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

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.

• Antonio Espingardeiro

• HRI
• SARs
• Social Success
• Benchmark
• Elderly care.

[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;