1932

Abstract

The field of socially assistive robotics (SAR) aims to supplement the efforts of clinicians, therapists, educators, and caregivers through individualized, socially mediated interventions with robots. SAR is faced with the interdisciplinary challenge to balance sensitive domain needs with current technical limitations. Many researchers in SAR and the broader human–robot interaction community overcome technical barriers by using a Wizard of Oz approach, or teleoperation of the robot or aspects of the interaction. Although Wizard of Oz is a well-established practice, it becomes intractable in critical SAR domains that require long-term, situated support, such as aging in place and special needs education. In this article, we define a set of autonomy-centric design properties for SAR interventions based on concepts from artificial intelligence and robotics. These properties structure a systematic review of the last decade of autonomous SAR research. From the review, we draw and discuss common computational methods, engineering practices, and design patterns that enable autonomy in SAR.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-104911
2019-05-03
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/control/2/1/annurev-control-060117-104911.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-104911&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Guizzo E, Ackerman E 2012. How Rethink Robotics built its new Baxter robot worker. IEEE Spectrum https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/industrial-robots/rethink-robotics-baxter-robot-factory-worker
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Haidegger T, Barreto M, Gonçalves P, Habib MK, Ragavan SKV 2013. Applied ontologies and standards for service robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61:1215–23
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ 2005. Defining socially assistive robotics. 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics465–68 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Argall BD, Chernova S, Veloso M, Browning B 2009. A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Robot. Auton. Syst. 57:469–83
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Bainbridge WA, Hart J, Kim ES, Scassellati B 2008. The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. RO-MAN 2008: The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication701–6 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Wainer J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Shell DA, Matarić MJ 2007. Embodiment and human-robot interaction: a task-based perspective. RO-MAN 2007: The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication872–77 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J, Kim SR 2006. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents? The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human–robot interaction. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64:962–73
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Toneva M, Scassellati B 2012. The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. Building Bridges Across Cognitive Sciences Around the World: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society N Miyake, D Peebles, RP Cooper188287 Austin, TX: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Gazzola V, Rizzolatti G, Wicker B, Keysers C 2007. The anthropomorphic brain: the mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage 35:1674–84
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Gallese V, Goldman A 1998. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2:493–501
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Fridin M, Belokopytov M 2014. Embodied robot versus virtual agent: involvement of preschool children in motor task performance. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 30:459–69
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Niedenthal PM 2007. Embodying emotion. Science 316:1002–5
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Kolb DA 2014. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Kontra C, Goldin-Meadow S, Beilock SL 2012. Embodied learning across the life span. Top. Cogn. Sci. 4:731–39
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Daum MM, Vuori MT, Prinz W, Aschersleben G 2009. Inferring the size of a goal object from an actor's grasping movement in 6- and 9-month-old infants. Dev. Sci. 12:854–62
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Goldin-Meadow S, Beilock SL 2010. Action's influence on thought: the case of gesture. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5:664–74
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42:143–66
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Toh E, Poh L, Causo A, Tzuo PW, Chen I 2016. A review on the use of robots in education and young children. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19:148–63
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B 2009. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1:319
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  McLellan H ed. 1996. Situated Learning Perspectives Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educ. Technol.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Anderson JR, Reder LM, Simon HA 1996. Situated learning and education. Educ. Res. 25:5–11
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Sabanovic S, Michalowski MP, Simmons R 2006. Robots in the wild: observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. 9th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control596–601 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Ros R, Nalin M, Wood R, Baxter P, Looije R 2011. Child-robot interaction in the wild: advice to the aspiring experimenter. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces335–42 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Berger PL, Luckmann T 1991. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge London: Penguin
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Young M 2007. Bringing Knowledge Back In: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education Abingdon, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Martin DJ, Garske JP, Davis MK 2000. Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 68:438–50
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT 2006. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 26:17–31
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A 2013. Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5:291–308
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Kubota CA, Olstad RG 1991. Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on exploratory behavior and cognitive learning in a science museum setting. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28:225–34
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Bickmore TW, Picard RW 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12:293–327
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A 2014. Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6:329–41
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Koychev I, Schwab I 2000. Adaptation to drifting user's interests. Machine Learning in the New Information Age: Workshop3946 http://users.ics.forth.gr/potamias/mlnia/paper_5.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Kennedy J, Baxter P, Senft E, Belpaeme T 2016. Social robot tutoring for child second language learning. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction231–38 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Leyzberg D, Scassellati B, Leyzberg D, Spaulding S 2014. Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction423–30 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Greczek J, Atrash A, Matarić M 2013. A computational model of graded cueing: robots encouraging behavior change. HCI International 2013 – Posters’ Extended Abstracts582–86 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Bloom BS 1984. The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educ. Res. 13:4–16
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Corbett A 2001. Cognitive computer tutors: solving the two-sigma problem. User Modeling 2001: 8th International Conference, UM 2001137–47 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Tomlinson CA 2014. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners Alexandria, VA: Assoc. Superv. Curric. Dev.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Darling-Hammond L 2007. Race, inequality and educational accountability: the irony of ‘No Child Left Behind.’. Race Ethn. Educ. 10:245–60
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Anderson JR, Boyle CF, Reiser BJ 1985. Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228:456–62
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Murray T 1999. Authoring intelligent tutoring systems: an analysis of the state of the art. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 10:98–129
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Hood D, Lemaignan S, Dillenbourg P 2015. When children teach a robot to write: an autonomous teachable humanoid which uses simulated handwriting. 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction83–90 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong JJ 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technol. Educ. Learn. 1:1–7
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Gordon G, Breazeal C, Engel S 2015. Can children catch curiosity from a social robot. 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction9198 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Park HW, Rosenberg-Kima R, Rosenberg M, Gordon G, Breazeal C 2017. Growing growth mindset with a social robot peer. 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction137–45 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Den Brok W, Sterkenburg P 2015. Self-controlled technologies to support skill attainment in persons with an autism spectrum disorder and/or an intellectual disability: a systematic literature review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 10:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  White SW, Keonig K, Scahill L 2007. Social skills development in children with autism spectrum disorders: a review of the intervention research. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 37:1858–68
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Nehaniv CL 2008. Behaviour delay and robot expressiveness in child-robot interactions: a user study on interaction kinesics. 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction17–24 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.  Baxter P, Kennedy J, Belpaeme T, Wood R, Baroni I, Nalin M 2013. Emergence of turn-taking in unstructured child-robot social interactions. 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction77–78 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Dautenhahn K 1999. Robots as social actors: AURORA and the case of autism. Networking Minds: CT99, 3rd International Cognitive Technology Conference K Cox, B Gorayska, J Marsh35974 Ann Arbor, MI: M.I.N.D. Lab
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Billard A 2005. Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: Can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 4:105–20
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Begum M, Serna RW, Yanco HA 2016. Are robots ready to deliver autism interventions? A comprehensive review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8:157–81
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  Scassellati B, Admoni H, Matarić M 2012. Robots for use in autism research. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 14:275–94
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.  Vigo D, Thornicroft G, Atun R 2016. Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry 3:171–78
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Tappy L, KA 2010. Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity. Physiol. Rev. 90:23–46
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Manson JE, Skerrett PJ, Greenland P, VanItallie TB 2004. The escalating pandemics of obesity and sedentary lifestyle: a call to action for clinicians. Arch. Intern. Med. 164:249–58
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Pantelopoulos A, Bourbakis NG 2010. A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. C 40:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Cadmus-Bertram LA, Marcus BH, Patterson RE, Parker BA, Morey BL 2015. Randomized trial of a Fitbit-based physical activity intervention for women. Am. J. Prev. Med. 49:414–18
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Scherer S, Lucas GM, Gratch J, Rizzo AS, Morency LP 2016. Self-reported symptoms of depression and PTSD are associated with reduced vowel space in screening interviews. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 7:59–73
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Fitzpatrick KK, Darcy A, Vierhile M 2017. Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Ment. Health 4:e19
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Fasola J, Matarić MJ 2012. Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc. IEEE 100:2512–26
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  Matarić MJ, Eriksson J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Winstein CJ 2007. Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 4:5
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.  Tapus A, Tapus C, Matarić MJ 2008. User–robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intell. Serv. Robot. 1:169
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.  Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, De Witte L 2012. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 13:114–20
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Short E, Swift-Spong K, Greczek J, Ramachandran A, Litoiu A 2014. How to train your Dragonbot: socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play. The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication924–29 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Feil-Seifer D, Matarić M 2008. Robot-assisted therapy for children with autism spectrum disorders. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children49–52 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Greczek J, Kaszubski E, Atrash A, Matarić M 2014. Graded cueing feedback in robot-mediated imitation practice for children with autism spectrum disorders. The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication561–66 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.  Tapus A, Tapus C, Matarić MJ 2009. The use of socially assistive robots in the design of intelligent cognitive therapies for people with dementia. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics924–29 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Rabbitt SM, Kazdin AE, Scassellati B 2015. Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 35:35–46
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  Bongaarts J 2004. Population aging and the rising cost of public pensions. Popul. Dev. Rev. 30:1–23
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.  Shibata T 2012. Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device: qualitative and quantitative evaluations of robot therapy in dementia care. Proc. IEEE 100:2527–38
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Petersen S, Houston S, Qin H, Tague C, Studley J 2017. The utilization of robotic pets in dementia care. J. Alzheimer's Dis. 55:569–74
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Pransky J 2017. The Pransky interview: Dr. Cory Kidd, founder and CEO at Catalia Health. Ind. Robot 44:259–63
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.  Foti D, Koketsu JS 2013. Activities of daily living. Pedretti's Occupational Therapy: Practical Skills for Physical Dysfunction HM Pendleton, W Schultz-Krohn157232 St. Louis, MO: Mosby 7th ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.  Littbrand H, Stenvall M, Rosendahl E 2011. Applicability and effects of physical exercise on physical and cognitive functions and activities of daily living among people with dementia: a systematic review. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 90:495–518
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.  Jekel K, Damian M, Wattmo C, Hausner L, Bullock R 2015. Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review. Alzheimer's Res. Ther. 7:17
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.  Wondergem R, Pisters MF, Wouters EJ, Olthof N, de Bie RA 2017. The course of activities in daily living: Who is at risk for decline after first ever stroke?. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 43:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.  Lawrence BJ, Gasson N, Kane R, Bucks RS, Loftus AM 2014. Activities of daily living, depression, and quality of life in Parkinson's disease. PLOS ONE 9:e102294
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.  Weaver LL 2015. Effectiveness of work, activities of daily living, education, and sleep interventions for people with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 69:6905180020p1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.  D'Onofrio G, Sancarlo D, Ricciardi F, Panza F, Seripa D 2017. Information and communication technologies for the activities of daily living in older patients with dementia: a systematic review. J. Alzheimer's Dis. 57:927–35
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.  Debes C, Merentitis A, Sukhanov S, Niessen M, Frangiadakis N, Bauer A 2016. Monitoring activities of daily living in smart homes: understanding human behavior. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 33:281–94
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.  Mast M, Burmester M, Graf B, Weisshardt F, Arbeiter G 2015. Design of the human-robot interaction for a semi-autonomous service robot to assist elderly people. Ambient Assist. Living R Wichert, H Klausing1529 Cham, Switz.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.  Robinson H, MacDonald B, Broadbent E 2014. The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6:575–91
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.  Baker-Ericzén MJ, Brookman-Frazee L, Stahmer A 2005. Stress levels and adaptability in parents of toddlers with and without autism spectrum disorders. Res. Pract. Persons Severe Disabil. 30:194–204
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.  Lecavalier L, Leone S, Wiltz J 2006. The impact of behaviour problems on caregiver stress in young people with autism spectrum disorders. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 50:172–83
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.  Li S, Yuan XJ 2018. A review of the current intelligent personal agents. HCI International 2018 – Posters’ Extended Abstracts253–57 Cham, Switz.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.  Dautenhahn K 2007. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 362:679–704
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.  Russell S, Norvig P 2009. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Essex, UK: Pearson. 3rd ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.  Baltrušaitis T, Ahuja C, Morency LP 2019. Multimodal machine learning: a survey and taxonomy. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 41:423–43
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.  Deng E, Mutlu B, Matarić M 2019. Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Found. Trends Robot. 7:251–356
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.  Sheridan TB, Verplank WL 1978. Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators Tech. Rep., Man-Mach. Syst. Lab., Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.  Goodrich MA, Schultz AC 2008. Human–robot interaction: a survey. Found. Trends Hum.–Comput. Interact. 1:203–75
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.  Riek LD 2012. Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 1:119–36
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.  Amershi S, Cakmak M, Knox WB, Kulesza T 2014. Power to the people: the role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Mag. 35:4105–20
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.  Brooks R 1986. A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 2:14–23
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.  Erikson EH, Erikson JM 1998. The Life Cycle Completed New York: Norton & Co. Ext. Version Ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.  Simmel G 1902. The number of members as determining the sociological form of the group. I. Am. J. Sociol. 8:1–46
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.  Levine JM, Moreland RL 1990. Progress in small group research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41:585–634
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.  Angrist JD, Lavy V 1999. Using Maimonides’ rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Q. J. Econ. 114:533–75
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.  Park HW, Gelsomini M, Lee JJ, Breazeal C 2017. Telling stories to robots: the effect of backchanneling on a child's storytelling. 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction100–8 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.  Leite I, McCoy M, Lohani M, Salomons N, McElvaine K 2016. Autonomous disengagement classification and repair in multiparty child-robot interaction. 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication525–32 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.  Short E, Matarić MJ 2017. Robot moderation of a collaborative game: towards socially assistive robotics in group interactions. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication385–90 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.  Chandra S, Paradeda R, Yin H, Dillenbourg P, Prada R, Paiva A 2018. Do children perceive whether a robotic peer is learning or not. HRI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction4149 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.  Conn K, Liu C, Sarkar N, Stone W, Warren Z 2008. Affect-sensitive assistive intervention technologies for children with autism: an individual-specific approach. RO-MAN 2008: The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication442–47 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.  Kaptein F, Broekens J, Hindriks K, Neerincx M 2017. Personalised self-explanation by robots: the role of goals versus beliefs in robot-action explanation for children and adults. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication676–82 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.  Kidd CD, Breazeal C 2008. Robots at home: understanding long-term human-robot interaction. 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems3230–35 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.  Singer DG, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K 2006. Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children's Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.  Turkle S, Breazeal C, Dasté O, Scassellati B 2006. Encounters with Kismet and Cog: Children respond to relational artifacts. Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication P Messaris, L Humphreys31330 New York: Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.  Kahn PH Jr., Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier NG, Severson RL 2012. “Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now”: children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev. Psychol. 48:303–14
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.  Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A 2010. Can children have a relationship with a robot. Human-Robot Personal Relationships: Third International Conference, HRPR 20104956 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.  Bethel CL, Stevenson MR, Scassellati B 2011. Secret-sharing: interactions between a child, robot, and adult. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics2489–94 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.  Chan J, Nejat G 2011. A learning-based control architecture for an assistive robot providing social engagement during cognitively stimulating activities. 2011 International Conference on Robotics and Automation3928–33 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.  Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A 2012. Modelling empathic behaviour in a robotic game companion for children: an ethnographic study in real-world settings. 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction367–74 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.  Reardon C, Zhang H, Wright R, Parker LE 2015. Response prompting for intelligent robot instruction of students with intellectual disabilities. 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication784–90 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.  Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N 2012. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19:298–100
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.  Clabaugh C, Ragusa G, Sha F, Matarić M 2015. Designing a socially assistive robot for personalized number concepts learning in preschool children. 2015 Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics314–19 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.  Ramachandran A, Huang CM, Gartland E, Scassellati B, Scas B 2018. Thinking aloud with a tutoring robot to enhance learning. HRI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction59–68 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.  Ramachandran A, Huang CM, Scassellati B 2017. Give me a break! Personalized timing strategies to promote learning in robot-child tutoring. 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction146–55 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.  Ramachandran A, Litoiu A, Scassellati B 2016. Shaping productive help-seeking behavior during robot-child tutoring interactions. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction247–54 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.  Schodde T, Bergmann K, Kopp S 2017. Adaptive robot language tutoring based on Bayesian knowledge tracing and predictive decision-making. 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction128–36 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.  Guneysu A, Arnrich B 2017. Socially assistive child-robot interaction in physical exercise coaching. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication670–75 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.  Park HW, Coogle RA, Howard A 2014. Using a shared tablet workspace for interactive demonstrations during human-robot learning scenarios. 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation2713–19 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.  Lubold N, Walker E, Pon-Barry H 2016. Effects of voice-adaptation and social dialogue on perceptions of a robotic learning companion. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction255–62 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.  Gordon G, Spaulding S, Westlund JK, Lee JJ, Plummer L 2016. Affective personalization of a social robot tutor for children's second language skills. AAAI ’16: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence3951–57 Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.  Gordon G, Breazeal C 2015. Bayesian active learning-based robot tutor for children's word-reading skills. AAAI ’15: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence1343–49 Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.  Robert D, Wistorrt R, Gray J, Breazeal C 2011. Exploring mixed reality robot gaming. TEI ’11: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction125–28 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.  Corbett AT, Anderson JR 1994. Knowledge tracing: modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 4:253–78
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.  Sutton RS, Barto AG 1998. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.  McDuff D, Mahmoud A, Mavadati M, Amr M, Turcot J, el Kaliouby R 2016. AFFDEX SDK: a cross-platform real-time multi-face expression recognition toolkit. CHI EA ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems3723–26 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.  Leite I, Pereira A, Castellano G, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Paiva A 2011. Modelling empathy in social robotic companions. Advances in User Modeling: UMAP 2011 Workshops L Ardissono, T Kuflik13547 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.  Wiering MA 2005. QV(λ)-learning: a new on-policy reinforcement learning algorithm. Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Reinforcement Learning17–18 Naples, Italy: Univ. Naples Dep. Math. Stat.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.  Liu C, Conn K, Sarkar N, Stone W 2007. Affect recognition in robot assisted rehabilitation of children with autism spectrum disorder. 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation1755–60 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.  Dietterich TG 2000. Hierarchical reinforcement learning with the MAXQ value function decomposition. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 13:227–303
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.  Elfhag K, Rössner S 2005. Who succeeds in maintaining weight loss? A conceptual review of factors associated with weight loss maintenance and weight regain. Obes. Rev. 6:67–85
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.  Schifter DE, Ajzen I 1985. Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: an application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:843–51
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.  Scassellati B, Boccanfuso L, Huang CM, Mademtzi M, Qin M 2018. Improving social skills in children with ASD using a long-term, in-home social robot. Sci. Robot. 3:eaat7544
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.  Jones A, Castellano G 2018. Adaptive robotic tutors that support self-regulated learning: a longer-term investigation with primary school children. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3:357–70
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.  Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B 2010. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot 2:36175
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.  Tanaka F, Isshiki K, Takahashi F, Uekusa M, Sei R, Hayashi K 2015. Pepper learns together with children: development of an educational application. 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots270–75 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-104911
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-104911
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error