Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Ö rebro, Sweden

1. Robot ecology for an ageing society Silvia Coradeschi AASS Mobile Robotics Laboratory University of Örebro, Sweden www.aass.oru.se 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. Robots at home – most popular vision (and also the robocup@home vision ??) Animation Markus Decker Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation, Stuttgart

6. 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? • ... • ...

7. Robots at home – an ecological vision

8. Robots at home – integration of olfaction

9. Robots at home – tiny devices

10. 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”

11. Research at AASS with PEIS http://aass.oru.se/~peis

12. 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 http://aass.oru.se/~peis

13. RoboCup@home • 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?

14. 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? • ... • ...

15. Robots at home – problems with this vision • 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.

16. 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 http://robocare.istc.cnr.it 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 http://aass.oru.se/~peis Our evaluation with elderly grounded on two implemented smart-home prototypes

17. HRI – Human Robot Interaction • 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, • 56-88 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

18. 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)

19. Video-based evaluation of developed prototypes

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

21. 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

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

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

24. Results: Scenarios

25. Results: Evaluation of the robot

26. Results: Emotional reaction to the robot

27. Results: Human-like features

28. Results: Family status (Italy)

29. Results: Family status (Sweden)

30. Results: Perceived health conditions (Italy)

31. Results: Gender

32. ICT in Italy and Sweden Data taken from the “Supporting Policy Development for e-Inclusion” project —seethe the EU country reports section on http://www.ipolicy.eu/ Different level of confidence in technology • Swedes perceive system as more useful • Italians are more afraid of programming and maintaining the robot

33. Policy in Italy and Sweden [Sundström and Johansson, 2005] • 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

34. 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

35. 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

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

37. 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

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

39. Wizard of Oz setup

40. 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

41. Thank you