Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro, Sweden Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro, Sweden Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro, Sweden Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro, Sweden Robot ecology for an ageing society Contributors: G. Cortellessa, M. Scopelliti, L. Tiberio (ISTC); A. Saffiotti, F. Pecora, A. Loutfi, J. Rashid, M. Broxvall, L. Karlsson and the rest of the Mobile Robotic Lab at AASS

2 An ageing population A clear problem in the industrialized world Can robotics offer partly a solution? Would a traditional robot work in such an application? What is an acceptable solution for the user? How to test acceptability at an early stage?

3 Outline Single robot vs ecology of intelligent systems Expectations of end-users –Video-based evaluation (Sweden vs Italy) –On-going evaluations with a teleoperated robot Wizard of Oz method for evaluation

4 What do you think when you hear the word Robot?

5 What are Robots? Functional Fixed Program Suitable for specific tasks Limited Sensing Highly accurate and efficient

6 What are Robots? Multi-purpose Biologically Inspired? Adaptive Extensive Sensing Abilities. Communicative

7 Robots at home – most popular vision (and also the vision ??) Animation Markus Decker Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation, Stuttgart

8 Robots at home – problems with this vision Technological –understand the human –recognize objects –grasp –dexterous manipulation –position tracking –... Socio-economical –will you accept this thing? –how much would you pay? –how will it grow tomorrow? –one size fits all: does it? –...

9 Robots at home – an ecological vision

10 Robots at home – integration of olfaction

11 Robots at home – tiny devices

12 Key points in the scenarios Many specialized robotic devices –Moving tables, cameras, manipulators, appliances,... –Highly heterogeneous Devices communicate and cooperate –Common communication and cooperation model Complex abilities achieved through cooperation –Not by building a single “super-robot”

13 Research at AASS with PEIS

14 Research Contributions Hardware and software developments –Development of middleware for communication –Integration of new devices (Tiny OS, gas sensors etc.)‏ Information Fusion –Maintain coherent information about objects and persons. Learning and Artificial Intelligence –Automatic configuration of PEIS ecology to perform different tasks under different conditions. –Activity monitoring and forecasting, in order to adapt the robots’ activities to the humans’ activities

15 Important to have also distributed solutions beside single robot Allow for both variants? Technical challenges How to adapt rules for both cases? How to fix such a system in the short time allowed for the competition?

16 Robots at home – problems with this vision Technological –understand the human –recognize objects –grasp –dexterous manipulation –position tracking –... Socio-economical –will you accept this thing? –how much would you pay? –how will it grow tomorrow? –one size fits all: does it? –...

17 Intelligent homes & robotics have a large potential to assist the aging society. Many solutions are either seen from the view of the engineers and technicians or from psychologists and behavioural scientists. Absence of common techniques to test and validate our methods, particularly for robotics. Robots at home – problems with this vision

18 Our evaluation with elderly grounded on two implemented smart-home prototypes The ROBOCARE project Developing software and robotic technology for providing intelligent support to elderly people A testbed for an a-posteriori evaluation of smart home technology with Italian user groups Ecologies of PEIS An ecology of physically embedded intelligent systems (e.g., robots, actuators, sensors, SW agents) Shares numerous commonalities with ROBOCARE, gives us the opportunity to extend previous results in evaluation

19 Phase 1 – video sessions –Male vs. Female actors –Robot interface vs. None. –Interface on the actual robot. –8 different scenarios Results –A diverse group of healthy testpersons, – years old. –Crosscultural evaluation. Cooperation with – Pensionärsriksorganization (PRO), BSR ÖU, Teknik ÖU, Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology, Italian National Research Council. Phase 2 – Live Sessions: telepresence and Wizard of Oz methodology HRI – Human Robot Interaction

20 Preliminary studies: the expectations of end-users [Scopelliti et al., 2005] [Giuliani et al., 2005] People overestimate manipulative and underestimate cognitive abilities People prefer small robots, hardly resembling human beings Robots should intrude as little as possible in domestic life Robots should simply respond to the task to be performed

21 Video-based evaluation of developed prototypes Understanding the real perception of elderly people toward the assistive robot in a real domestic environment Identifying meaningful everyday situations for human- robot interaction at home Providing a general evaluation of the robotic mediator (physical aspect, capabilities and integration in the domestic environment) Understanding the preferences of elder users with respect to the presence of human features in the robot Preferences with respect to interaction modalities (Proactive vs. On Demand)

22 Video-based evaluation of developed prototypes

23 Eight scenarios On-demand scenarios Finding objects Activity planning Reminding medication Proactive scenarios Environmental safety Personal safety Health-related reminders Suggestions Reminding events

24 Two experimental conditions FACE condition: a robot showing a human speaking face on a notebook monitor NO-FACE condition: a robot with no reference to human features NO-ROBOT: just sensors and actuators without a robotic interface

25 Cross-cultural evaluation methodology Similar demographics Administration and evaluation methodology kept consistent Participants drawn from senior citizen associations and study groups

26 Demographics 40 Participants (Aged 56-88) 43 Participants (Aged 58-87)

27 Results: Scenarios

28 Results: Evaluation of the robot Positive aspects MeanStd. dev. Obstacle avoidance capability People feel safer Reduction of age-related impairments Ability to speak

29 Results: Emotional reaction to the robot

30 Results: Human-like features

31 Results: Family status (Italy)

32 Results: Family status (Sweden)

33 Results: Perceived health conditions (Italy)

34 Results: Gender

35 ICT in Italy and Sweden ItalySweden 2.8% of households of people aged over 65 has access to the Internet;45% of them own a mobile phone 73% of households in 2005 had access to the Internet; 51% of individuals aged age use the Internet at least once a week Different level of confidence in technology Swedes perceive system as more useful Italians are more afraid of programming and maintaining the robot Data taken from the “Supporting Policy Development for e-Inclusion” project —seethe the EU country reports section on

36 Policy in Italy and Sweden [Sundström and Johansson, 2005] ItalySweden 35% of elderly people lived with other family members and/or within communities in % of elderly people lived either alone or with their spouse in 2002 Swedes lead more independent lives in old age ==> the system threatens their ability to remember things on their own and worry that they will become dependent on the system South EU Nordic countries 67% of the elderly received care from family members within their own household in % of the elderly received care from family members within their own household in 1992

37 Human-like attributes Both groups, when answering “which version of the robot (FACE vs. NO-FACE) do you prefer?” answered “FACE” However –both groups indicated a preference for the NO-FACE version in the other questions –e.g., better integration in the home, less impersonal, less threat to pets, more reassuring during dialogue, less irritating when it takes decisions autonomously This is true across cultures The version with the robot is preferred to the version without the robot

38 Current and next step evaluation in a real environment Telepresence evaluated in real environments Wizard of Oz in our test apartment Test apartment in newly build senior home

39 Telepresence system A “simple to use” telepresence system that can be a reasonable first step to home robotics for elderly

40 Evaluation of telepresence On-going experiments with Giraffe a teleoperated robot A first (more acceptable) step towards home robotic Several acceptability trials: –Seniors homes, elderly homes Communication: –Relatives to elderly –Elderly to elderly –Care givers to elderly

41 Inspired from HCI, WoOz allows us to simulate a system (unknown to a user) and evaluate their response.

42 Wizard of Oz setup

43 Move from robots in controlled environments to robots in everyday scenarios. Address current challenges in robotics by enhancing the environment. Parrallel evaluations of user acceptance.

44 What the elderly/elderly care people would like (informal survey)? Assessment of dangerous situation –During the night –For elderly living isolated Technological help for documentation –Voice recognition –Events recognition Technological help for everyday tasks –Brush teeth –Eat –Take a shower –Walk

45 Thank you


Download ppt "Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro, Sweden Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google