Introduction Of Social Robots Research Articles

The Social Robot and the Digital Physiotherapist: Are We Ready for the Team Play?

Motivation: We are witnessing two phenomena. The first is that the physiotherapist is increasingly becoming a figure that must interact with Digital Health. On the other hand, social robots through research are improving more and more in the aspects of social interaction thanks also to artificial intelligence and becoming useful in rehabilitation processes. It begins to become strategic to investigate the intersections between these two phenomena. Objective: Therefore, we set ourselves the goal of investigating the consensus and opinion of physiotherapists around the introduction of social robots in clinical practice both in rehabilitation and assistance. Procedure: An electronic survey has been developed focused on social robot-based rehabilitation and assistance and has been submitted to subjects focused on physiotherapy sciences to investigate their opinion and their level of consent regarding the use of the social robot in rehabilitation and assistance. Two samples of subjects were recruited: the first group (156 participating subjects, 79 males, 77 females, mean age 24.3 years) was in the training phase, and the second (167 participating subjects, 86 males, 81 females, mean age 42.4 years) group was involved in the work processes. An electronic feedback form was also submitted to investigate the acceptance of the proposed methodology. Results: The survey showed a consistency of the results between the two samples from which interesting considerations emerge. Contrary to stereotypes that report how AI-based devices put jobs at risk, physiotherapists are not afraid of these devices. The subjects involved in the study believe the following: (a) social robots can be reliable co-workers but will remain a complementary device; (b) their role will be of the utmost importance as an operational manager in their use and in performance monitoring; (c) these devices will allow an increase in working capacity and facilitate integration. All those involved in the study believe that the proposed electronic survey has proved to be a useful and effective tool that can be useful as a periodic monitoring tool and useful for scientific societies. Conclusions: The evolution of social robots represents an unstoppable process as does the increase in the aging of the population. Stakeholders must not look with suspicion toward these devices, which can represent an important resource, but rather invest in monitoring and consensus training initiatives.

Are pre‐service teachers disinclined to utilise embodied humanoid social robots in the classroom?

AbstractTeachers' readiness for technology integration depends also on their beliefs about the contribution of technology to teaching and learning, which influence their motivation for its adoption. Initial pre‐service teacher education is critical in reducing the attitude‐behaviour divide supporting technology acceptability, acceptance and use. Acceptance of interaction between human and robot is more complicated than human‐computer interaction acceptance. Social robots are radical innovations, harder for potential users to accept in human social spaces than are incremental innovations. In 2019, a survey using a convenience sample of 121 first‐year students was conducted to examine pre‐service teachers' beliefs about social robot educational technology. It examined the following factors derived from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology adopted for social robots in education: Perceived social dimension, Intention to use, Perceived usability, Anxiety. Based on our findings, it seems there is a critical disjunction between researchers' efforts to equip social robots with human manners and social intelligence and participants' rejection of this technology precisely because it mimics being human. Further, we report that ICT familiarity as assessed using PISA's Information Communication Technology—ICT familiarity factors is related to robot acceptability. These findings need further examination to inform educational robotics design and Human‐Robot Interaction research and teacher education and training. Practitioners notesWhat is already known about this topic In the age of robotic technology, teachers face requirements to prepare students for work and life with social robots. Social robots are tested for classroom integration. Teachers' readiness to implement robot lessons depends on their beliefs about social robotic technology's contribution to teaching. Research and development in the field of social robotics still tend to focus more frequently on technology applications rather than pedagogical issues and advancing teaching and learning. What this paper adds Participants refuse to accept the idea of social robot‐based instruction. The identified belief pattern is based mainly on the perceived social dimension, intention to use, perceived usability and anxiety. Participants critically perceive the robot's social dimension. Some of PISA's ICT familiarity factors are related to robots acceptability factors. Implication for policy and/or practice The policy and practice need to address how social robots could be integrated into current teaching and learning practices and more importantly how could robotic technology facilitate innovative pedagogical models for effective and efficient learning. The introduction of social robots should follow instructional design requirements and not merely technological advancement. Teacher initial education has to provide social robotic learning environments for pre‐service teachers to experiment and design.

Social robots: The influence of human and robot characteristics on acceptance

Abstract Research in social robotics is focused on the development of robots that can provide physical and cognitive support in a socially interactive way. Whilst some studies have previously investigated the importance of user characteristics (age, gender, education, robot familiarity, mood) in the acceptance of social robots as well as the influence a robot’s displayed emotion (positive, negative, neutral) has on the interaction, these two aspects are rarely combined. Therefore, this study attempts to highlight the need to consider the influence that both human and robot attributes can have on social robot acceptance. Eighty-six participants completed implicit and explicit measures of mood before viewing one of three video clips containing a positive, negative or neutral social robot (Pepper) followed by questionnaires on robot acceptance and perception. Gender and education were not associated with acceptance; however, several constructs of the acceptance questionnaire significantly correlated with age and mood. For example, those younger and those experiencing sadness or loneliness were more dependent on the opinions of others (as measured by the social influence construct of the acceptance questionnaire). This highlights the importance of mood in the introduction of social robots into vulnerable populations. Robot familiarity also correlated with robot acceptance with those more familiar finding the robot less useful and less enjoyable, this is important as robots become more prominent in society. Displayed robot emotion significantly influenced acceptance and perception with the positive robot appearing more childlike than the negative and neutral robot, and the neutral robot the least helpful. These findings emphasise the importance of both user and robot characteristics in the successful integration of social robots.