Meet Cambridge researchers studying how robots could help promote well-being in humans

[ad_1]

What is it about with robots? Whether it’s the fascination with new technology, seeing science fiction become scientific fact, or exploring what they might teach us about ourselves, robots and robotics seem to have an endless capacity to ignite our imaginations.

For Dr. Micol Spitale, Nida Itrat Abbasi and Minja Axelsson, researchers at the Affective Intelligence and Robotics Laboratory in Cambridge, directed by Professor Hatice Gunes, it is the potential they have to promote well-being in humans.

A recent study conducted by Dr. Spitale, and co-author of PhD student Minja, has shown that robots could be useful as mental well-being coaches in the workplace, although perceptions of their effectiveness depend on how they look. And separate research by PhD student Nida, and co-author of Dr Spitale, has suggested that robots are potentially a promising tool in assessing mental well-being problems in children, compared to parent-reported or self-reported tests.

It is this fascinating faculty that robots seem to have for eliciting empathy in humans that drives the work of the team of roboticists. “Robots can function as virtual agents,” says Dr. hospital. “And for us, it’s about collaborating with psychologists and wellness coaches to try to understand how we design these kinds of interactions to get the most out of technology.”

Research at the lab – in the University’s Department of Computer Science and Technology – suggests that children who may have well-being concerns may view robots administering mental health tests as friends or confidants, particularly if the robot is a child-sized and opened in a way that may not be possible with traditional methods.

“When children use screen-based tools, they often withdraw from the physical world,” says Nida. “But a robot is like a computer in physical form, and that’s one of the reasons they find it so engaging. Babies are also very sensitive to touch and can touch robots and, in the case of ‘Nao’, the robot who helped them rate them, even punch them!

Dr. Spitale – who began her postgraduate career in space engineering – has moved into robotics, specifically the use of robots to support people with special needs, after seeing firsthand the connection they can make. Before starting her PhD, she visited a robotic therapy research lab for children with autism, where nonverbal children used an “expressive robot,” changing their eyes and mouths to communicate the emotions they were feeling.

“The specific moment that changed everything for me was seeing how, after one of the kids knocked over the robot, the other kids picked him up and made a sad face at him. I was like ‘Oh my God!’ This type of tool can be used for children who don’t speak to express themselves. I fell in love with that idea; I could see the future, the impact it could have to help people.”

Nida, who also has a background in engineering, began her work helping vulnerable groups through her research when she was selected for a grant to study how cognitive training could support Alzheimer’s patients.

“That’s when I got interested in the idea of ​​doing something to help people with technology. And so, when I arrived in Cambridge for my PhD, I was fascinated by this project looking at the ability of robots to help with child well-being, especially the interdisciplinary aspect of it, and working with colleagues from the Department of Psychology”.

But if children can have an almost instinctive connection with robots, Dr. Spitale showed that for adults, what a robot “wellness coach” looks like could influence how they interact with it.

Participants in his study who did their wellness exercises with a toy-like robot said they felt more of a connection to it than participants who worked with a humanoid-like robot, despite both robots being programmed with the same personality.

One reason may be a discrepancy between people’s idea of ​​what a humanoid-looking robot should be able to do (based on popular culture, the media, and their experience using virtual assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant) and the reality of the technology used in the research laboratories, which does not live up to their expectations.

“People’s perception of robots can depend on their age, their culture, their background,” says Dr. hospital. “And of course, it is very important to take these factors into account when trying to understand how the interaction between humans and robots could be successful. With some of the adults in the study, we had to explain that the robot they were working with was actually “state of the art” in our field!”

Minja — who first became interested in robotics during her master’s degree, when she spent time at a consulting firm exploring potential applications for an open-source social robot, including assisting autistic children — says the development of robots meeting people’s expectations has been what the designers refer to as an ‘evil problem’.

“People often envision robots as somewhere between computers and humans, and expect them to incorporate elements of both into the way they behave,” he says.

“They might expect a robot to be able to understand their body language, whereas they wouldn’t expect a computer to. At the same time, they might expect a robot to interact differently than a person, such as responding more slowly than a person would. So you’re trying to design something that fits perfectly with all of that and can be very cool!

But their potential to support wellbeing exists, Minja says, and that’s in part due to the ability of robots to spark deep thought in humans through the conversations they can facilitate.

“People who took part in these studies said that just talking out loud helps a lot. And I think there’s something to be said about the sense of presence a robot has. You are engaged in social interaction, it might be with an object, but it still creates a different situation than what an app can do on a screen.

“One of the things I find most fascinating, in terms of social interactions with robots, is how we suspend our disbelief. Even though we know it is a tool, we are still able to enter into social interaction in a way that can benefit us.

Dr. Spitale says parallel advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence will benefit the study of human-robot interaction, which began to develop as a field about 30 years ago.

“There’s a resonance right now and an appetite – in the media in particular – for these other spheres of computing. For us, it paves the way for smarter robots that can interact on a different level, and in the future, there may be opportunities for people to interact on a regular basis with effective, autonomous wellness coaches in various spaces, for example in schools and places of Work. There may be an area where employees can work with robots whenever they need to, creating a visual reminder to complete a positive psychology exercise or just take a break.”

Nida added: “In schools and other childcare settings robots could be used as a tool to relieve strain on existing resources, supporting the vital work of psychologists and clinicians, but importantly not replacing them or the their experience. We hope this technology can become available to anyone who can benefit from it.”

One of the unexpected results of Nida’s recent research with children was the spontaneous creation of a physical bulletin board by young participants who wanted to continue their interaction with Nao after the assessment session concluded.

“One of the kids asked if they could write a message for Nao, and they used a sharpie on a blackboard to say how they were feeling,” she says. “Then it became a thing – and all the kids were using the blackboard to say ‘thank you’ and leave Nao with their thoughts, and eventually the blackboard was full.

“There is already research showing that children may regard robots as social companions and equals, so I am so happy that these children have had the chance to interact with Nao. When I was a kid, we didn’t have opportunities like this – interacting with a robot – but I would have loved it. We had Meccano and Lego sets that my brother and I loved to do things with. My father was an engineer and I remember one of us making a robot figure with him using a kit and a can of Pepsi. He still has pride of place and I guess that was probably the beginning of all of that for me!

The text of this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

[ad_2]