Social Assistive Robots, Reframing the Human Robotics Interaction Benchmark of Social Success

Authors: Antonio Espingardeiro

Abstract:

It is likely that robots will cross the boundaries of industry into households over the next decades. With demographic challenges worldwide, the future ageing populations will require the introduction of assistive technologies capable of providing, care, human dignity and quality of life through the aging process. Robotics technology has a high potential for being used in the areas of social and healthcare by promoting a wide range of activities such as entertainment, companionship, supervision or cognitive and physical assistance. However such close Human Robotics Interaction (HRI) encompass a rich set of ethical scenarios that need to be addressed before Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) reach the global markets. Such interactions with robots may seem a worthy goal for many technical/financial reasons but inevitably require close attention to the ethical dimensions of such interactions. This article investigates the current HRI benchmark of social success. It revises it according to the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and justice aligned with social care ethos. An extension of such benchmark is proposed based on an empirical study of HRIs conducted with elderly groups.

Keywords: HRI, SARs, Social Success, Benchmark, Elderly care.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1099746

References:

[1] UN, World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. 2011.
[2] Feil-Seifer, D.J. and M.J. Matarić, Human-Robot Interaction, in Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, R.A. Meyers, Editor. 2009, Springer reference.
[3] Wada, K. and T. Shibata, Social and Physiological Influences of Living with Seal Robots in an Elderly Care House for Two Months. International journal on the fundamental aspects of technology to serve the ageing society, 2008. 7(2): p. 235.
[4] Kidd, C.D., W. Taggart, and S. Turkle, A Sociable Robot to Encourage Social Interaction among the Elderly, in ICRA. 2006. p. 5.
[5] Veruggio, G. Roboethics - The ethics, social, humanitarian and ecological aspects of Robotics. In First International Symposium on Roboethics. 2004. Sanremo.
[6] Veruggio, G., J. Solis, and M.V.d. Loos, Roboethics: Ethics Applied to Robotics, in IEEE Robotics & Automation. 2011, IEEE. p. 21-22.
[7] Breazeal, C.L., Designing Sociable Robots. 2002: MIT Press.
[8] Brooks, R.A., et al., Humanoid Robots: A New Kind of Tool. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications: Special Issue on Humanoid Robotics, 2000. 15(4): p. 25-31.
[9] Sharkey, N. and A. Sharkey, The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal, Journal of Interaction Studies. Interaction Studies, 2010. 11(2): p. 161-190.
[10] Wiener, N., The Human Use Of Human Beings: Cybernetics And Society. 1988: DaCapo Press.
[11] Asimov, I. Runaround. 1941 08/03/11; Available from: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT_Intro/History /Runaround.html.
[12] Singer, P.W., Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the XXI century. 2009: Penguim.
[13] Veruggio, G. Euron Roboethics Roadmap. 2006. Genova Italy.
[14] Sharkey, A. and N. Sharkey, Children, the Elderly, and Interactive Robots, in IEEE Robotics & Automation. 2011, IEEE. p. 32-38.
[15] EPSRC. Principles of Robotics. 2010 (cited 2010 12/11/10); Available from: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ourportfolio/themes/engineering/activitie s/Pages/principlesofrobotics.aspx.
[16] EUROP. Ethical, Legal and Societal Issues in robotics. 2009 15/10/10; Available from: http://www.robotics-platform.eu/sra/els.
[17] Feil-Seifer, D., M.J. Matarić, and K. Skinner, Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interaction Studies: Psychological Benchmarks of Human-Robot Interaction, 2007. 8(3): p. 423-429.
[18] Suhonen, R., et al., Research on ethics in nursing care for older people. Nursing Ethics, 2010. 17(337).
[19] Scott, P., et al., Autonomy, privacy and informed consent 3: elderly care perspective. British Journal of Nursing, 2003. 12 (3).
[20] Beauchamp, T.L. and J.F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 2001: Oxford University Press.
[21] Wada, K., et al., Robot Therapy for Elders Affected by Dementia: Using Personal Robots for Pleasure and Relaxation, in IEEE Engineering in medicine and biology magazine. 2008, IEEE.
[22] Turkle, S., Relational artifacts/children/elders: The complexities of cybercompanions, in In Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science: A CogSci 2005 Workshop. 2005: Stresa. p. 6273.
[23] Wainer, J., et al. The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. in IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. 2006. Hatfield.
[24] Feil-Seifer, D.J. and M.J. Matarić, Ethical Principles for Socially Assistive Robotics, in IEEE Robotics and Automation. 2011, IEEE.
[25] Espingardeiro, A., A Roboethics Framework for the Development and Introduction of Social Assistive Robots in Elderly Care, in Information Systems. 2014, University of Salford: Salford. p. 325.
[26] Cohan, S. and L.M. Shires, The Communication Theory Reader, ed. P. Cobley. 1996, New York: Routledge.
[27] Lewin, K., Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life;