[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3672539.3686713acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Physical and Social Adaptation for Assistive Robot Interactions

Published: 13 October 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Robots have the potential to provide users with limited mobility additional ways of interacting with the world around them. However, each user has preferences for how they interact with these physical interfaces. My dissertation research develops tools and algorithms to allow robot interactions to adapt to the individual needs of users. In particular, I develop ways to adapt a robot’s design, physical movements, and social behaviors. By adapting robots to users I hope to develop systems that more holistically aid users with limited mobility.

References

[1]
[1] 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rehabilitation
[2]
Suziah Sulaiman Ahsanullah, M Kamil, and K Muzafar. 2006. Understanding factors influencing user experience of interactive systems: a literature review. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci 10 (2006), 18175–18185.
[3]
Keith Andrews and Jean Steward. 1979. Sroke recovery: He can but does he?Rheumatology 18, 1 (1979), 43–48.
[4]
Jaime Alberto Buitrago, Ana Marcela Bolaños, and Eduardo Caicedo Bravo. 2020. A motor learning therapeutic intervention for a child with cerebral palsy through a social assistive robot. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 15, 3 (2020), 357–362.
[5]
Cathrin Bütefisch, Horst Hummelsheim, Petra Denzler, and Karl-Heinz Mauritz. 1995. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. Journal of the neurological sciences 130, 1 (1995), 59–68.
[6]
Colleen M Carpinella, Alisa B Wyman, Michael A Perez, and Steven J Stroessner. 2017. The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS) development and validation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on human-robot interaction. 254–262.
[7]
Elizabeth Cha, Anca D Dragan, and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2015. Perceived robot capability. In 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 541–548.
[8]
Melina Daniilidis, Nathaniel Steele Dennler, Maja Matarić, and Stefanos Nikolaidis. 2024. Adapting Task Difficulty in a Cup-Stacking Rehabilitative Task. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 374–378.
[9]
Maartje MA De Graaf and Somaya Ben Allouch. 2015. The evaluation of different roles for domestic social robots. In 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 676–681.
[10]
Eric Deng, Bilge Mutlu, Maja J Mataric, 2019. Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 7, 4 (2019), 251–356.
[11]
Nathaniel Dennler, Amelia Cain, Erica De Guzman, Claudia Chiu, Carolee J Winstein, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja J Matarić. 2023. A metric for characterizing the arm nonuse workspace in poststroke individuals using a robot arm. Science Robotics 8, 84 (2023), eadf7723.
[12]
Nathaniel Dennler, David Delgado, Daniel Zeng, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matarić. 2024. The RoSiD Tool: Empowering Users to Design Multimodal Signals for Human-Robot Collaboration. International Symposium of Experimental Robotics (ISER) (2024).
[13]
Nathaniel Dennler, Mina Kian, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matarić. 2024. Designing Robot Identity: The Role of Voice, Clothing, and Task on Robot Gender Perception. International Journal of Social Robotics (Under Review) (2024).
[14]
Nathaniel Dennler, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matarić. 2024. Singing the Body Electric: The Impact of Robot Embodiment on User Expectations. Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) Workshop on Social Intelligence in Humans and Robots (2024).
[15]
Nathaniel Dennler, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matarić. 2024. Using Causal Trees to Estimate Personalized Task Difficulty in Post-Stroke Individuals. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) Workshop on Assistive Robotics for Citizens (2024).
[16]
Nathan Dennler, Anaelia Ovalle, Ashwin Singh, Luca Soldaini, Arjun Subramonian, Huy Tu, William Agnew, Avijit Ghosh, Kyra Yee, Irene Font Peradejordi, 2023. Bound by the Bounty: Collaboratively Shaping Evaluation Processes for Queer AI Harms. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 375–386.
[17]
Nathaniel Dennler, Changxiao Ruan, Jessica Hadiwijoyo, Brenna Chen, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matarić. 2023. Design metaphors for understanding user expectations of socially interactive robot embodiments. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 12, 2 (2023), 1–41.
[18]
Nathaniel Dennler, Eura Shin, Maja Matarić, and Stefanos Nikolaidis. 2021. Design and evaluation of a hair combing system using a general-purpose robotic arm. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 3739–3746.
[19]
Nathaniel Dennler, Catherine Yunis, Jonathan Realmuto, Terence Sanger, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matarić. 2021. Personalizing User Engagement Dynamics in a Non-Verbal Communication Game for Cerebral Palsy. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 873–879.
[20]
Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and autonomous systems 42, 3-4 (2003), 143–166.
[21]
Axel R Fugl-Meyer, Lisbeth Jääskö, Ingegerd Leyman, Sigyn Olsson, and Solveig Steglind. 1975. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7, 1 (1975), 13–31.
[22]
Ilaria Gaudiello, Elisabetta Zibetti, Sébastien Lefort, Mohamed Chetouani, and Serena Ivaldi. 2016. Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers. Computers in Human Behavior 61 (2016), 633–655.
[23]
Laura Hoffmann, Nikolai Bock, and Astrid M Rosenthal vd Pütten. 2018. The peculiarities of robot embodiment (emcorp-scale) development, validation and initial test of the embodiment and corporeality of artificial agents scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 370–378.
[24]
Jana Holthöwer and Jenny van Doorn. 2023. Robots do not judge: service robots can alleviate embarrassment in service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 51, 4 (2023), 767–784.
[25]
Christine Imms, Margaret Wallen, Catherine Elliott, Brian Hoare, Melinda Randall, Susan Greaves, Brooke Adair, Elizabeth Bradshaw, Rob Carter, Francesca Orsini, 2016. Minimising impairment: Protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial of upper limb orthoses for children with cerebral palsy. BMC pediatrics 16 (2016), 1–15.
[26]
Kinova. [n. d.]. Assistive Solutions. https://www.kinovarobotics.com/en/solutions/medical-and-assistive/assistive-solutions
[27]
Dimosthenis Kontogiorgos, Sanne Van Waveren, Olle Wallberg, Andre Pereira, Iolanda Leite, and Joakim Gustafson. 2020. Embodiment effects in interactions with failing robots. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.
[28]
Raj Korpan, Ruchira Ray, Andrea Sipos, Nathan Dennler, Max Parks, Maria E Cabrera, and Roberto Martín-Martín. 2024. Launching Queer in Robotics [Women in Engineering]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 31, 2 (2024), 144–146.
[29]
Minae Kwon, Malte F Jung, and Ross A Knepper. 2016. Human expectations of social robots. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 463–464.
[30]
Daniel WL Lai. 2012. Effect of financial costs on caregiving burden of family caregivers of older adults. Sage Open 2, 4 (2012), 2158244012470467.
[31]
Niall Maclean, Pandora Pound, C Wolfe, A Rudd, 2000. A critical review of the concept of patient motivation in the literature on physical rehabilitation. Soc Sci Med 50, 4 (2000), 495–506.
[32]
Jodi Manning. 2021. The sociology of hair: Hair symbolism among college students. (2021).
[33]
Gary Marchionini. 2006. Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Commun. ACM 49, 4 (2006), 41–46.
[34]
Aaron Marcus. 1998. Metaphor design in user interfaces. ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation 22, 2 (1998), 43–57.
[35]
Ratna Martyana and Diana Diana. 2018. The effectiveness of the application of batik jumputan skill to improve fine motor skill of mild intellectually disabled children in special schools throughout semarang city. Belia: Early Childhood Education Papers 7, 2 (2018), 120–126.
[36]
Nancy E Mayo, Sharon Wood-Dauphinee, Robert Côté, Liam Durcan, and Joseph Carlton. 2002. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 83, 8 (2002), 1035–1042.
[37]
Shawgi Younis Ahmed Mounis, Norsinnira Zainul Azlan, and Fatai Sado. 2019. Assist-as-needed control strategy for upper-limb rehabilitation based on subject’s functional ability. Measurement and Control 52, 9-10 (2019), 1354–1361.
[38]
Ali Utku Pehlivan, Dylan P Losey, and Marcia K O’Malley. 2015. Minimal assist-as-needed controller for upper limb robotic rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 32, 1 (2015), 113–124.
[39]
Organizers Of Queerinai, Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Ashwin Singh, Claas Voelcker, Danica J Sutherland, Davide Locatelli, Eva Breznik, Filip Klubicka, Hang Yuan, 2023. Queer in AI: A case study in community-led participatory AI. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1882–1895.
[40]
Daniel J Rea, Sebastian Schneider, and Takayuki Kanda. 2021. "Is this all you can do? harder!" the effects of (im) polite robot encouragement on exercise effort. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 225–233.
[41]
Brian Scassellati and Marynel Vázquez. 2020. The potential of socially assistive robots during infectious disease outbreaks. Science Robotics 5, 44 (2020), eabc9014.
[42]
Annette Sterr, Susanna Freivogel, and Dieter Schmalohr. 2002. Neurobehavioral aspects of recovery: assessment of the learned nonuse phenomenon in hemiparetic adolescents. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 83, 12 (2002), 1726–1731.
[43]
JaYoung Sung, Rebecca E Grinter, and Henrik I Christensen. 2009. " Pimp My Roomba" designing for personalization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 193–196.
[44]
Adriana Tapus, Cristian Ţăpuş, and Maja J Matarić. 2008. User—robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intelligent Service Robotics 1 (2008), 169–183.
[45]
Edward Taub, Jean E Crago, and Gitendra Uswatte. 1998. Constraint-induced movement therapy: A new approach to treatment in physical rehabilitation.Rehabilitation Psychology 43, 2 (1998), 152.
[46]
Katie Winkle, Gaspar Isaac Melsión, Donald McMillan, and Iolanda Leite. 2021. Boosting robot credibility and challenging gender norms in responding to abusive behaviour: A case for feminist robots. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 29–37.
[47]
Carolee Winstein, Bokkyu Kim, Sujin Kim, Clarisa Martinez, and Nicolas Schweighofer. 2019. Dosage matters: a phase IIb randomized controlled trial of motor therapy in the chronic phase after stroke. Stroke 50, 7 (2019), 1831–1837.
[48]
Fengpei Yuan, Elizabeth Klavon, Ziming Liu, Ruth Palan Lopez, and Xiaopeng Zhao. 2021. A systematic review of robotic rehabilitation for cognitive training. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2021), 605715.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
UIST Adjunct '24: Adjunct Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
October 2024
394 pages
ISBN:9798400707186
DOI:10.1145/3672539
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 October 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Assistive Robotics
  2. Customization
  3. Human-Robot Interaction
  4. Personalization

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

UIST '24

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 355 of 1,733 submissions, 20%

Upcoming Conference

UIST '25
The 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
September 28 - October 1, 2025
Busan , Republic of Korea

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 47
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)47
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 18 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media