International Journal of
Advanced Multidisciplinary Application

Volume 1, Issue 1

• Author(s)K.S. Sailaja, H.V. Kavitha Kumari
• AffiliationNitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology Bangalore, India
• Page No.18-25
• Volume, Issue & YearVolume 1, Issue 1, Sep 2024
• Published On2024/09/30
• JournalInternational Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Application (IJAMA)
• ISSN No.3048-9350

Abstract

The integration of robotics, cognitive science, and human-computer interaction (HCI) is driving transformative advancements in the field of assistive technologies. This interdisciplinary approach aims to enhance the functionality and usability of devices designed to support individuals with disabilities or age related challenges. By combining robotics, which provides physical assistance and automation; cognitive science, which offers insights into mental processes and user needs; and HCI, which focuses on optimizing the interaction between users and technology, researchers and developers are creating more intuitive and effective assistive solutions. This paper explores the synergy among these fields, examining how robotic systems can be designed with cognitive principles in mind to improve user experience, and how HCI methodologies can be applied to ensure these technologies meet real-world needs. Case studies and recent advancements illustrate the potential of this integration, demonstrating how it can lead to more personalized, responsive, and accessible assistive devices. The paper concludes with a discussion on future directions, emphasizing the need for continued collaboration to address the evolving needs of users

Keywords: Assistive Technologies, Robotics, Cognitive Science, Human-Computer, Interaction (HCI), User Experience, Accessibility, Interdisciplinary Integration, Smart Assistive Devices, Robotics Engineering, Cognitive Ergonomics, Adaptive Systems, Technological Innovation

References

1. [1] T. Fong, C. Kunz, L. M. Hiatt, and M. Bugajska, “The human-robot interaction operating system,” in Proc. 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conf. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2006, pp. 41–48.
2. [2] J. G. Trafton, A. C. Schultz, N. L. Cassimatis, L. M. Hiatt, D. Perzanowski, D. P. Brock, M. D. Bugajska, and W. Adams, “Communicating and collaborating with robotic agents,” in Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction, R. Sun, Ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006, pp. 252–278.
3. [3] C.-M. Huang and B. Mutlu, “Robot behavior toolkit: Generating effective social behaviors for robots,” in Proc. 7th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Boston, MA, USA, 2012, pp. 25–32.
4. [4] A. H. Vera and H. A. Simon, “Situated action: A symbolic interpretation,” Cognitive Science, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 7–48, 1993.
5. [5] T. Winograd and F. Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. New York, NY, USA: Ablex Publishing, 1986.
6. [6] L. A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.
7. [7] A. N. Leontiev, “The problem of activity in psychology,” Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 4–33, 1974.
8. [8] E. Hutchins, “The social organization of distributed cognition,” in Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley, Eds. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association, 1991.
9. [9] B. Gates, “A robot in every home,” Scientific American, vol. 296, pp. 58–65, 2007.
10. [10] L. Takayama, T. Foote, B. Soto, and Pantofaru, “Exploring the role of robots in home organization,” in Proc. 7th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Boston, MA, USA, 2012, pp. 327–334.
11. [11] K. M. Tsui, M. Desai, H. A. Yanco, and C. Uhlik, “Exploring use cases for telepresence robots,” in Proc. 6th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Lausanne, Switzerland, 2011, pp. 11–18.
12. [12] F. Tanaka, A. Cicourel, and J. R. Movellan, “Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 104, no. 46, pp. 17954–17958, 2007.
13. [13] T. Kanda, R. Sato, N. Saiwaki, and H. Ishiguro, “A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human-robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 962–971, 2007.
14. [14] B. Reeves and C. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996.
15. [15] S. Turkle, O. Daste, C. Breazeal, and B. Scassellati, “Encounters with Kismet and Cog: Children respond to relational artifacts,” in Proc. IEEE-RAS/RSJ Int. Conf. Humanoid Robots, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2004, pp. 1–20.
16. [16] S. Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books, 2011.
17. [17] C. Nass and Y. Moon, “Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 81–103, 2000.
18. [18] S. Turkle, Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2011.
19. [19] K. Wada, T. Shibata, and Y. Kawaguchi, “Long-term robot therapy in a health service facility for the aged—A case study for 5 years,” in Proc. 11th IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Kyoto, Japan, 2009, pp. 930–933.
20. [20] B. R. Duffy, “Anthropomorphism and the social robot,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 42, no. 3–4, pp. 177–190, 2003.
21. [21] S. Kiesler, A. Powers, S. R. Fussell, and C. Torrey, “Anthropomorphic interactions with a software agent and a robot,” Social Cognition, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 168–180, 2008.
22. [22] S. R. Fussell, S. Kiesler, L. D. Setlock, and V. Yew, “How people anthropomorphize robots,” in Proc. 3rd ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008, pp. 145–152.
23. [23] D. S. Syrdal, K. Dautenhahn, S. N. Woods, M. L. Walters, and K. L. Koay, “Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance,” in Proc. AAAI Spring Symp.: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics, Stanford, CA, USA, 2007, pp. 86–92.
24. [24] K. F. MacDorman, T. Minato, M. Shimada, S. Itakura, S. Cowley, and H. Ishiguro, “Assessing human likeness by eye contact in an android testbed,” in Proc. XXVII Annu. Meet. Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy, 2005, pp. 1373–1378.
25. [25] F. Hegel, S. Krach, T. Kircher, B. Wrede, and G. Sagerer, “Understanding social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism,” in Proc. 17th IEEE Int. Symp. Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Munich, Germany, 2008, pp. 574–579.
26. [26] M. Mori, “The uncanny valley,” Energy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 33–35, 1970.
27. [27] C. Bartneck, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita, “My robotic doppelganger: A critical look at the uncanny valley theory,” in Proc. 18th IEEE Int. Symp. Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Toyama, Japan, 2009, pp. 269–276.
28. [28] M. L. Walters, D. S. Syrdal, K. Dautenhahn, R. te Boekhorst, and K. L. Koay, “Avoiding the uncanny valley: Robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 159–178, 2008.

Explore Our Related Journals

Looking for the right journal for your next manuscript? Explore our international peer-reviewed journals covering engineering, management, computer science, artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary research.