Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Social Robots in Therapy and Care

  • Service and Interactive Robotics (A Tapus, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Robotics Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This work presents a comprehensive overview of social robots in therapy and the healthcare of children, adults, and elderly populations. According to recent evidence in this field, the primary outcomes and limitations are highlighted. This review points out the implications and requirements for the proper deployment of social robots in therapy and healthcare scenarios.

Recent Findings

Social robots are a current trend that is being studied in different healthcare services. Evidence highlights the potential and favorable results due to the support and assistance provided by social robots. However, some side effects and limitations are still under research.

Summary

Social robots can play various roles in the area of health and well-being. However, further studies regarding the acceptability and perception are still required. There are challenges to be addressed, such as improvements in the functionality and robustness of these robotic systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Duffy BR, Rooney CFB, Hare GMPO, Donoghue RPSO. What is a social robot ? Computer (Long Beach Calif). 1999:1–3.

  2. Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ Socially assistive robotics. In: 9th Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. 2005. ICORR 2005. IEEE, pp 465–468.

  3. Casas J, Cespedes N, Múnera M, Cifuentes CA. Human-robot interaction for rehabilitation scenarios. In: Control Syst. Bio-Robotics Bio-mechatronics with Adv. Appl. Elsevier: Des; 2020. p. 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tapus A, Maja M, Scassellatti B. The grand challenges in socially assistive robotics. 2013.

  5. Dawe J, Sutherland C, Barco A, Broadbent E. Can social robots help children in healthcare contexts? A scoping review. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019;3:e000371. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Riek LD. Healthcare robotics. Commun ACM. 2017;60:68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ramírez-Duque AA, Aycardi LF, Villa A, Munera M, Bastos T, Belpaeme T, et al. Collaborative and inclusive process with the autism community: a case study in Colombia about social robot design. Int J Soc Robot. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00627-y.

  8. Casas JA, Céspedes N, Cifuentes CA, Gutierrez LF, Rincón-Roncancio M, Múnera M. Expectation vs. reality: attitudes towards a socially assistive robot in cardiac rehabilitation. Appl Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214651.

  9. Fortunati L, Esposito A, Sarrica M, Ferrin G. Children’s knowledge and imaginary about robots. Int J Soc Robot. 2015;7:685–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krägeloh CU, Bharatharaj J, Sasthan Kutty SK, Nirmala PR, Huang L. Questionnaires to measure acceptability of social robots: a critical review. Robotics. 2019;8:88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vandemeulebroucke T, de Casterlé BD, Gastmans C. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment Health. 2018;22:149–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kory-Westlund JM, Breazeal C. Assessing children’s perceptions and acceptance of a social robot. Proc 18th ACM Int Conf Interact Des Child IDC 2019 38–50. 2019.

  13. Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R, Peca A, Pintea S, David D, et al. A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with ASD: ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pino M, Boulay M, Jouen F, Rigaud AS. “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bartneck C, Belpaeme T, Eyssel F, Kanda T, Keijsers M, Šabanović S. Human-robot interaction. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108676649.

  16. Ienca M, Jotterand F, Vică C, Elger B. Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: ethical recommendations for research and practice. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8:565–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Martí Carrillo F, Butchart J, Knight S, Scheinberg A, Wise L, Sterling L, et al. In-situ design and development of a socially assistive robot for paediatric rehabilitation. ACM/IEEE Int Conf Hum Robot Interact. 2017:199–200.

  18. Rabbitt SM, Kazdin AE, Hong JH. Acceptability of robot-assisted therapy for disruptive behavior problems in children. Arch Sci Psychol. 2015;3:101–10.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Looije R, Neerincx MA, Peters JK, Henkemans OAB. Integrating robot support functions into varied activities at returning hospital visits: supporting child’s self-management of diabetes. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8:483–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Henkemans OAB, Bierman BPB, Janssen J, Looije R, Neerincx MA, van Dooren MMM, et al. Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2017;106:63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tung FW. Child perception of humanoid robot appearance and behavior. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2016;32:493–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Alemi M, Ghanbarzadeh A, Meghdari A, Moghadam LJ. Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8:743–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ramírez-Duque AA, Bastos T, Munera M, Cifuentes CA, Frizera-Neto A. Robot-assisted intervention for children with special needs: a comparative assessment for autism screening. Robot Auton Syst. 2020;127:103484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Srinivasan SM, Kaur M, Park IK, Gifford TD, Marsh KL, Bhat AN. The effects of rhythm and robotic interventions on the imitation/praxis, interpersonal synchrony, and motor performance of children with autism pectrum disorder (ASD): a pilot randomized controlled trial. Autism Res Treat. 2015;2015:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Peca A, Simut R, Pintea S, Vanderborght B. Are children with ASD more prone to test the intentions of the Robonova robot compared to a human? Int J Soc Robot. 2015;7:629–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wood LJ, Robins B, Lakatos G, Syrdal DS, Zaraki A, Dautenhahn K. Developing a protocol and experimental setup for using a humanoid robot to assist children with autism to develop visual perspective taking skills. Paladyn. 2019;10:167–79.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zorcec T, Robins B, Dautenhahn K. Getting engaged: assisted play with a humanoid robot Kaspar for children with severe autism. 2018. pp 198–207.

  28. Yun SS, Choi JS, Park SK, Bong GY, Yoo HJ. Social skills training for children with autism spectrum disorder using a robotic behavioral intervention system. Autism Res. 2017;10:1306–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. So WC, Wong MKY, Lam CKY, Lam WY, Chui ATF, Lee TL, et al. Using a social robot to teach gestural recognition and production in children with autism spectrum disorders. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:527–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. David DO, Costescu CA, Matu S, Szentagotai A, Dobrean A. Developing joint attention for children with autism in robot-enhanced therapy. Int J Soc Robot. 2018;10:595–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zheng Z, Zhao H, Swanson AR, Weitlauf AS, Warren ZE, Sarkar N. Design, development, and evaluation of a noninvasive autonomous robot-mediated joint attention intervention system for young children with ASD. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst. 2018;48:125–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chevalier P, Martin JC, Isableu B, Bazile C, Tapus A. Impact of sensory preferences of individuals with autism on the recognition of emotions expressed by two robots, an avatar, and a human. Auton Robot. 2017;41:613–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. So WC, Wong MKY, Lam WY, et al. Robot-based intervention may reduce delay in the production of intransitive gestures in Chinese-speaking preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Mol Autism. 2018;9:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kumazaki H, Yoshikawa Y, Yoshimura Y, et al. The impact of robotic intervention on joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorders. Mol Autism. 2018;9:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nakadoi Y. Usefulness of animal type robot assisted therapy for autism spectrum disorder in the child and adolescent psychiatric ward. In: Otake M, Kurahashi S, Ota Y, Satoh K, Bekki D, editors. New front. Cham: Artif. Intell. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 478–82.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jeong S, Logan DE, Goodwin MS, et al. A social robot to mitigate stress, anxiety, and pain in hospital pediatric care. ACM/IEEE Int Conf Human-Robot Interact 02–05-Marc; 2015; 103–104.

  37. Jeong S, Breazeal C, Logan D, Weinstock P. Huggable: impact of embodiment on promoting verbal and physical engagement for young pediatric inpatients. RO-MAN 2017 - 26th IEEE Int Symp Robot Hum Interact Commun 2017-Janua:121–126. 2017.

  38. Logan DE, Breazeal C, Goodwin MS, Jeong S, O’Connell B, Smith-Freedman D, et al. Social robots for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2019;144:e20181511. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jibb LA, Birnie KA, Nathan PC, Beran TN, Hum V, Victor JC, et al. Using the MEDiPORT humanoid robot to reduce procedural pain and distress in children with cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65:e27242. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.27242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rossi S, Larafa M, Ruocco M. Emotional and behavioural distraction by a social robot for children anxiety reduction during vaccination. Int J Soc Robot. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00616-w.

  41. Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Vanderkooi OG, Kuhn S. Humanoid robotics in health care: an exploration of children’s and parents’ emotional reactions. J Health Psychol. 2015;20:984–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Martinez-martin E, Pobil AP Personal robot assistants for elderly care: an overview. 77–91.

  43. Klein B, Gaedt L, Cook G. Emotional robots. GeroPsych J Gerontopsychol Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;26:89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Moyle W, Bramble M, Jones C, Murfield J. Care staff perceptions of a social robot called Paro and a look-alike plush toy: a descriptive qualitative approach. Aging Ment Health. 2018;22:330–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, de Witte L. Effectiveness of robot Paro in intramural psychogeriatric care: a multicenter quasi-experimental study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16:946–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shen Z, Wu Y. Investigation of practical use of humanoid robots in elderly care centres. HAI 2016 - Proc 4th Int Conf Hum Agent Interact 63–66. 2016.

  47. Cespedes N, Munera M, Gomez C, Cifuentes CA. Social human-robot interaction for gait rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020;28:–1307. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2020.2987428.

  48. Coşar S, Fernandez-Carmona M, Agrigoroaie R, Pages J, Ferland F, Zhao F, et al. ENRICHME: perception and interaction of an assistive robot for the elderly at home. Int J Soc Robot. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00614-y.

  49. Abdollahi H, Mollahosseini A, Lane JT, Mahoor MH. A pilot study on using an intelligent life-like robot as a companion for elderly individuals with dementia and depression. IEEE-RAS Int Conf Humanoid Robot. 2017:541–6.

  50. Bechade L, Guillaume D, Pittaro G, Garcia M, Devillers L. Advanced social interaction with agents. Adv Soc Interact with Agents. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92108-2.

  51. Damholdt MF, Nørskov M, Yamazaki R, Hakli R, Hansen CV, Vestergaard C, et al. Attitudinal change in elderly citizens toward social robots: the role of personality traits and beliefs about robot functionality. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Valentí Soler M, Agüera-Ortiz L, Olazarán Rodríguez J, Mendoza Rebolledo C, Pérez Muñoz A, Rodríguez Pérez I, et al. Social robots in advanced dementia. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00133.

  53. Fischinger D, Einramhof P, Papoutsakis K, Wohlkinger W, Mayer P, Panek P, et al. Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: first prototype and lessons learned. Robot Auton Syst. 2016;75:60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bajones M, Fischinger D, Weiss A, Wolf D, Vincze M, de la Puente P, et al. Hobbit: providing fall detection and prevention for the elderly in the real world. J Robot. 2018;2018:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1754657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Do HM, Pham M, Sheng W, Yang D, Liu M. RiSH: a robot-integrated smart home for elderly care. Robot Auton Syst. 2018;101:74–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cavallo F, Limosani R, Manzi A, Bonaccorsi M, Esposito R, Di Rocco M, et al. Development of a socially believable multi-robot solution from town to home. Cogn Comput. 2014;6:954–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hendrich N, Bistry H, Zhang J. Architecture and software design for a service robot in an elderly-care scenario. Engineering. 2015;1:027–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Portugal D, Alvito P, Christodoulou E, Samaras G, Dias J. A study on the deployment of a service robot in an elderly care center. Int J Soc Robot. 2019;11:317–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Peleka G, Kargakos A, Skartados E, et al. RAMCIP - a service robot for MCI patients at home. 2019; 1–9.

  60. Korchut A, Szklener S, Abdelnour C, Tantinya N, Hernández-Farigola J, Ribes JC, et al. Challenges for service robots-requirements of elderly adults with cognitive impairments. Front Neurol. 2017;8:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Anzalone SM, Xavier J, Boucenna S, Billeci L, Narzisi A, Muratori F, et al. Quantifying patterns of joint attention during human-robot interactions: an application for autism spectrum disorder assessment. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2019;118:42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Moerman CJ, van der Heide L, Heerink M. Social robots to support children’s well-being under medical treatment: a systematic state-of-the-art review. J Child Health Care. 2019;23:596–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bartneck C, Belpaeme T, Eyssel F, Kanda T, Keijsers M, Sabanovic S. Human robot interaction. Hum Robot Interact Introd. 2019;9781108735:6–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors report grants from Minciencias Colombia (Grant 813-2017) and from the Royal Academy of Engineering UK (Grant IAPP1\100126).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colombian School of Engineering Julio Garavito, Bogotá, Colombia

    Carlos A. Cifuentes, Maria J. Pinto, Nathalia Céspedes & Marcela Múnera

Authors
  1. Carlos A. Cifuentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria J. Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathalia Céspedes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcela Múnera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos A. Cifuentes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Service and Interactive Robotics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cifuentes, C.A., Pinto, M.J., Céspedes, N. et al. Social Robots in Therapy and Care. Curr Robot Rep 1, 59–74 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00009-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00009-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation