Attitudes towards robots and robotic prosthetics: The problems of the present and the design of the future
Анотація
The modern world is constantly changing, and the latest trends of Western psychologists are the development of such direction as robotic psychology which focuses on the study of humans and robotic creatures’ compatibility. Over the past decade, researchers have investigated various aspects of this interaction: from the general level of perception to the specific emotional and tactical levels. In Ukraine, robotic psychology only starts its formation and the main goal of our study was to gather information about the attitudes of Ukrainian youth to robots and people with robotic prosthetics or sensory amplifiers. This article is especially relevant because during the years of the military conflict in the East of Ukraine, the number of people with the trauma of the limbs and various sensory organs that needed robotic prosthetics or amplifiers is increased. In May-June 2018 a mass survey of Ukrainian schoolchildren was conducted by the Laboratory of Psychology of Mass Communication and Media Education, Institute for Social and Political Psychology of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine in all regions of Ukraine. There were 1439 students of the 8th and 10th forms of general education schools who took part in the research. According to the results of the study we have identified three main roles for robots in which Ukrainian youth is ready to treat them well: as a home helper, as a friend, and as an extra brain (improving intelligence and memory). But we found that less than half of the sample was prepared to treat well the person whose limbs were replaced by computer prosthetics. The most tolerant to treat people with robotic prosthetics are respondents in the North of Ukraine; the lowest level of tolerance showed respondents from the Eastern regions. These results show the need in the wide introduction of various information companies and educational programs to increase the tolerance of youth to people with robotic prosthetics
Використані джерела
[1] Breazeal, C. (2002). Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge: MIT Press. (in English)
[2] Cheetham, M., Suter, P., & Jдncke, L. (2011). The human likeness dimension of the “uncanny valley hypothesis”: behavioral and functional MRI findings. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 5, pp. 157–171. (in English)
[3] Cohen, I., Garg, A., & Huang, T. S. (2000). Emotion Recognition from Facial Expressions using Multilevel HMM. Neural information processing systems, Vol. 2. (in English)
[4] Craig, R., Vaidyanathan, R., James, C., Melhuish, C. (2010). Assessment of human response to robot facial expressions through visual evoked potentials. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), pp. 647–652. (in English)
[5] Dautenhahn, K. (2004). Robots we like to live with?! – a developmental perspective on a personalized, life-long robot companion. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 17–22. (in English)
[6] Hahl, J., Taya, M., & Saito, M. (2000). Optimization of mass-produced transtibial prosthesis made of pultruded fiber reinforced plastic. Materials Science and Engineering, A, 285(1–2), pp. 91–98. (in English)
[7] Klute, G. K., Kallfelz, C. F., & Czerniecki, J. M. (2001). Mechanical properties of prosthetic limbs: adapting to the patient. Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 38(3), pp. 299–300. (in English)
[8] Libin, E., & Libin, A. (2002). Robotherapy: Definition, assessment, and case study. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, pp. 906–915. (in English)
[9] Libin, A., & Libin, E. (2004). Robotic Psychology. In Spielberger, Ch. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 295–298. (in English)
[10] Lьtkebohle, I., Hegel, F., Schulz, S., Hackel, M., Wrede, B., Wachsmuth, S., & Sagerer, G. (2010). The Bielefeld anthropomorphic robot head “Flobi”. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3384–3391. (in English)
[11] MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297–337. (in English)
[12] Michel, P., & El Kaliouby, R. (2003). Real time facial expression recognition in video using support vector machines. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, pp. 258–264. (in English)
[13] Mori, M. (1970). The Uncanny Valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35. (in English) Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2004). Psychology in human-robot communication: An attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 35–40. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2kShlPP. (in English)
[14] Orefice, P.-H. (2018). Tactile Modality during Socio-Emotional Interactions: from Humans to Robots. University of Paris-Saclay. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2mmj6oX. (in English)
[15] Park, J. S., Kim, J. H., & Oh, Y. H. (2009). Feature vector classification based speech emotion recognition for service robots. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 55(3), pp. 1590–1596. (in English)
[16] Sansoni, S., Buis, A., & Wodehouse, A. (2014). Psychological distress and well-being in prosthetic users: the role of realism in below-knee prostheses. In 9th International Conference on Design and Emotion, pp. 552–56. (in English)
[17] Saygin, A.P., Chaminade, T., Ishiguro, H., Driver, J., & Frith, C. (2012). The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7 (4), pp. 413–422. (in English)