Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Social Robotics
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics 4/2021

23.05.2020

Trust in and Ethical Design of Carebots: The Case for Ethics of Care

verfasst von: Gary Chan Kok Yew

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 4/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The paper has two main objectives: to examine the challenges arising from the use of carebots as well as to discuss how the design of carebots can deal with these challenges. First, it notes that the use of carebots to take care of the physical and mental health of the elderly, children and the disabled as well as to serve as assistive tools and social companions encounter a few main challenges. They relate to the extent of the care robots’ ability to care for humans, potential deception by robot morphology and communications, (over)reliance on or attachment to robots, and the risks of carebot use without informed consent and potential infringements of privacy. Secondly, these challenges impinge upon issues of ethics and trust which are somewhat overlapping in terms of concept and practice. The existing ethical guidelines, standards and regulations are general in nature and lack a central ethical framework and concrete principles applicable to the care contexts. Hence, to deal with these important challenges, it is proposed in the third part of the paper that carebots be designed by taking account of Ethics of Care as the central ethical framework. It argues that the Ethics of Care offer the following advantages: (a) it provides sufficiently concrete principles and embodies values that are sensitive and applicable to the design of carebots and the contexts of caring practices; (b) it coheres with the tenets of Principlism and select ethical theories (utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics); and (c) it is closely associated with the preservation and maintenance of trust.
Vorheriger Artikel Effects of Different Types of Social Robot Voices on Affective Evaluations in Different Application Fields
Nächster Artikel Socially Assistive Robots, Older Adults and Research Ethics: The Case for Case-Based Ethics Training

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Sorell and Draper [67].
 
2
Dautenhahn and Werry [19].
 
3
Dautenhahn and Werry [19, p. 5].
 
4
Wainer et al. [85].
 
5
Alemi et al. [1] and Meghdari et al. [47, 48] relating to children suffering from cancer; Meghdari et al. [49] on children with hearing disabilities.
 
6
The social robot was jointly developed by NEC Japan and RECCSI (Research Centre for Computers, Communication and Social, Innovation) of La Trobe University in Melbourne. It possesses human-like attributes such as baby-face appearance, human voice, facial expressions, gestures and body movements and is able to recognise voices, human faces, emotions and possesses speech acoustics recognition.
 
7
“Assistive Technologies to Improve Healthcare quality, productivity” MIS Today, 27 Feb 2016.
 
8
“Charting the way to hospitals of the future” 23 January 2018 at https://​edb.​gov.​sg/​en/​news-and-resources/​insights/​innovation/​charting-the-way-to-hospitals-of-the-future.​html (accessed on 20 February 2019). These rehabilitative robots are developed by The Centre for Healthcare Assistive & Robotics Technology (CHART) in Singapore.
 
9
Sparrow and Sparrow [68].
 
10
This does not necessarily mean robots cannot have internal states that mirror human emotions and which can be communicated to humans through facial expression, body posture and tone of voice: see Breazeal and Brooks [10] on the Kismet social robot with three-dimensional affect space of arousal; valence and stance.
 
11
Metzinger [50].
 
12
Pour et al. [57].
 
13
Wallach and Allen [86, p. 152].
 
14
Coeckelbergh [15, p. 238].
 
15
Coeckelbergh [14, p. 219].
 
16
Mittelstadt [51].
 
17
Darling [18].
 
18
See Burrell [12] on the economic and social inequalities that can arise from the opacity of machine learning algorithms including her examples concerning Internet fraud and spam filtering.
 
19
Grodzinsky et al. [33, p. 97].
 
20
Grodzinsky et al. [33, at p. 97].
 
21
Grodzinsky et al. [33, p. 99].
 
22
Isaac and Bridewell [37].
 
23
Schermer [61, p. 160].
 
24
Schermer [61, p. 165].
 
25
See Felzmann et al. [24] on relational understanding of transparency that is dependent on the communication between technology providers and users, where trustworthiness is assessed based on contextual factors that mediate the value of such communications including factors that make transparency meaningful and trustworthy in the users’ eyes.
 
26
Grodzinsky et al. [33].
 
27
Coeckelbergh [16, p. 288].
 
28
Riek and Howard [58].
 
29
Sharkey and Sharkey [64].
 
30
Parks [56].
 
31
Loder and Nicholas [44].
 
32
Sharkey and Sharkey [63].
 
33
Vallor [78, p. 223].
 
34
Vallor [78, p. 226].
 
35
Borenstein et al [9, p. 135; 84].
 
36
European Parliament [22, at para 32].
 
37
Coeckelbergh et al. [17].
 
38
Vallor [77].
 
39
See Nussbaum [54] cited in Coeckelbergh [15].
 
40
Leenes et al. [42, at p. 22].
 
41
Ienca et al. [36].
 
42
Fosch-Villaronga and Albo-Canals [26 at p. 83].
 
43
Para 125.
 
44
Gambetta [29, p. 217].
 
45
I have omitted Taddeo’s point that “The trustee B may or may not be aware that trustor A trusts B”. This is merely a neutral feature.
 
46
Taddeo [71, p. 244].
 
47
At p. 15. See also Kirkpatrick et al. [40]
 
48
Buechner and Tavani [11].
 
49
This focus on stakeholders is also consistent with the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation that take account of societal impacts under the European Union’s Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development: see Von Schomberg [83].
 
50
Wagner et al. [84 at 22].
 
51
Banavar [6].
 
52
Wallach and Allen [86, pp. 79–80].
 
53
Wallach and Allen [86, p. 80].
 
54
For a macro-perspective of the regulatory process of robot governance, see Fosch-Villaronga and Heldeweg [27].
 
55
Wallach and Allen [86, p. 81].
 
56
Sparrow and Sparrow [68].
 
57
Vandemeulebroucke et al. [81].
 
58
Fosch-Villaronga and Özcan [28].
 
59
Grodzinsky et al [32, p. 26].
 
60
Ojha et al [55] on the development of the Ethical Emotion Generation System (EEGS) based on data structure of emotions represented in the form of (Name, Valence, Degree, Threshold, Intensity, Decay Time), where Name denotes the name for the type of the emotion, Valence specifies whether the emotion is positive or negative, Degree represents the extent of the positivity and negativity of the emotion, Threshold represents the minimum intensity required to trigger the emotion, Intensity represents the strength of the emotional experience and Decay Time denotes the time required to drop the emotion intensity back to 0.
 
61
Wallach and Allen [86, p. 98].
 
62
See for example Patricia Churchland on connectionist learning for moral cognition.
 
63
This was what Swanton [69, p. 273] termed the “problem of indeterminacy”.
 
64
Vallor [78, p. 221].
 
65
Wallach and Allen [86, p. 98].
 
66
Beauchamp and Childress [7, pp. 12–13].
 
67
Childress [13, p. 68].
 
68
Sorell and Draper [67].
 
69
Ross [59].
 
70
Anderson and Anderson [2].
 
71
Wallach and Allen [86, pp. 128–129].
 
72
Anderson and Anderson [3].
 
73
Asaro [4, p. 14].
 
74
E.g. European Commission [21] (that trustworthy AI systems should be (1) lawful, (2) ethical, and (3) robust from a technical and social perspective; and that ‘key requirements for Trustworthy AI are: (1) human agency and oversight, (2) technical robustness and safety, (3) privacy and data governance, (4) transparency, (5) diversity, non-discrimination and fairness, (6) environmental and societal well-being and (7) accountability’’ (p. 4).
 
75
Para 32.
 
76
Para 71.
 
77
Para 82.
 
79
Article 19.
 
80
Van Est et al. [79] at para 3.9.2.
 
84
Winfield and Jirotka [87, p. 3].
 
85
E.g. Slote [66].
 
86
Slote [66, p. 12].
 
87
Engster [20, p. 2].
 
88
Held [34, p. 546].
 
89
Held [34, p. 51].
 
90
Held [34, p. 72].
 
91
Slote [66, p. 4].
 
92
Tronto [72, p. 108].
 
93
Tronto [72, pp. 105–108].
 
94
Tronto [73].
 
95
Tronto [73, p. 167].
 
96
Tronto [73, p. 167].
 
97
Vanlaere and Gastmans [82].
 
98
Engster [20, p. 4].
 
99
Engster [20, p. 11].
 
100
Lehoux and Grimard [43, p. 334].
 
101
European Parliament [22, at para 32].
 
103
van Wynsberghe [80]. See also Salvini [60, p. 436].
 
104
van Wynsberghe [80, p. 420].
 
105
Riek and Howard [58].
 
106
Khosla et al. [39, para 6.3].
 
107
Slote [66, p. 43].
 
108
See chapter 12 on “Virtues of Practice”.
 
109
Swanton [69, p. 253].
 
110
Swanton [69, p. 256].
 
111
Swanton [69, p. 258].
 
112
Held [34, p. 42].
 
Literatur
1.
Alemi A, Ghanbarzadeh A, Meghdari A, Moghadam LJ (2016) Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. Int J Soc Robot 8:743–759CrossRef
2.
3.
Anderson M, Anderson SL (2010) Robot be Good: a call for ethical autonomous machines. Sci Am 303(4):72–77CrossRef
4.
Asaro PM (2006) What should we want from a robot ethic? Int Rev Inf Ethics 6(12):9–16CrossRef
5.
Baier A (1987) Hume: the woman’s moral theorist? In: Kittay EV, Meyers D (eds) Women and moral theory. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham
6.
7.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, New York
8.
Borenstein J, Pearson Y (2010) Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):277–288CrossRef
9.
Borenstein J, Howard A, Wagner AR (2017) Pediatric robots and ethics: the robot is ready to see you now, but should it be trusted? In: Lin P, Jenkins R, Abney K (eds) Robot ethics 2.0: from autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 127–141
10.
Breazeal C, Brooks R (2005) Robot emotion: a functional perspective. In: Fellous J-M, Arbib MA (eds) Who needs emotions? The brain meets the robot. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 271–310CrossRef
11.
Buechner J, Tavani HT (2011) Trust and multi-agent systems: applying the ‘diffuse, default model’ of trust to experiments involving artificial agents. Ethics Inf Technol 13(1):39–51CrossRef
12.
Burrell J (2016) How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc 3(1):1–12CrossRef
13.
Childress JF (2012) A principle-based approach. In: Kuhse H, Singer P (eds) A companion to bioethics, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 67–76
14.
Coeckelbergh M (2009) Personal robots, appearance, and human good: a methodological reflection on roboethics. Int J Soc Robot 1:217–221CrossRef
15.
Coeckelbergh M (2010) Healthcare, capabilities and AI assistive technologies. Ethic Theory Moral Pract 13:181–190CrossRef
16.
Coeckelbergh M (2012) Care robots, virtual virtue, and the best possible life. In: Brey P, Briggle A, Spence E (eds) The good life in a technological age. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, pp 281–292
17.
Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R, Peca A, Pintea S, David D, Vanderborght B (2016) A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with ASD: ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Sci Eng Ethics 22(1):47–65CrossRef
18.
Darling K (2017) Who’s Johnny? An anthropomorphic framing in human–robot interaction, integration, and policy. In: Lin P, Jenkins R, Abney K (eds) Robot ethics 2.0: from autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 173–188
19.
Dautenhahn K, Werry I (2014) Towards interactive robots in autism therapy: background, motivation and challenges. Pragmat Cogn 12(1):1–35CrossRef
20.
Engster D (2007) The heart of justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
21.
European Commission (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence. High-Level Expert Group on AI
22.
European Parliament (2017) Civil law rules on robotics. european parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL))
23.
European Parliament (2019) A comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics. European Parliament resolution of 12 February 2019 (2018/2088(INI))
24.
Felzmann H, Fosch-Villaronga E, Lutz C, Tamo-Larrieux A (2019) Transparency you can trust: transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns. Big Data Soc January to June 6(1):1–14
25.
26.
Fosch-Villaronga E, Albo-Canals J (2019) Ï’ll take care of you”, said the robot. Paladyn J Behav Robot 10:77–93CrossRef
27.
Fosch-Villaronga E, Heldeweg M (2018) “Regulation, I presume?” Said the robot—towards an iterative regulatory process for robot governance. Comput Law Secur Rev 34(6):1258–1277CrossRef
28.
29.
Gambetta D (1998) Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta D (ed) Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 213–238
30.
Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
31.
Gompei T, Umemuro H (2018) Factors and development of cognitive and affective trust on social robots. In: Sam-Ge S, Cabibihan J-J, Salichs MA, Broadbent E, He H, Wagner AR, Castro-González Á (eds) Lecture notes in computer science, vol 11357. Springer, New York, pp 45–54
32.
Grodzinsky FS, Miller KW, Martin MJ (2011) Developing artificial agents worthy of trust: “Would you buy a used car from this artificial agent?”. Ethics Inform Tech 13(1):17–27CrossRef
33.
Grodzinsky FS, Miller KW, Wolf MJ (2015) Developing automated deceptions and the impact on trust. Philos Technol 28:91–105CrossRef
34.
35.
Hoorn JF, Winter SD (2018) Here comes the bad news: doctor robot taking over. Int J Soc Robot 10(4):519–535CrossRef
36.
Ienca M, Jotterand F, Vica C, Elger B (2016) Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: ethical recommendations for research and practice. Int J Soc Robot 8:565–573CrossRef
37.
Isaac AMC, Bridewell W (2017) White lies on silver tongues: why robots need to deceive (and how). In: Lin P, Jenkins R, Abney K (eds) Robot ethics 2.0: from autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–172
38.
Jones K (1996) Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics Inf Technol 107(1):4–25
39.
Khosla R, Nguyen K, Chu M-T (2017) Human robot engagement and acceptability in residential aged care. Int J Hum Comput Interact 33(6):510–522CrossRef
40.
Kirkpatrick J, Hahn EN, Haufler AJ (2017) Trust and human–robot interactions. In: Lin P, Jenkins R, Abney K (eds) Robot ethics 2.0: from autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 142–156
41.
Kittay E (2002) Love’s labor revisited. Hypatia 17(3):237–250
42.
Leenes R, Palmerini E, Koops B-J, Bertolini A, Salvini P, Lucivero F (2017) Regulatory challenges of robotics: some guidelines for addressing legal and ethical issues. Law Innov Technol 9:1CrossRef
43.
Lehoux P, Grimard D (2018) When robots care: public deliberations on how technology and humans may support independent living for older adults. Soc Sci Med 211:330–337CrossRef
44.
Loder J, Nicholas L (2018) Confronting Dr Robot: creating a people-powered future for AI in health. Nesta Health Lab, London
45.
Luhmann N (1979) Trust and power. Wiley, Chichester
46.
Meacham D, Studley M (2017) Could a robot care? It’s all in the movement. In: Lin P, Jenkins R, Abney K (eds) Robot ethics 2.0: from autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 97–112
47.
Meghdari A, Shariati A, Alemi M, Vossoughi GR, Eydi A (2018) Arash: a social robot buddy to support children with cancer in a hospital environment. Proc Inst Mech Eng 232(6):605–618CrossRef
48.
Meghdari A, Shariati A, Alemi M, Nobaveh AA (2018) Design performance characteristics of a social robot companion “Arash” for pediatric hospitals. Int J Humanoid Rob 15(5):1850019CrossRef
49.
Meghdari A, Alemi M, Zakipour M, Kashanian SA (2019) Design and realization of a sign language educational humanoid robot. J Intell Rob Syst 95:3–17CrossRef
50.
Metzinger T (2013) Two principles for robot ethics. In: Hilgendorf E, Gunther JP (eds) Robotik und Gesetzbung. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 263–302
51.
Mittelstadt B (2017) The doctor will not see you now. In: Otto P, Graf E (eds) 3TH1CS: a reinvention of ethics in the digital age?. IRights Media, Berlin, pp 68–77
52.
Nissenbaum H (2001) Securing trust online: wisdom or oxymoron. Boston Univ Law Revew 81(3):635–664
53.
Noddings N (2013) Caring: a relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press, BerkeleyCrossRef
54.
Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Belknap Press, Cambridge
55.
Ojha S, Williams M-A, Johnston B (2018) The essence of ethical reasoning in robot–emotion processing. Int J Socl Robot 10:211–223CrossRef
56.
Parks JA (2010) Lifting the burden of women’s care work: should robots replace the “human touch”? Hypatia 25:100–120CrossRef
57.
Pour AG, Taheri A, Alemi M, Meghdari A (2018) Human–robot facial expression reciprocal interaction platform: case studies on children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 10:179–198CrossRef
58.
59.
Ross WD (2003) The right and the good, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford
60.
Salvini P (2015) On ethical, legal and social issues of care robots. In: Mohammed S, Moreno J, Kong K, Amirat Y (eds) Intelligent assistive robots: recent advances in assistive robots for everyday activities. Springer, New York, pp 431–445CrossRef
61.
Schermer M (2014) Telling the truth: the ethics of deception and white lies in dementia care. In: Foster C, Herring J, Doron I (eds) The law and ethics of dementia. Hart Publishing, Oxford
62.
Searle J (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3):417–457CrossRef
63.
Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2010) Living with robots: ethical tradeoffs in eldercare. In: Wilks Y (ed) Close engagements with artificial companions: key social, psychological, ethical and design issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 245–256CrossRef
64.
65.
66.
67.
Sorell T, Draper H (2014) Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics Inf Technol 16:183–195CrossRef
68.
Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind Mach 16(2):141–161CrossRef
69.
Swanton C (2003) Virtue ethics: a pluralistic view. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
70.
Taddeo M (2009) Defining trust and E-trust: from old theories to new problems. Int J Technol Hum Int 5(2):23–35CrossRef
71.
Taddeo M (2010) Modeling trust in artificial agents: a first step toward the analysis of e-trust. Mind Mach 29(2):243–257CrossRef
72.
Tronto J (1993) Moral boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge, New York
73.
Tronto J (2010) Creating caring institutions: politics, plurality, and purpose. Ethics Soc Welf 4(2):158–171CrossRef
74.
Tuomela M, Hofmann S (2003) Simulating rational social normative trust, predictive trust, and predictive reliance between agents. Ethics Inf Technol 5:163–176CrossRef
75.
76.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) (2017). Report of COMEST on Robotics Ethics. 14 September 2017
77.
Vallor S (2011) Carebots and caregivers: sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the twenty-first century. Philos Technol 24:251–268CrossRef
78.
Vallor S (2016) Technology and the virtues. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
79.
Van Est R, Gerritsen JBA, Kool L (2017) Human rights in the robot age: challenges arising from the use of robotics, artificial intelligence, and virtual and augmented reality—expert report written for the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Rathenau Instituut, The Hague
80.
van Wynsberghe A (2013) Designing robots for care: care centered value-sensitive design. Sci Eng Ethics 19:407–433CrossRef
81.
Vandemeulebroucke T, de Casterle BD, Gastmans C (2018) The use of care robots in aged care: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 74:15–25CrossRef
82.
Vanlaere L, Gastmans C (2011) A personalist approach to care ethics. Nurs Ethics 18(2):161–173CrossRef
83.
Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley, London, pp 51–74CrossRef
84.
Wagner AR, Borenstein J, Howard A (2018) Overtrust in the robotic age: the ethical challenge. Commun ACM 61(99):22–24CrossRef
85.
Wainer J, Dautenhahn K, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F (2014) A pilot study with a novel setup for collaborative play of the humanoid robot KASPAR with children with Autism. Int J Soc Robot 6(1):45–65CrossRef
86.
Wallach W, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots rights from wrong. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
87.
Winfield AFT, Jirotka M (2018) Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos Trans R Soc A 376:20180085CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Trust in and Ethical Design of Carebots: The Case for Ethics of Care
verfasst von
Gary Chan Kok Yew
Publikationsdatum
23.05.2020
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00653-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2021

International Journal of Social Robotics 4/2021 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Competing with or Against Cozmo, the Robot: Influence of Interaction Context and Outcome on Mind Perception

OriginalPaper

From Motions to Emotions: Can the Fundamental Emotions be Expressed in a Robot Swarm?

OriginalPaper

How are Your Robot Friends Doing? A Design Exploration of Graphical Techniques Supporting Awareness of Robot Team Members in Teleoperation

OriginalPaper

The Mind in the Machine: Mind Perception Modulates Gaze Aversion During Child–Robot Interaction

Survey

Socially Assistive Robots: The Specific Case of the NAO

Survey

A Taxonomy to Structure and Analyze Human–Robot Interaction

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise