Proceedings of the Workshop on Social Robots in Therapy: Focusing on Autonomy and Ethical Challenges

Robot-Assisted Therapy (RAT) has successfully been used in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) research by including social robots in health-care interventions by virtue of their ability to engage human users in both social and emotional dimensions. Research projects on this topic exist all over the globe in the USA, Europe, and Asia. All of these projects have the overall ambitious goal of increasing the well-being of a vulnerable population. Typical, RAT is performed with the Wizard-of-Oz (WoZ) technique, where the robot is controlled, unbeknownst to the patient, by a human operator. However, WoZ has been demonstrated to not be a sustainable technique in the long-term. Providing the robots with autonomy (while remaining under the supervision of the therapist) has the potential to lighten the therapist»s burden, not only in the therapeutic session itself but also in longer-term diagnostic tasks. Therefore, there is a need for exploring several degrees of autonomy in social robots used in therapy. Increasing the autonomy of robots might also bring about a new set of challenges. In particular, there will be a need to answer new ethical questions regarding the use of robots with a vulnerable population, as well as a need to ensure ethically-compliant robot behaviors. Therefore, in this workshop we want to gather findings and explore which degree of autonomy might help to improve health-care interventions and how we can overcome the ethical challenges inherent to it.

[1]  Alex Barco,et al.  An Interdisciplinary Approach to Improving Cognitive Human-Robot Interaction - A Novel Emotion-Based Model , 2016, Robophilosophy/TRANSOR.

[2]  J. Lerner,et al.  Emotion and decision making. , 2015, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  Aikaterini Fotopoulou,et al.  Active Interpersonal Touch Gives Rise to the Social Softness Illusion , 2015, Current Biology.

[4]  Marcelo H. Ang,et al.  Why Robots? A Survey on the Roles and Benefits of Social Robots in the Therapy of Children with Autism , 2013, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[5]  Andrea Cherubini,et al.  The Three Laws of Neurorobotics: A Review on What Neurorehabilitation Robots Should Do for Patients and Clinicians , 2016, Journal of medical and biological engineering.

[6]  B. Scassellati,et al.  Robots for use in autism research. , 2012, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[7]  Margaret A. Finley,et al.  Effects of a repetitive gaming intervention on upper extremity impairments and function in persons with chronic stroke: a preliminary study , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation.

[8]  Bram Vanderborght,et al.  A Survey of Expectations About the Role of Robots in Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with ASD: Ethical Acceptability, Trust, Sociability, Appearance, and Attachment , 2015, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[9]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  A survey of socially interactive robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[10]  Gad Levanon,et al.  The Risk of Future Labor Shortages in Different Occupations and Industries in the United States , 2014 .

[11]  Domen Novak,et al.  Competitive and cooperative arm rehabilitation games played by a patient and unimpaired person: effects on motivation and exercise intensity , 2017, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[12]  Domenec Puig,et al.  A Case Study of Robot Interaction Among Individuals with Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities , 2015, ICSR.

[13]  T. Fulmer,et al.  Successful aging. , 2002, The American journal of nursing.

[14]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Design issues on interactive environments for children with autism , 2000 .

[15]  L. Carey,et al.  Task-specific training: evidence for and translation to clinical practice. , 2009, Occupational therapy international.

[16]  J. Cohen-Mansfield Nonpharmacologic Treatment of Behavioral Disorders in Dementia , 2013, Current Treatment Options in Neurology.

[17]  G. Gutman,et al.  Recommended and Reported Use of Communication Strategies in Alzheimer Caregiving , 2002, Alzheimer disease and associated disorders.

[18]  Ana Paiva,et al.  More Social and Emotional Behaviour May Lead to Poorer Perceptions of a Social Robot , 2015, ICSR.

[19]  Márta Gácsi,et al.  Should we love robots? - The most liked qualities of companion dogs and how they can be implemented in social robots , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  G. Nejat,et al.  Acceptance and Attitudes Toward a Human-like Socially Assistive Robot by Older Adults , 2014, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[21]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Effects of comparative feedback from a Socially Assistive Robot on self-efficacy in post-stroke rehabilitation , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).

[22]  Maja J. Matarić,et al.  Robots have needs too , 2016 .

[23]  Bob Woods,et al.  Efficacy of an evidence-based cognitive stimulation therapy programme for people with dementia , 2003, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[24]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Common metrics for human-robot interaction , 2006, HRI '06.

[25]  M. Levin,et al.  Upper Limb Obstacle Avoidance Behavior in Individuals With Stroke , 2017, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[26]  Goldie Nejat,et al.  Brian 2.1: A socially assistive robot for the elderly and cognitively impaired , 2013, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[27]  Deborah G. Johnson Technology with No Human Responsibility? , 2015 .

[28]  M P Lawton,et al.  Observed affect in nursing home residents with Alzheimer's disease. , 1996, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[29]  G. Demiris,et al.  Design Recommendations for Recreational Systems Involving Older Adults Living With Dementia , 2018, Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society.

[30]  Michelle J. Johnson,et al.  Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push , 2011, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.