Advertisement

Social Robotics and Human Computer Interaction for Promoting Wellbeing in the Contemporary City

  • Nimish BiloriaEmail author
  • Dimitra Dritsa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10902)

Abstract

Within today’s environment of relentless urban growth, socio-technical approaches towards enhancing wellbeing within the urban have started gathering momentum. Situated in this context, the research paper presents an approach to actively instigate physiological and psychological behavioral change within people for promoting wellbeing via context aware augmentation of physical environments. This involves harnessing a trans-disciplinary approach wherein, the domains of data sciences, HCI, embedded robotics, computational simulation and user-centric interaction design merge in order to promote real-time responsive augmentation (physical, ambient, social and structural) of the built environment. The paper elaborates upon two projects: RoboZoo and FLUID, both built and tested in The Netherlands, representing two different scales; Small scale: object/product scale, which operate within urban open public space and Large scale: indoor public installation.

Keywords

Social robotics Interaction design Health and wellbeing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would specially like to thank the research and design team members involved in the RoboZoo and FLUID projects: Javid Jooshesh, Veronika, Laszlo, Ricardo Galli, Chrysostomos Tsaprailis, Leslie Che, Jiarui Sun, Yağız Söylev, Tanya Somova, Nick van Dorp, Hua Fan, Y. Lyu, Danny Cheng, R. Chheda. Additionally we would like to thank the European Union Culture Grant as well as NEMO for providing us with the opportunity and for funding the two social robotics and HCI based projects.

References

  1. 1.
    Solanas, A., Patsakis, C., Conti, M., Vlachos, I., Ramos, V., Falcone, F., Postolache, O., Pérez-Martínez, P., Di Pietro, R., Perrea, D., Martínez-Ballesté, A.: Smart health: a context-aware health paradigm within smart cities. IEEE Commun. Mag. 52(8), 74–81 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2014.6871673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Fleuret, S., Atkinson, S.: Wellbeing, health and geography: a critical review and research agenda. NZ Geogr. 63(2), 106–118 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7939.2007.00093.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., Sanders, L.: The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int. J. Wellbeing 2(3), 222–235 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cronin de Chavez, A., Backett-Milburn, K., Parry, O., Platt, S.: Understanding and researching wellbeing: its usage in different disciplines and potential for health research and health promotion. Health Educ. J. 64(1), 70–87 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1177/001789690506400108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan, R.M., Bush, J.W., Berry, C.: Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv. Res. 11(4), 478–507 (1976)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grossi, E., Groth, N., Mosconi, P., Cerutti, R., Pace, F., Compare, A., Apolone, G.: Development and validation of the short version of the psychological general well-being index (PGWB-S). Health Qual. Life Outcomes 4(1), 88 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-7182.1000412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winther Topp, C., Østergaard, S.D., Søndergaard, S.: The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother. Psychosom. 84(3), 167–176 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haque, U.: Distinguishing concepts: lexicons of interactive art and architecture. Archit. Des. 75(1), 24–31 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leite, I., Martinho, C., Paiva, A.: Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(2), 291–308 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feil-Seifer, D., Mataric, M.J.: Defining socially assistive robotics. In: 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR 2005), pp. 465–468 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/icorr.2005.1501143
  12. 12.
    García-Vergara, S., Brown, L., Park, H.W., Howard, A.M.: Engaging children in play therapy: the coupling of virtual reality games with social robotics. In: Brooks, A.L., Brahnam, S., Jain, L.C. (eds.) Technologies of Inclusive Well-Being. SCI, vol. 536, pp. 139–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45432-5_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wada, K., Shibata, T.: Living with seal robots-its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Trans. Rob. 23(5), 972–980 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.906261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kidd, C.D., Taggart W., Turkle, S.: A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3972–3976. IEEE, Orlando (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooney, M.D., Nishio, S., Ishiguro, H.: Designing robots for well-being: theoretical background and visual scenes of affectionate play with a small humanoid robot. Lovotics 1, 1–9 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-9888.1000101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer, P.T., Hornecker, E.: Urban HCI-interaction patterns in the built environment. In: Proceedings of the 25th BCS Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 531–534. Newcastle-upon-Tyne (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuikkaniemi, K., Jacucci, G., Turpeinen, M., Hoggan, E., Müller, J.: From space to stage: how interactive screens will change urban life. Computer 44(6), 40–47 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2011.135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kostakos, V., O’Neill, E., Penn, A.: Designing urban pervasive systems. Computer 39(9), 52–59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T.: On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114(4), 864–886 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K.: A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3–4), 143–166 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-XCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, Y., Nejat, G.: Multirobot cooperative learning for semiautonomous control in urban search and rescue applications. J. Field Robot. 33(4), 512–536 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Song, P., Kumar, V.: A potential field based approach to multi-robot manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1217–1222. IEEE, Washington, DC (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1109/robot.2002.1014709
  23. 23.
    Alac, M., Movellan, J., Tanaka, F.: When a robot is social: spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41(6), 893–926 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711420565CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations