and capabilities. J Phys Agents [Internet]. 2008;2(2):21–32 Available from: http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/12585. Dinet J, Vivian R. Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Trav Hum. 2014;77(2):105–25. Breazeal C. Designing sociable robots. Intelligent robotics and autonomous agents series: The MIT Press; 2002. 281 p. Breazeal C. Toward sociable robots. Vol. 42, Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 2003. p. 167–75. Sirkin D, Mok B, Yang S, Ju W. Mechanical ottoman : how robotic furniture offers and withdraws support. Proc Tenth Annu ACM/IEEE Int Conf Human-Robot Interact. 2015:11–8. Fischer K, Yang S, Mok B, Maheshwari R, Sirkin D, Ju W. Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: a robotic trash can in the field. In: AAAI Spring Symposium; 2015. p. 10–6 Tisseron S. Des robots et des hommes : lesquels craindre ? Etudes (Paris). 2014;(4210):33–44. Knobel M, Lankshear C. DIY media: creating, sharing and learning with new technologies (new literacies and digital epistemologies): Peter Lang Publishing Inc.; 2010. 266 p. Hoffman G, Ju W. Designing robots with movement in mind. J Human-Robot Interact [Internet]. 2014;3(1):89–122 Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.Hoffman. Woods SN, Walters ML, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K. Methodological issues in HRI: a comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. Proc - IEEE Int Work Robot Hum Interact Commun. 2006:51–8. Sirkin D, Ju W. Using embodied design improvisation as a design research tool. Int Conf Hum Behav Des. 2014;(October):1–7. Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Koay KL. Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton Robots. 2008;24(2):159–78. Hendriks B, Meerbeek B, Boess S, Pauws S, Sonneveld M. Robot vacuum cleaner personality and behavior. Int J Soc Robot. 2011;3(2):187–95. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. 312 p. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K. Psychological and social effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. In: 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat No03CH37422). 2003. p. 3996–4001 vol.3. Suchman L. Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication title. Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (December 25, 1987) Language: English; 1987. 224 p. Ocnarescu IC, Rodio F, Eve A, Labrune J-B, Bouchard C, Améziane A. Beyond TechCards: a first step toward the investigation of new dimensions of intermediate representations to support the creative process of emerging technologies. The International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference: In; 2011. Birmingham C, Hu Z, Mahajan K, Reber E, Mataric M. Can I trust you? A user study of robot mediation of a support group. ArXiv. 2020;abs/2002.0. Heerink M. How elderly users of a socially interactive robot experience adaptiveness, adaptability and user control. In: 2011 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI). 2011. p. 79–84. Cruz-Maya A, Tapus A. Negotiating with a robot: analysis of regulatory focus behavior. Proc - IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom. 2018:4578–84. Breazeal C. Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2003;59(1–2):119–55. Howard A, Tapus A, Kajitani I. Socially assistive robots [from the guest editors]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. 2019;26(2):10–110. Ostrowski AK, Dipaola D, Partridge E, Park HW, Breazeal C. Older adults living with social robots: promoting social connectedness in long-term communities. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. 2019;26(June):59–70. Takayama L, Dooley D, Ju W. Expressing thought: improving robot readability with animation principles. HRI 2011 - Proc 6th ACM/IEEE Int Conf Human-Robot Interact. 2011;(May):69–76. Auger J. Living with robots: a speculative design approach. J Human-Robot Interact [Internet]. 2014;3(1):20–42 Available from: http://hri-journal.org/index.php/HRI/article/view/155.