Autonomous Systems and Biomechatronics Laboratory (ASBLab), Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Rd, Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada.
KITE, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada.
Sensors (Basel). 2022 Sep 21;22(19):7155. doi: 10.3390/s22197155.
Recently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related social distancing measures, in-person activities have been significantly reduced to limit the spread of the virus, especially in healthcare settings. This has led to loneliness and social isolation for our most vulnerable populations. Socially assistive robots can play a crucial role in minimizing these negative affects. Namely, socially assistive robots can provide assistance with activities of daily living, and through cognitive and physical stimulation. The ongoing pandemic has also accelerated the exploration of remote presence ranging from workplaces to home and healthcare environments. Human-robot interaction (HRI) researchers have also explored the use of remote HRI to provide cognitive assistance in healthcare settings. Existing in-person and remote comparison studies have investigated the feasibility of these types of HRI on individual scenarios and tasks. However, no consensus on the specific differences between in-person HRI and remote HRI has been determined. Furthermore, to date, the exact outcomes for in-person HRI versus remote HRI both with a physical socially assistive robot have not been extensively compared and their influence on physical embodiment in remote conditions has not been addressed. In this paper, we investigate and compare in-person HRI versus remote HRI for robots that assist people with activities of daily living and cognitive interventions. We present the first comprehensive investigation and meta-analysis of these two types of robotic presence to determine how they influence HRI outcomes and impact user tasks. In particular, we address research questions regarding experience, perceptions and attitudes, and the efficacy of both humanoid and non-humanoid socially assistive robots with different populations and interaction modes. The use of remote HRI to provide assistance with daily activities and interventions is a promising emerging field for healthcare applications.
最近，由于 COVID-19 大流行和相关的社交距离措施，面对面的活动大大减少，以限制病毒的传播，特别是在医疗保健环境中。这导致我们最脆弱的人群感到孤独和社会隔离。社交辅助机器人可以在最大限度地减少这些负面影响方面发挥关键作用。也就是说，社交辅助机器人可以提供日常生活活动的帮助，并通过认知和身体刺激。正在进行的大流行也加速了远程存在的探索，从工作场所到家庭和医疗保健环境。人机交互（HRI）研究人员也探索了使用远程 HRI 在医疗保健环境中提供认知辅助的方法。现有的人机交互和远程比较研究已经调查了这些类型的人机交互在个别场景和任务中的可行性。然而，对于面对面的人机交互和远程人机交互之间的具体差异，尚未达成共识。此外，迄今为止，面对面的人机交互与使用物理社交辅助机器人的远程人机交互的具体结果尚未得到广泛比较，并且尚未解决它们对远程条件下身体体现的影响。在本文中，我们研究和比较了辅助人们进行日常生活活动和认知干预的机器人的面对面人机交互和远程人机交互。我们首次全面调查和分析了这两种机器人存在方式，以确定它们如何影响人机交互的结果并影响用户的任务。特别是，我们解决了有关经验、感知和态度以及不同人群和交互模式的类人机器人和非类人机器人的功效的研究问题。使用远程 HRI 提供日常活动和干预的辅助是医疗保健应用中一个很有前途的新兴领域。
