{"title":"Social Assistive Robots, Reframing the Human Robotics Interaction Benchmark of Social Success","authors":"Antonio Espingardeiro","volume":97,"journal":"International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering","pagesStart":377,"pagesEnd":383,"ISSN":"1307-6892","URL":"https:\/\/publications.waset.org\/pdf\/10000755","abstract":"
It is likely that robots will cross the boundaries of
\r\nindustry into households over the next decades. With demographic
\r\nchallenges worldwide, the future ageing populations will require the
\r\nintroduction of assistive technologies capable of providing, care,
\r\nhuman dignity and quality of life through the aging process. Robotics
\r\ntechnology has a high potential for being used in the areas of social
\r\nand healthcare by promoting a wide range of activities such as
\r\nentertainment, companionship, supervision or cognitive and physical
\r\nassistance. However such close Human Robotics Interaction (HRI)
\r\nencompass a rich set of ethical scenarios that need to be addressed
\r\nbefore Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) reach the global markets.
\r\nSuch interactions with robots may seem a worthy goal for many
\r\ntechnical\/financial reasons but inevitably require close attention to
\r\nthe ethical dimensions of such interactions. This article investigates
\r\nthe current HRI benchmark of social success. It revises it according
\r\nto the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and justice
\r\naligned with social care ethos. An extension of such benchmark is
\r\nproposed based on an empirical study of HRIs conducted with elderly
\r\ngroups.<\/p>\r\n","references":"[1] UN, World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. 2011.\r\n[2] Feil-Seifer, D.J. and M.J. Matari\u0107, Human-Robot Interaction, in\r\nEncyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, R.A. Meyers, Editor.\r\n2009, Springer reference.\r\n[3] Wada, K. and T. Shibata, Social and Physiological Influences of Living\r\nwith Seal Robots in an Elderly Care House for Two Months.\r\nInternational journal on the fundamental aspects of technology to serve\r\nthe ageing society, 2008. 7(2): p. 235.\r\n[4] Kidd, C.D., W. Taggart, and S. Turkle, A Sociable Robot to Encourage\r\nSocial Interaction among the Elderly, in ICRA. 2006. p. 5.\r\n[5] Veruggio, G. Roboethics - The ethics, social, humanitarian and\r\necological aspects of Robotics. In First International Symposium on\r\nRoboethics. 2004. Sanremo.\r\n[6] Veruggio, G., J. Solis, and M.V.d. Loos, Roboethics: Ethics Applied to\r\nRobotics, in IEEE Robotics & Automation. 2011, IEEE. p. 21-22.\r\n[7] Breazeal, C.L., Designing Sociable Robots. 2002: MIT Press.\r\n[8] Brooks, R.A., et al., Humanoid Robots: A New Kind of Tool. IEEE\r\nIntelligent Systems and Their Applications: Special Issue on Humanoid\r\nRobotics, 2000. 15(4): p. 25-31.\r\n[9] Sharkey, N. and A. Sharkey, The crying shame of robot nannies: an\r\nethical appraisal, Journal of Interaction Studies. Interaction Studies,\r\n2010. 11(2): p. 161-190.\r\n[10] Wiener, N., The Human Use Of Human Beings: Cybernetics And\r\nSociety. 1988: DaCapo Press.\r\n[11] Asimov, I. Runaround. 1941 08\/03\/11; Available from:\r\nhttp:\/\/www.rci.rutgers.edu\/~cfs\/472_html\/Intro\/NYT_Intro\/History\r\n\/Runaround.html.\r\n[12] Singer, P.W., Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in\r\nthe XXI century. 2009: Penguim.\r\n[13] Veruggio, G. Euron Roboethics Roadmap. 2006. Genova Italy.\r\n[14] Sharkey, A. and N. Sharkey, Children, the Elderly, and Interactive\r\nRobots, in IEEE Robotics & Automation. 2011, IEEE. p. 32-38.\r\n[15] EPSRC. Principles of Robotics. 2010 (cited 2010 12\/11\/10); Available\r\nfrom: http:\/\/www.epsrc.ac.uk\/ourportfolio\/themes\/engineering\/activitie\r\ns\/Pages\/principlesofrobotics.aspx.\r\n[16] EUROP. Ethical, Legal and Societal Issues in robotics. 2009 15\/10\/10;\r\nAvailable from: http:\/\/www.robotics-platform.eu\/sra\/els.\r\n[17] Feil-Seifer, D., M.J. Matari\u0107, and K. Skinner, Benchmarks for evaluating\r\nsocially assistive robotics. Interaction Studies: Psychological\r\nBenchmarks of Human-Robot Interaction, 2007. 8(3): p. 423-429.\r\n[18] Suhonen, R., et al., Research on ethics in nursing care for older people.\r\nNursing Ethics, 2010. 17(337).\r\n[19] Scott, P., et al., Autonomy, privacy and informed consent 3: elderly care\r\nperspective. British Journal of Nursing, 2003. 12 (3).\r\n[20] Beauchamp, T.L. and J.F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics.\r\n2001: Oxford University Press.\r\n[21] Wada, K., et al., Robot Therapy for Elders Affected by Dementia: Using\r\nPersonal Robots for Pleasure and Relaxation, in IEEE Engineering in\r\nmedicine and biology magazine. 2008, IEEE.\r\n[22] Turkle, S., Relational artifacts\/children\/elders: The complexities of\r\ncybercompanions, in In Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science:\r\nA CogSci 2005 Workshop. 2005: Stresa. p. 6273.\r\n[23] Wainer, J., et al. The role of physical embodiment in human-robot\r\ninteraction. in IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human\r\nInteractive Communication. 2006. Hatfield.\r\n[24] Feil-Seifer, D.J. and M.J. Matari\u0107, Ethical Principles for Socially\r\nAssistive Robotics, in IEEE Robotics and Automation. 2011, IEEE.\r\n[25] Espingardeiro, A., A Roboethics Framework for the Development and\r\nIntroduction of Social Assistive Robots in Elderly Care, in Information\r\nSystems. 2014, University of Salford: Salford. p. 325.\r\n[26] Cohan, S. and L.M. Shires, The Communication Theory Reader, ed. P.\r\nCobley. 1996, New York: Routledge.\r\n[27] Lewin, K., Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life;","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 97, 2015"}