designing artificial companionship through explorative research in order to prevent loneliness in...

8/21/2019 Designing artificial companionship through explorative research in order to prevent loneliness in the future elderly of the baby boom generation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/designing-artificial-companionship-through-explorative-research-in-order-to 1/130

N a t a l i a P a p a d o p o u l o u

Buddy

*

)

|

* the phenomenon of seeing faces, where there are no faces, is called pareidolia and is part of evoking companionship



Supervisors:

S t e l l a B o e s s

R o b e r t P a a u w e

H a n s T a n g e ld e r

N a t a l i a P a p a d o p o u l o u

August 2014

Master Graduation Project

M.Sc. Design For Interaction

Medisign Specialization

Buddy



It has been a challenging and truly participatory project that wouldn’t have been completed without

the contribution of some people (direct or indirect).

First of all I would like to thank Robert, my mentor, for always being available for an interestingconversation on artificial compan ions and, most important of all, for shaping up my vision on the

future of (designing) them. Also, to Stella, my chai r, that granted me complete methodological

freedom and control over the project, and for her unique ability to give me a gentle push when I

needed it here and there along the way.

Secondly, a thank you wouldn’t be enough for all the students and friends that participated in my

workshops, explorations and evaluation tests throughout the project. Special thanks to Iliana and

Nikos for being my disruptive to my thesis-routine neighbors and so loyal ‘lab-rats’. When I thought

there was no hope of finding older participants in the Netherlands I found Grigoris and Yvonne and

that was the most rewarding and thought-provoking feedback I ever had on a user-test.

Thirdly, thanks to Alex, for baring with me through another graduation project. Luckily the score will

soon be 2-2 to return the help ;) I couldn’t get away without thanking my parents for never

complain ing for not having seen me for one year and for always being busy during this master.

Lastly, this master wouldn’t have been viable for me without my scholarship, so this should end with a

few typicalities: This graduation project has been completed as par t of the postgraduate programme financed by

the Act "Scholarships programme SSF (State Scholarships Foundation of Greece, I.K.Y.) with an

individualised assessment process of the Academic Year 2011-2012" from resources of the

Business Programme "Education and Lifelong Learning", of the European Social Fund (ESF), the

NSRF 2007-2013

Prologue

(Is it?)



Contents

Analyze Envision Ideate Validate Reflect

Append

The buddy project

Introduce

Robots

Humans

The Context

7

18

41

47

Companionship 52

References

Questionnaire

Ideation, Rejected

Aging Stories

110

121

123

126

I II III IV VI

91The ConceptBuddy Considerations77 104



5

A robot may not injure a human

being, or, through inaction, allow

a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey the orders

given it by human beings except

where such orders would

conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own

existence as long as such

protection does not conflict with

the First or Second Law.

From that time till today, robots do live

among us, and they are actually many

in numbers, and various in shapes and

functionalities. We are just entering an

era when socially savvy robots could

unlock new possibilities to help people,

beyond serving them on a practical

level, potentially transforming society as

we know it today. However co-existence

is not smooth, yet, as researchers can

hardly articulate those three laws

further, when it comes to human-robot

interaction (HRI) grounds.

HRI (explanations, citations, further

analysis, and definitions -if possible!-

will follow later on) is a relatively new

field that emerged during the early

1990s, a ‘synthetic ’ one, that attracts

people from engineering to ethology.

The involvement of designers to the

field of HRI counts even less years. If

designing, in general, feels like ‘dealing

with uncertainty ’(**) then designing

robots and shaping interactions

between them and people, felt like

‘dealing with moving sand ’. Currently,

despite the many technical definitions,

results and progress, there is little

usable evidence and insufficient,

design-oriented tools to support

designers on such a mission,

methodologically-speaking, at least.

The journey, although intriguing for a

designer, goes through gaining

understanding of unknown territories,

taking time and distance to digest new

information, adapting known methods,

experimenting with people, then looking

back again. It is not only about building

a conceptual framework to validate your

process, insights, and results, but

mainly about constructing your own

beliefs around that type of products.

Many things that apply to designing any

other product are challenged, not

applicable, or, in worse case scenario,

unexpectedly contradicting to what you

know when attempting to design robots.

Current report is the result of such a

journey. Enjoy reading!

Natalía

Preface “Last night I dreamed”, said LVX-1, calmly.

Once upon a time, Isaac Asimov has not only envisioned but also

thoroughly described, in his ‘Robot Series’ of fiction books, a future

where robots are independently able to dream and think on their own. In

order for humans and robots to peacefully and responsibly co-exist, he

developed three statements, known as ‘the three laws of robotics ’(*):

(*) ‘Runaround’ in Astounding Science Fiction (March 1942); later published in I, Robot (1950).

1.

2.

3.

— From ‘Robot Dreams’, Isaac Asimov (1986).

(**) Delft Design Guide (2010).



Introduce



Chapter Overview

1.1 The assignment, towards an area of focus

1.2 The three drives of human-centered design:

1.2.1 Business

1.2.2 Technology

1.2.3 People

1.3

The aim and initial research questions

1.4 The scope and limitations

1.5 The approach

The ‘buddy project’ is my graduation project and the last requirement

towards the master Design for Interaction, for the Medical Design

(Medisign) track, of Delft University of Technology.

The project was conducted for Vicarious Perception Technologies

(VicarVision), a computer vision company, in Amsterdam. VicarVision is

specializing in developing vicarious perception technologies, having the

vision to grant machines the ability to perceive their environment the way

humans do.

Overall, the project took place in a ‘blue sky’ research-through-design

frame, and serves as additional insights to the company’s interest ininnovation, from a human-centered designer’s approach. It was

originated from the company’s will to find possible future applications of

one of their software solutions, the FaceReader. FaceReader is a tool

that can automatically analyze facial expressions using a camera.

So, the project began with the question:

‘What could FaceReader do, if embedded in a robot ’?

Introduce

The buddy projectSetting the stage on artificial companionship

7

8

8

9

9

12

13

14

15

1.



1.

2.

The assignment,

towards an area

of focusAs an open, explorative project, a

specific area of focus was difficult to get

defined and decided. Besides few initial

requests from the company, most of the

decisions that contributed to converge

and frame a working area (I won’t say

‘problem area’, as this project is not

exactly problem-oriented, rather than

opportunity-oriented), were taken when

new insights arose along the process.

From the company side there were only

two ‘requirements’:

FaceReader has to be part of

the final design of a robot.

The target group for the robot

should be older people .

However those, still, leave quite an

undefined area of focus, even to initiate

the project. Drawing from personal

motivation, and experience I gained

from previous medisign projects on the

same field, I decided to set the context

on contributing to emotional and

subjective well-being [J01]. Moreover,

taking into account the fact thatFaceReader itself is related to

emotions, the rationale is that it is most

appropriate to use it for such a cause

(instead of finding applications of it on

any other field; engineering, for

example).

That decision, immediately rules out a

number of different types of robots (see

Chapter 2). We are not talking about

robots that would have some

functionality, like helping elders not to

forget their medication. Nor about robots

that are health-care, service providers,

like helping elders stay connected with

their doctors while at the comfort of their

home. We are talking about seemingly

‘function-less’ robots that just keep

company to elder people. Those kinds

of robots appear in the literature under

many definitions and variation of

terminologies, from sociable robots [B01]

to interactive companions [J02]. They

will be called artificial companions

[J02] as this term best represents the

purposes of this project. Therefore, the

initial focus of a working area is:

Design artificial companionship

for older people.

The three drives

of human

centered designIn fields related to user-centered design

(e.g. user experience, interaction

design, design thinking), it is often being

said that the magic happens at the

intersection of business, technology,

and people [W01]. Which means that

products, that are designed to

contribute to our well-being by giving

us a meaningful user experience

[R01], may be the result of (see Figure 1):

- a business push(because businesses need to evolve

and exploit opportunities or create new

ones)

- a technology push

(because the means that could make

that product feasible were available)

- people-needs (or wants) push

(because, in the end, they will be the

ones that will either accept, like, and,eventually, use the product or not)

8

Introduce

1.1. 1.2.

Business -> Technology -> People... or the other way around.

FIGURE 1 Where user-experience innovation occurs



This was also the case for the buddy

project. It was initiated with a business/

technology push, so there was an

essential need to balance it with giving

emphasis on the people/interaction

aspect of it. I would actually argue that

by focusing on the human aspect of the

project insights reflect back to the

technology and business level as a

vision of a desirable future (and

therefore indicating the right direction for

development). As a matter of fact, and

as expected to the mindset of a

designer, the human aspect is indeed

the key to this field. Cynthia Breazeal, a

pioneer in the field of sociable robots

and human-robot interaction (HRI),

argued, in the very beginning of her

career, that “technological attempts to

foster human-technology relations will

be accepted by a majority of people if

the technological gadget displays rich

social behavior ” [T01], bringing the

human aspect to the foremost

importance of all.

Sometimes it was difficult to separatethose areas, as I realized countless

times throughout the project, in HRI

everything relates to everything. In

practice that means that if you want to

focus on the people’s aspect, then you

do need to go through the business and

technological state of the art and history.

It is the only way to understand where

you stand at the moment, to begin with.

Business

The opportunities in the field of robotics,

are, now, more than ever. Currently

people with, almost, any background

are working in the development of

robotics: engineers, computer

scientists, psychologists, linguists,

designers, even artists and mime

theater actors [W02].

The pie is big, in terms of money, and

everybody wants a piece of it. Robotics

is considered to be the next ‘disruptive ’

industry that will transform life,

business, and the global economy

[R02]. The emergence of that industry

is similar to the computer ‘invasion’ 30

years ago. The computer innovation is

already at the end of its disruptive

trajectory, and in order to move on the

the next one, computers have to turn

into something much more

autonomous, contextually aware, and

responsive; in other words robots [W03].

Despite the fact that there are already,approximately estimated, 8.6 million

robots in the world, according to the IFR

(International Federation of Robotics), a

‘personal or domestic robots’-share of

the market is just emerging. Bill Gates

has predicted that, soon, every

household will have, at least, one robot.

But the challenges are many for

technology [W03].

Technology

According to Bill Gates [W03], the

challenges the robotics industry faces at

the moment are very similar to those

the computer industry faced three

decades ago; there is nothing

standardized. If a company wants to

make a robot they have to start building

it from scratch. From hardware to

software standardization is limited,

and very few things can be transferred

from one machine to another. However,

the contribution of mobile technologies,

that are currently turning everything into

a potentially ubiquitous system, is alsoinfluencing Robotics, making things a

bit easier to evolve [R02].

Meanwhile, some of the most

challenging problems of robotics,

such as spacial navigation, (visual)

recognition, artificial intelligence (with

whatever that means for a robot), and

machine learning are being tackled

worldwide. It seems, depending on the

optimism of the person you ask, that wewill soon have the technology needed,

to some extend at least, in order to build

the robots we are dreaming of [W03].

The question, that remains, is what kind

of applications will they have, which is

up to the people’s acceptance and

perception (and later on discussed).

VicarVision’s FaceReader

At a micro-level of introducing the

influential parts of this project, it is

essential to present what FaceReader

is currently able to do, as the available

technology for this project.

Facereader is a facial expression

analysis software with two modes of

functionality. It can either analyze faces

appearing in static images, or in

captured video. It does so by modeling

the face assigning 500 key points

following the structure of it. Those key

points can be grouped in order to

annotate important areas that indicate a

change in emotions, such as eyes,

eyebrows, lips. In fact, it creates an

overlaying ‘mask’ of the face that can

keep track of movements in 20

commonly used ‘Action Units’ [W04]:

9

Introduce

1.2.1 1.2.2

Inner Brow Raiser

Outer Brow Raiser

Brow Lowerer

Upper Lid Raiser

Cheek Raiser

Lid Tightener

Nose Wrinkler

Upper Lip Raiser

Lip Corner Puller

Dimpler

Lip Corner Depressor

Chin Raiser

Lip Pucker

Lip Stretcher

Lip Tightener

Lip Pressor

Lips Part

Jaw Drop

Mouth Stretch

Eyes Closed



Using the action units to model the

face, at a front-end level of

functionality , FaceReader [R03] is

able to execute five actions:

Face Detection

The presence of a face, or faces, can

be detected in a scene, separating an

animate existence to a static

background. Face detection, along with

face orientation, eye position, and gaze

detection is a starting point of

accumulating a model of the face that

has all the tracked action units on it.

Face Emotional Classification

When a change is tracked in the

computed mask of the face,

FaceReader can classify the expression

under the basic emotions: happy, sad,

angry, disgusted, scared, surprised (see

Figure 2). Facial expressions thought, are

often a mixture of emotions, and just

one of them is barely ever present

alone, so the most prevalent emotion is

the one that gets classified. The rest of

them, if any detected at the same time,

are visualized in different ways.

Subject Classification

Besides action units, other details of the

face are analyzed, such as the texture

of it. Those kind of details can be used

so that the software can calculate

information about the person in general.

For example, the age span that they

belong to, their gender, the ethnicity can

be estimated. Other distinctive

characteristics are also noticed by

FaceReader, such as whether the

person wears glasses, has a mustache/

beard etc.

Emotion over time

A timeline of all the tracked emotions is

kept, given that the input is a video or a

sequence of pictures. This can also be

manually combined with the annotation

of other events (such as potential

triggers of the computed emotions).

Valence

Over time, valence is also estimated.

Valence is basically the average

emotional state of the subject, and it

can either be positive, or negative. If

basic emotions that can be classified as

negative (sad, angry, disgusted, scared)

are tracked, then the overall result of

the valence is negative. If positive

emotions are mostly present (happy,

surprised) then valence’s indication is

positive over time.

Current functionality can be affected by

a number of factors that are related to

limitations, accuracy and relation of

expressions to emotions.

FaceReader has less changes to

analyze a face in bad lighting

conditions (those include light that

simply does not illuminate the face fromthe front, creating a lot of shadows on

it), or a face that is way too rotated or

tilted away from the camera.

Accuracy is not the same for all of the

10

Introduce

FaceReader reads (from left to right) the basic emotions: Happy, Sad, Angry, Disgusted, Scared, Surprised and can distinguish those to a Neutral face by using action units.

FIGURE 2 Emotions FaceReader can track

Source: VicarVision

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.



emotions (see Figure 3). Some are easier

to distinguish than others (e.g. happy),

and some are easier to be

misinterpreted as another emotion

(e.g. sad to angry). As accuracy is a

result of training FaceReader by

annotating many instances of faces that

contain the basic emotions, analysis of

certain categories of faces might be

more difficult. For example asian

faces, or faces of older people might be

a bit confusing for the algorithm as less

numbers of them have been used to

train the system due to low availability

to samples of those categories.Especially for older people facial

expressions might be more challenging

to calculate as the texture of the face

(wrinkles) can confuse the software

when action units need to be tracked.

Another difficulty is that as we get older

expressions in our face get more and

more subtle [J04]. Last but not least,

sometimes FaceReader has difficulty in

getting a good fit of the calculated

‘mask’ of the face given its shape,

lighting conditions and direction/

movement of it around the camera.

FaceReader does not make a

distinction whether a facial expression

is acted or felt, authentic or posed. The

program was trained using a mixture of

genuine and intended facial

expressions but it doesn’t calculate

how relevant those are to the potential

co-existence of the respective emotion

[R03]. The discussion on whether an

expression of your face, that is usually

associated with a particular emotion, is

actually the emotion you consciously

feel, has no easy answer, and can even

get philosophical dimensions. If the

context is not know, or able to

perceive, even humans fail to classifyemotions (accuracy reported in that

case is up to 81% percent) [J04]. For

some emotions, like happiness,

differences are reported between a

‘fake’ facial expression of it and a

genuine one. A genuine smile would

have a quite equal distribution of the lip

raise between the left and the right side

of the mouth, plus the muscles of the

eyes would be contracted too [J05].

However, one really ought to consider,

what is a genuine expression after all

and even if you do have a genuine one

on your face, does that mean you are

actually in accordance to that emotion?

The reality is that even opposite

emotions, or manifestations of those,

co-exist [J06]. For example, imagine a

person attending their child’s theatrical

performance. We expect they are

probably proud, and, therefore happy.

But we see them cry (which would have

been recognized as sad by a facial

recognition tool). Does that mean they

are actually sad? Probably not.Momentarily facial expressions can

not be necessarily associated with a

specific emotion, and the triggers might

be difficult to get identified, even by a

human. Researchers [J07] indicated

that it is possible to create a fuzzy logic

accumulation system of short-term

facial expressions to generate more

relevance of them to the emotions

present and to a long-term frame.

The posed questions are still many, and

by exploring what people think, want,

and above all, need, we might have a

chance to answer them:

“Do we really need an

application where emotions are

relevant?” [J05].

11

Introduce

FIGURE 3 Tested accuracy of FaceReader

Proportion of agreement between the facial expressions scored manually by the

annotators of the Radboud Faces Database [J03] (horizontally) versus the

expressions scored by FaceReader version 4 (vertically).

Source: VicarVision



People

Innovation in user-centered design

starts when conflict of interest between

the three drives, business-technology-

people, starts to become conversion of

interest (if such a term only existed!).

However people are in inner conflict by

nature [B02], especially when it comes

to deciding what is beneficial for their

well-being, from products that might

help them to daily routine actions [C01].

That notion of humans being in

dissonance makes the quest of finding

relevant applications in the robotic

industry even more difficult. Although itis a matter of fact that technology is

advancing, and that companies are

willing to invest on it, it is uncertain:

Would humans actually want to

use artificial companions that

are able to perceive their

emotions?

Robots have many limitations that

acceptance is compromised by people

perceiving them wrongly. Technology is

not humanized yet and a balance

between engineering contextual

awareness and designing human-robot

interactions (HRI) is still to be found, in

order to match people’s expectations.

Why should such a technology exist

and what could it do for people is the

turning point in figuring out what kind of

applications could be relevant [J08].

Researchers claim that even if an

interactive robot has complete

information about its context, includinginformation about itself, its

environments and the humans in it, it is

still unclear how this information should

be used to design effortless, acceptable

and meaningful human-robot

interactions [C02]. If there was a

meaning in having an artificial

companion then, maybe, people would

actually want it.

Could a machine be your companion,

your friend? In regard to philosophy,

yes. Many different kinds of relations

can be evoked between people and

objects. Turkle [B03], basing her initial

ideas on theorists and philosophers,

concludes that “objects are active life

presences ”. Most objects exert their

‘powers’ under specific circumstances

of interaction with a human (see Figure 4,

remember how a plain volleyball became the onlyfriend of an adult in the movie ‘Cast Away’?). In a

psychoanalytic level one could say that

“things are what we encounter, ideas

are what we project ” [B04] (also known

as the Rorschach effect [B03]), so the

idea of projecting the possibility of

friendship to any kind of object doesn’t

seem so irrational.

If those things were also able to

respond back to us, as certain

machines can, then it is easier to get

attached to them and become even

more intimate. Thus, relational

artifacts, are “those computational

objects that can present themselves as

sentient creatures, ready for

relationships, are inviting people to

project animation, life and personality

onto them ” [B05]. For decadescomputational machines were thinking

with us, a second self, a ‘mirror of the

mind’, but recently a certain category of

relational artifacts is evolving to think of

their own, making clear they are

perceived as a new state of self, itself,

that goes beyond our projections;

robots [B06].

Ironically, the paradox I see is that, so

far, I haven’t read studies about any

robot, nor artificial companion in

specific, that would go beyond our

projections by being a ‘companionable-

enough’, relational artifact. With logicalsteps I assumed that the real need for

such a companion is not yet neither

uncovered, nor approached

appropriately. Maybe you need

someone that is lonely in the first place

(as in the movie ‘Cast Away’) to offer them

companionship that has chances to

contribute to their emotional well-being,

by offering a desirable and sustained

experience.

Moving a step towards connecting all

the dots so far, and taking into account

that the target group is older people, it

is both reasonable and obvious that

they could be in need of such a

companion. Reflecting on personal

experiences and older people I know,

loneliness seems to be quite often in

that age span and difficult to handle.

The starting point of the assignmentwas actually based on this realization,

leaving, still, open room for explorations

and further refinement of focus:

Design artificial companionship

for older people in order to

prevent loneliness.

12

Introduce

1.2.3

One of the most famous inanimate

objects ever befriended

FIGURE 4 Wilson the Volleyball



The aim and initial

research

questionsThis project was initiated due to

personal interest in the field of HRI, as

it was not just ‘another product’.

Consequently, on a personal level, the

goal was to gain understanding of it

and enough knowledge so that a

personal design framework could be

developed, in order to facilitate a

personal way of working on this, for

future reference too.

On an academic level the goal was to:

Research through design how

artificial companionship could

prevent loneliness, as a means of

psychological support to older

people. The overall psychological

support will be framed within the

design for well-being (medisign

specialization), and design for

interaction (general master)

directions, which, roughly, points at

stimulating social interaction or

providing new meaningful

interactions. This would be done

by exploring, designing,

prototyping and evaluating a

concept of an artificial companion.

This aim can be, initially, divided into thefollowing research questions:

(Chapter 2, 3)

What is a robot, after all. What

are the characteristics of an

artificial companion, and to what

extend are currently helping (or

not) the target group, in general

and in specific when it comes to

loneliness?

(Chapter 2, 5)

What are the existing

approaches of designing

artificial companions?

(Chapter 3, 4)

How can the target group be

analyzed, is there an opportunity

to focus on a specific sub- category?

(Chapter 3)

What is loneliness? What are

the existing coping mechanisms,

and solutions in order to prevent

or address it?

(Chapter 2, 3, 4, 5)

What are the important

‘ingredients’ for an artificial

companion? How can we

translate a vision of them to

behavior of an artificial

companion?

(Chapter 3, 4, 5, 6)

What are the important aspects

of supportive behavior that need

to be realized in an artificial

companion against loneliness?

How can FaceReader contribute?

(Chapter 6, 7)


of the concept to be prototypedand how can the concept be

validated?

(Chapter 7)

How is the artificial companion’s

purpose assessed by different

types of users?

Research questions 1,2 and 4 provide

the theoretical background of the

research. In order to deal with those

literature review is conducted, with

specific focus insights in interaction with

existing artificial companions. Since

literature lacks insights in interaction

design vision explorative research wasalso conducted.

Research question 3 provides the

conceptual background of the design.

Combining literature insights and

anecdote stories opportunities for

conceptualization appear.

Research questions 5, and 6 concern

the design of the artificial companion.

Answering those needed to break down

theory into concept bits and testable

‘hypothetical’ routines of an artificial

companion.

Research questions 7, and 8 concern

the implementation, and evaluation of

the concept. Evaluation happened

gradually as it was tested both in young

and older people.

13

Introduce

1.3.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.



The scope and

limitations

In this section, the scope, intended useof the proposed artificial companion,

and limitations of the project, are

discussed. These issues lead to

additional challenges that they either

need to be addressed or to be defined

as out of this project’s scope.

Summarizing the scope of the project,

the proposed concept is based on the

following assumptions:

Buddy is an exploration of howartificial companions can provide...

companionship, not a solution to the

problem of loneliness in elderly.

Seniors are willing to accept

companionship from buddy, without

thinking that this is morally wrong,

because they will have personal gain

(contribution to their well-being) out

of their companionship by interacting.

Technology will improve. For now the

project looks at a future-visionary

level (not necessarily with a future

implementation date but with the

acknowledgment that functionality

can be improved later and

interactions come first).

In more detail those derive from thefollowing considerations:

Loneliness and Participants

Aging, is often accompanied by

consequences, preconceptions and

sometimes stigmatization (in terms of

social perception). It has always been a

sensitive and challenging topic on its

own [B07]. Figuring out what happensin terms of loneliness while aging, is

even more challenging. It seems that

loneliness is that unpleasant feeling (see

Chapter 2) that, not only elder experience

(although it might be more often in them

compared to younger people [B07]) but

all of us have experienced some time.

Some vigorously argue that in the

computer age we are constantly

connected, but we feel more lonely,

because we are afraid of intimacy [B06].

Yet, I haven’t heard any of blatantly

complaining “Oh I feel so lonely”, in my

young or older circles of acquaintances.

Feeling lonely usually doesn’t happen at

a conscious level, and if it does we

prefer to ignore it as a first step [B07], as

all bad experiences are so must stronger

than good ones [J09]. Especially older

people might chose to conceal it in fear

of becoming their family’s burden [B07].

Therefore it is really difficult to measure

how many people actually feel

loneliness, and much more difficult to

find participants with the question

“excuse me, if you feel lonely, then

could you please be part of my

research?”. As a matter of fact, it has

been very difficult to find participants of

older age having almost zero

connections of that age span that could

invest much time in my research in the

Netherlands.

The way to deal with that limitation

was the development of a conceptual

framework. All target groups have

common things to share, as long as you

figure out the appropriate way to

categorize them (see Chapter 2).

Therefore the exploration of the

concept, iterations and initial prototype

testing were done with youngparticipants that could fit to the

conceptual framework. It is logical, that

chances are if a young person rejects a

concept (or parts of it) then an older

person would have rejected it too.

However the other way around has no

logical induction in order to jump to

conclusions, and therefore the final test

was conducted with older participants.

Befriending machines

The whole notion of having an artificial

companion as your friend is perhaps a

bit advanced for our current societalacceptance towards robots. It is really

easy to ‘slip’ into deep philosophical

wander about what is morally good and

what is not [B06]. Is it morally good to

offer an older person cure to their

loneliness by an artificial companion?

Or is it better to leave an elder to the

care of a nurse that has too many other

elder people to care for and, thus,

limited time to really ‘cure’ their

loneliness? As I mentioned before,

humans are in constant inner conflict

[B02]. On the one hand, we would like

to be the company of an older person of

the family, but most of the times, for

various reasons, we can’t be there all of

the time, as an artificial companion

would. On the other one, the idea of

having an artificial companion to spend

time with them instead, seems

unnatural, weird or even repulsive. Tosome people it seems even sadder than

an older person being alone, as they

feel the machine can only have

pretentious intentions of being a

companion and cannot really fell or

understand what loneliness is [B06].

Solving the ethical dilemmas of our

consciousness is not part of this project.

14

Introduce

1.4.

1.

2.



5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

However, in order to propose an

ethically aware concept to this matter

‘buddy’ is not proposed as a substitute

of human to human interaction, neither

as a medical prescription (or therapy)

for loneliness but a prevention factor.

Acquiring a ‘buddy’

Although the issue of how an older

person acquires an artificial companion,

and in that case a ‘buddy’ is important

and might help resolving the previous

issue, I considered it beyond the scope

of the concept to design those

interactions.

The starting point of the envisioned

future scenario starts with a senior that

is willing to accept an artificial

companion as their companion, instead

of figuring how to convince them one

could keep them company in the first

place. However insights about

obtaining one were gained through the

testings and are discussed as valuable

factors of acceptance of the overallconcept.

Available technology

As already presented earlier, current

technology is not perfect. I consider this

both a limitation and an opportunity.

On the one hand figuring out how to

prototype and test a concept without

having a robot was challenging. On the

other one it proved to be mind opening

as being able to express creativity, even

in the level of the methods you use orcreate, may reveal opportunities for an

artificial companion that doesn’t need to

be technologically perfect.

Is there a perfect friend, anyway?

Complexity

Current topic can possibly evolve

towards many directions, as everything

is relevant in order to offer a meaningfuland positive experience. Aesthetics,

materials, technology, psychology etc.

This was another factor that was both a

barrier and an enabler. Limitations had

to be drawn in order to reduce

complexity as it is easy to fall in an

‘analysis-paralysis ’ mode. In the

beginning I wasn’t sure how to deal with

this. Later on I decided that in many

points the analysis has to stop with the

premise that no framework, theoretical

or empirical, can ever be complete.

Instead it is important to reveal the full

complexity, to the maximum possible

extend, in order to understand how the

‘pieces’ connect, then act upon it by

adding and removing pieces till only the

validated and refined ones are kept.

The approach

Given the aim of designing an artificial

companionship that prevents loneliness

and, therefore, contributes to the well-

being of older people, a Research

through Design approach (RtD) [J11] is

adopted. RtD endorses the belief that

designing, explorations and, thus, the

act of creating prototypes, is a

generator of applied knowledge and

innovation. For RtD, interaction, is not

only a form of research but it is also a

way of meaning making. Producing

meaningful artificial companions, is

certainly desirable for this project, butalso in the general field of HRI.

Since, to my knowledge at least, there

is no specific design methodology for

designing robots, current process is

derived from a generic user-centered

design (UCD) process [B08] adapted

so that it includes steps to build a future

interaction vision [B09] and steps to

do so by turning it into a participatory

project [B10]. Typically UCD

methodologies follow a understand -

ideate - prototype - evaluate, iterative

phase outline. I would call them parts,

or modes, as phase makes it sound too

linear, whereas in reality many times

you have to iterate in order to generate

insights or make sense, or some other

times those modes just overlap.

Roughly, the modes(see Figure 5)

are

meant to:

Analyze

the outer context of the project,

understanding the target group and

artificial companions.

Envision

future interactions.

Ideate

possible alternatives based on insights.

Validate

the concept through prototype tests.

Reflect

to refine framework, concept and process.

Organization of the report is constructed

so that process is reflected to the bits

and parts of it.

15

Introduce

3.

4.

5.

1.5.



16

Introduce

u s e r - c e n t e r e d

g e n e r i c

d e s i g n p r o c e s s

Human-Robot

Interaction

Aging

Loneliness

Artificial

companions Current

Interactions Future

Interactions

Companionship

Ingredients

Concept

Future

behavior

Prototype

for

exploring

Prototype

forevaluation Insights

Recommendations

!

!!

Analyze Envision Ideate Validate Reflect

!

m e

a n s

o u t c o m e

16

Understanding EmpathizingConceptualizing

& PrototypingPrototyping &

Testing

part i part ii part iii part iv part v

desk research

de-structuring

anecdote stories

re-structuring

creative facilitation

workshops/sessions

brainstorming

synthesizing insights

explorative research

involvement of young users

questionnaire

experiments

involvement of older users

• context insights

• refined direction

• conceptual framework

interaction vision • written scenarios

• storyboards

• prototypes

• machine-state diagram

• service concept

• video of the concept

• video footage of participants

• qualitative data

interaction goal

• concept recommendations

• methodology recommendations

D i v e r g i n g C o n v e r

g i n g

Define Challenge Define Insights Define Concept Define End Result

FIGURE 5 The approach



iThis part summarizes learning

points and notions from the

analysis phase, that are

relevant to the development ofthis project. Theory collected

from, mainly, the areas of

aging, motivation, and human-

robot interaction, is used to

define the challenge that will

be address in this project. The

byproduct of this phase is a

new conceptual framework to

tackle the complexity of the

defined challenge.

Analyze



Chapter Overview

2.1

Robotics to HRI, a long history

2.2 Human-Robot Interaction towards a classification

2.2.1

Classification Framework

2.2.2

Human-Robot Ratio

2.2.3 Application

2.2.4

Aesthetics

2.2.5

Interaction

2.3 What is a robot, what an artificial companion, and

what is it made of, after all.

Every interaction designer always has as an ultimate goal to design

products (or services, or interfaces) where interactions are ‘natural’,

‘intuitive’, ‘effortless’ so that the user experience is unhindered,

smooth, and pleasant. When it comes to humans interacting with

robots that principle can easily backfire. Researchers and engineers

have worked many years, approaching the goal from different

perspectives, creating many different robots, to realize:

there is no such thing as “natural” interaction in HRI.

People do not perceive robots as ‘products’. The more they look like

humans (anthropomorphic), the more they behave to them like if they

were humans. If they look like animals (zoomorphic), then they will

behave to them as if they were pets. So what is ‘natural‘ in that case, to

begin with, and, how do you design what the robot needs to be, in order

to elicit a ‘natural‘ response back?

In this chapter, an attempt to de-structure knowledge (resulting a T-

shaped overview: variety before deepness), that can be used by a

designer, is made.

Analyze

RobotsDe-structuring their ‘nature’

18

2.

19

21

39

22

24

25

32

38



Robotics to HRI,

a long history

One could say that robots have two kinds

of histories: the one that starts in the 20th

century when robot technology was able

to bring to life the first ‘industrial’ robots

[W05], and the other one starts way back,

when people started thinking of the whole

idea of such ‘creatures’ existing.

Before the 20th century, the notion of a

robot usually is closer to that of a

servant. There also other words used

for the same notion, such as automata,android, golem that appear to be

originated as an idea in the mythologies

of ancient Egypt [B13], Greece [B11], and

China [B12]. Other artificial, robotic

devices (e.g. pets) are also reported

[B12]. Robota, etymologically [W07]

derived from Czech, means ‘forced

labor, compulsory service, drudgery’.

From an Old Czech source akin to Old

Church Slavonic rabota ‘servitude’ from

rabu ‘slave’. From Old Slavic *orbu-,

*orbh, ‘pass from one status to another’,

‘orphan’. The word robot is also related

with the German root arbeit, ‘work’. Till

today there still isn’t a definition that

everyone agrees upon and the whole

notion of what a robot is or does keeps

on changing, but it definitely changed

much from ‘being a servant’.

Leonardo Da Vinci is probably the first

to have designed androids and other

mechanics for automated machines in

the 15th century [W08].

The word ‘robot’ first appeared in a play,

written by Karel #apek, published in

1920. The play is about a factory that is

in need of manufactured living beings,

simplified people, as it has chemicals.

These mass-production, mechanical

creatures are often mistaken for humansin appearance but they have no

emotions or capability of thinking [W06].

Isaac Asimov is generally credited with

the popularization of the term ‘Robotics’,

in 1942, marking a new field, and being

the first that formulated design guidelines

for human-robot interaction (a sub-field

that was established much later) with his

“Laws of Robotics” [J11].

Early robotic implementations were

just remotely-controlled devices that

were actually not automated but

contributed in the field of robot

mechanics. For example, in 1899,

Nikolai Tesla demonstrated a remotely-

controlled boat that had ‘a borrowed

mind’. In the patent of this boat, Tesla

writes that “someday mechanical men

will do the work of human race, since

this boat is just the first of a

race” [J11]. It is reported that the public

was not impressed and the press

reports refer to the remotely-controlled

boat as a result of ‘mind control’ [W09].

Research in artificial intelligence

followed the mechanics advancements.

In 1950, Alan Turing publishes a paper

posing the question “can machines

think?”. He probably thought they do,

since he proposed a test in order to

determine whether a machine can think

on its own or not, by convincing another

to believe that the machine is human

too (known as the Turing Test) [J12].

Till recently there was no machine

reported to have passed the test, but

scientists are still confused about a

case that appeared in 2014 [W10].

In 1954 the first ‘programmable’ robotic

arm was developed. This arm will lead

to the first industrial robot, the Unimate,

that was able to work in an assemblyline of General Motors in 1961 [W09].

Later on, attempts to build fully

autonomous robots were made and

the result of those attempts, perhaps,

the most famous one, in terms of

citations, was the first robot controlled

by artificial intelligence, Shakey, made

at the Stanford Research Institute, in

1970. Shakey was able to navigate

alone around through a ‘block of

world’ [W09].

In mid 80s a breakthrough in robot

technology occurred with research inthe behavior of robots. Research was

initially focused in mobility, followed by

research in developing lifelike

anthropomorphic behaviors,

acceptable behaviors and desirable

behaviors [J11].

Human-Robot interaction (HRI) has

emerged in the early 1990s and can be

described as:

"The field of study dedicated to

understanding, designing, and

evaluating robotic systems for

use by or with humans" [J11].

The main goal of HRI is to:

“Understand and shape the

interactions between one ormore humans and one or more

robots" [J11].

Since the 1990s, the focus is on

determining what a robot’s behavior is

made of, bringing new notions to the

field: social intelligence, emotional

behavior, personality [W02], [B01].

19

Analyze

2.1.



20

Analyze

20FIGURE 6 Indicative Robotics Milestones

Homerdescribes

automated

walking

tripods and

golden maids

that behave

like real

people

Leonardo Da

Vinci designs the

first android

The word robot

was introduced to

the public by the

Czech interwar

writer Karel #apek

in his play R.U.R.

(Rossum's

Universal Robots)

Tesla builds remotely

controlled boat. The

boat could be

commanded to go,

stop, turn left and

right, turn its lights,

and submerge

Isaac Asimov

publishes the three

laws of Robotics,

making the word

‘Robotics’ well

known to the public,

marking a new field

Alan Turing

proposes a test

to determine

whether or not a

machine has

gained the power

to think for itself.

Since then each

year a contest is

held to test

candidates for

The "Turing Test”

A prototype Unimate

arm is installed in a

General Motors and

soon becomes the

first commercial

industry robot

Shakey, the first

mobile robot with

vision and AI.

The aptly named

robot is an

unstable box on

wheels that

figures out how to

get around

obstacles

R2D2 lookalikes are

vacuuming floors

and singing songs in

Japan, marking an

era where designing

behavior comes first

Robocop, a

cyborg, brings a

dystopia, a

singularity future,

for the public to

be afraid of,

when robots are

technologically

possible.

MIT's Rodney A.

Brooks starts

building Cog, a robot

that is being raised

and educated like a

human

Paro, an artificial

companion, that

is intended to

elicit emotional

responses from

its owners, older

people withdementia

800 BC 1495 1899 1920 1942 1950 1961 1968 1980s 1987 1993 2001

(*) ‘Milestones as selected from [J11], [W02]. Creating a complete overview of all milestones in robotics probablyrequires much more paper. Hopefully this one sets the ground accordingly for the purposes and direction of this project.



Human-Robot

Interaction

towards aClassification

In an attempt to de-structure the field of

HRI, so that research questions can be

answer, by gaining understanding of

artificial companions, where do they

stand at the moment, what is an

artificial companion and what a robot is

in general, it is crucial to map the field.

There is no point in making

categorizations of robots without a point

of reference. As a complicated field,

there are many points that could be

taken as a point of reference in order to

start classifying robots. From a

designer’s perspective, a holistic

overview of HRI could be, roughly,

mapped in Figure 7, using information

from various sources [W02], [J17]. The

scheme will later help in classification.

Human-robot interaction (HRI) differs

significantly from human-computer

interaction (HCI), or human-product

interaction. Although there are

conceptual frameworks on the

components that result in ‘natural’human-product interaction experiences

[B14], and human-computer interaction

experiences [J13], there is little evidence

(yet endless theories and research) on

what influences HRI experiences.

It is controversial to define whether a

robot is more of a product or more of a

computer, to begin with. There is even a

dispute that human-robot interactions,

simply, cannot be ‘natural’ and it is a

goal that should be carefully thought as

it has a different meaning when it

comes to HRI. People have been

reported to react to robots differently

according to their looks. For example, If

the are human-like they will treat them

in a human-like manner and they will

also expect a human-like behavior from

them. Hence ‘natural‘ human-robot

interaction is actually a reflection of

what human-human interaction is

perceived to be ‘natural’ in people’s

minds [W02]. But what is natural when

the robot is not human-alike? Hence it

is important to define morphology as a

possible classifier of HRI, but in order to

draw conclusions this it is important to

make correlations and classifications of

different, in other ways, ‘kinds’ of robots.

On the side of human-product

interaction, a modern approach, [J14] of

what the components of human-product

experience are, is:

aesthetic pleasure,

attribution of meaning , and

emotional response.

Thus defining product experience would

be “the entire set of affects that is

elicited by the interaction between a

user and a product, including thedegree to which all our senses are

gratified (aesthetic experience), the

meanings we attach to the product

(experience of meaning) and the

feelings and emotions that are elicited

(emotional experience)” [J15]. A

definition of a ‘natural’ experience would

also include usability, as it seems to

influence all the other three dimensions

that are mentioned [J13].

On the human-computer interaction an

experience would be ‘natural’ with flow

when four conditions are met [J13]:

the user perceives a sense of

control over the computer

interaction

21

Analyze

2.2.

Human-Robot interaction is a ‘synthetic’ field. Adapted from [W02] [J17].

FIGURE 7 Fields in HRI

HRI

Robot’s

‘view’ on

the world

Human’s

‘view’ on

robots

psychology

arts

HCI

Human-Product

Interaction

ethology

design

interaction

design

aesthetics

sociology

engineering

computer science

economics

market gap/business

technology

artificial life

intelligence

machine learning

sociobiology perception

hardware

software

well-being

emotions

meaning

innovation

distributed AI

social emotional

behavior

behavior

logic

physicality

materials

sustainability

Society experiencing HRI

anthropology philosophy

perception



the user perceives that their

attention is focused on the

interaction

the user’s curiosity is arousedduring the interaction

the user finds the interaction

intrinsically interesting .

Researchers [C03] claim that HRI is

different from HCI in four dimensions,

which can be considered in order to

make classifications for HRI and robots.

Those four dimensions are:

the levels of human interaction,

the necessity of environment

interaction for mobile robots,

the dynamic nature of robots in

their tendencies to develop

hardware problems,

the environment in which

interactions occur.

Attempts to create a classification

framework have been done before

[W02], [J11], [J16], [J18], [C04], [J19],

[J20], but they don’t give a holistic

view. A new framework will be created,

to serve a designer’s view.

Classification

Framework

Creating a classification framework can

have multiple applications. Firstly it can

help in marking where a robot ‘belongs’.

Secondly it can help in evaluating a

specific robot against others in the

same category/categories. Thirdly it can

help determine ‘ingredients’ a robot

should have when designing for a

specific category. The last one is the

most wanted effect since, it will help in

the analysis of artificial companions.

The proposed classification is based on

previous frameworks, models, criteria

and components before [W02], [J11],

[J16], [J18], [C04], [J19], [J20]. Taking

Figure 7 under consideration it should be

mentioned that the components

sometimes derive from how the robot

‘perceives’ the world (e.g. application,

and aesthetics in Figure 8), sometimes

how people perceive the robot, the

interact and the experience they have

with it (e.g. interaction in Figure 8) and

sometimes a meta-level of reflection is

needed from observing such relations

as a third-party (second level areas that

will belong to interaction according to

Figure 8 as seen in Figure 9). The ratio of

humans to robots can be considered as

an external factor that can affect all of

the above.

As with everything, there are three

challenges to be taken under account:

The complexity. Taxonomies

keep on getting updated and

evolved all the time,

Factors overlapping, belonging

to more than one categories or

affecting/creating other factors,

Subjectivity is almost

everywhere, making things more

difficult. Some factors can be

logically answered, in some

others people might disagree as

preferences and tastes differ

too.

22

Analyze

2.2.1

Application, Aesthetics, Interaction, Human-Robots Ratio do not give

independent factors.

4->1, 4->2, 4->3: H-R Ratio affects all three: Application, Aesthetics, Interaction

3->1 Form and Function follows Interaction

2->1 Form follows Function

FIGURE 8 Areas of Classification

1

2

3

4

Application

Aesthetics

Interaction

H-R ratio



The proposed

framework (see Figure

9) has may many

possible layers.

Some classifiers are

primary and it wouldbe meaningful to be

defined for most

kinds of robots.

Some other

classifiers can be

treated as secondary,

or even tertiary and

give more light into

defining objective

matters, like

experience. Moving

from Application to

Interaction the

classifiers are getting

from objective to

subjective (see Figure 7,

8). The more

objective a classifier

is, the more it has to

do with how the robot

sees the world.Whereas the more

subjective, the more

it has to do with what

people project upon a

robot or what such a

relation evokes at a

meta-level of

thinking.

23

Analyze

Factors deriving from the main areas: Application, Aesthetics, Interaction, Human-Robot ratio

FIGURE 9 Overall view of classifiers for HRI

Human - Robot numbers

Composition of

Teams

1

2

3

4

Application

Aesthetics

Interaction

H-R ratio

Level of shared

interactionamong teams

Environment

Task Type

Task Criticality

Skills

(processing)

Intelligence

Spatial

Intra-Personal

Linguistic

KinestheticInterpersonal

Existential

Logical/Mathematical

Musical

Naturalist

Autonomy

Morphology

Likeability

Awareness

(sensors / input)

Responsive

(communication means)

Modality

(output)

Size

Behavior

Material

Type

Role

Proximity

Type of proximity

Perceived as what

Acceptability (?)All of the above do not really matter ifthe robot fails in being accepted, but

they do play a role.



Human-Robot

Ratio The ratio of people to robots directly

affects the human-robot interaction, but

as a classifier, it simply states the

numbers of each, without indicating howthis affects the interaction [J16]. The

human-robot ratio axis is not one-

dimensional (although it can get

simplified, see Figure 10).

24

Analyze

2.2.2

Examples: Classifying robots according to H-R ratio. Axis could also be represented in a robot-human plot of 2 axis to include more cases.

FIGURE 10 Human-Robot Ratio robot classifier

1 to 1N to N N to 1

(number of) Robots (number of) Humans

N to some few to few few to 1

They are many, and

they are tiny! They

are inspired to ‘bio-

imitate’ behaviors

(e.g. how insects

behave), have

‘collective

intelligence (like

flocks do), and they

can serve various

purposes, like

assemble in one.

Multi-participant

‘receptionist’

system that can

recognize people

that are currently

interacting to those

that are currently

are waiting.

Receptionists-

robotic cameras

can be 1 or more

than 1.

Swarms Receptionists / Distributed surveillance Aibo II

One robotic pet,one human.

Pretty clear!



Under the classifier ‘Human Robot

Ratio’ two sub-classifiers are proposed

[J16]:

Composition of Robot Teams

Many more combinations can be

created (see Figure 11), also taking into

account that robots can act in teams or

as individuals. Teams can either be

homogeneous or heterogeneous

(teams of robots and humans for

example, or other entities).

Level of shared interaction

among teams

This sub-classifier indicates whether

those teams interact more within the

group of robots or towards the group of

people. It is also meant to include who

is the controller of the system (whether

decisions are taken collaboratively by

the robots, or are they given by

humans).

Application

In order to fully define the area of

application of a robot I would suggest

the following sub-classifiers need to be

analyzed. Some classifiers can beanswered easily in an objective manner,

whereas some others are subjective.

Environment

Where is the robot needed to function.

Task Type

What is it wanted to perform.

Task Criticality

How important is it that it finishes what it

has to do.

Skills (process)

What is needed to process in order toperform? (Input will be analyzed in the

Aesthetics-Sensing part (see 2.2.4), and

output in the Interaction part (see 2.2.5)).

Autonomy

How long can it perform without

intervention.

Possible combinations of single or multiple humans and robots, acting as

individuals or in teams

FIGURE 11 Human-Robot interaction combinations

25

Analyze

2.2.3

A l



The environment classifier

The environment where the robot

‘exists’ in, plays an important role in

defining what kind of ‘skills’ it is

expected to have in order to accomplishits tasks. This classifier is also closely

connected to the task type. Note that

some robots might belong to more than

one ‘place’, e.g. robotic toys.

26

Analyze

Examples of robots that ‘belong’ to different environments. Axis ranges from Outdoors (left) to Indoors (right).

FIGURE 12 Environment classifier

PrivateOuter Space Public Spaces

Outdoors (usually with no people) (usually with people) Indoors

Open (earthy) terrain Shared Indoors

Space robotics can

navigate (autonomously

or tele-operated) and

collect samples in space

Factory Spaces

Space Military Industrial Service Healthcare Domestic

Big dog can go where

humans cannot

Industrial robots are

actually the first robots,

production lines,

assembly etc.

Tibi & Dabo wander

around Barcelona in a

quest to serve citizens

Hui Hui will bring things,

like a glass of water, to

patients in hospitals

iRobot’s roomba can

sweep the floors of a

room

A l



The task type classifier

Task type might be very specific and

well defined for some robots. For some

others the task type might be deeply

related to its interaction role (see 2.2.5),and therefore, highly abstract. The task

indicates the direction, and purpose, for

the use and design of the robot/system.

For those robots that is so vague to

define what their task is, it is even more

define what skills should they have.

These are all active areas of researchcurrently. It is suggested that the task

gets specified only at a high level [J16].

27

Analyze

Examples of robots that perform different types of tasks. Axis ranges from Explicit (left) to Implicit (right).

FIGURE 13 Task type classifier

Handle Carry

Explicit Implicit

CalculateCommunicate

Mediate

Manipulators

are usually

robotic arms

for specific

tasks

Navigate

Some robots,

like NAO, are

able to

navigate

around

Kaspar teaches

autistic children

social skills with

repetitive

movents

Assist Educate EntertainKeep

Company

Manipulators Adaptable Mobile Transport Telepresence Assistive Educational Toys Companions

Baxter is thenew generation

of industrial

robots can

adapt to the

environment

and learn

Besides being

able to

navigate

independently,

google car, can

also drive you

somewhere

Furby is one

the oldest and

most famous

robotic toys for

children

The teddy bear

is designed to

just keep

company to

people

Telepresence

robots help (or

mediate)

communication

Riba is anassistive robot,

helping people

(that have

fallen down, or

cannot move)

by lifting them

Analyze



The task criticality classifier

Task criticality indicates the importance

completeness of the task has. However

it is highly subjective, since it is not

possible to ‘measure‘ the criticality. Forsome task types it might be more clear,

for example in military environments it is

important that the robot will track mines

that are in the ground. But for other task

types it is getting vague, how critical is it

if a Furby fails to keep a child’s interest?

To deal with this issue, it has beenproposed that criticality can be

considered high when failure affects the

life of a human [J16].

28

Analyze

Examples of robots that have different criticality for their task completion. Axis ranges from Low (left) to High (right).


Low High

Robotic toys,

probably, won’t

hurt anyone if

they fail to be

entertaining

enough

Toys Assistive Robotic scouts

This cockroach-like robot can

scout for survivors after

earthquakes. It is of high

importance that it finds them

as soon as possible

Assistive robotscan be of medium

criticallity as they

can endager

someone’s life in

case of failure

Medium

Analyze



The skills classifier

This classifier is probably the most

difficult to define, as it touches highly

controversial and fuzzy matters.

Depending on the task, the neededautonomy, and the interaction role (see

2.2.5), certain set of skills should be

present. Skills can be translated into

‘artificial intelligence‘. There have been

many formal attempts to definitions of

what intelligence means for a robot

[J21], [J2], [R04], [C06]. Most of those,

point back at matters of autonomy (it is

a vicious circle). A robot, in order to be

intelligent, it has to be adjustable or

dynamic/adaptable when it comes to

autonomy and how it learns and

evolves. Several approaches have

emerged on how this can happen.

Decision-making models led to sense-

plan-act architectures [B16], [C08].Learning-based architectures led to

robots that can get new skills by

learning [J23]. Later on robots were

able to develop their own plans based

on behavior-based systems [J24],

resulting in a sense-think-act model.

Nowadays research try a combination

of models, resulting in hybrid

architecture [B16], [J21]. The goal is to

make pro-active robots, that can be

context aware. What kind of intelligence

is needed though is still under research.

29

Examples of robots that have different level of functionality (skills). Axis ranges from Static (left) to Dynamic (right).

FIGURE 15 The skills classifier

Pre-Defined Adaptable

Static Dynamic

Re-programmable

(Older)

Industrial

robots are

usually pre-

programmed

Adjustable

NAOs can take

decisions on a

sense-plan-act

scheme

Reactive Pro-active

Baxter is the

new generation

of industrial

robots can

adapt

performing

calculations

There is no

existing robot

that can be

fully dynamic,

proactive and

contextually

aware.

CB2 learns and grows up

as a child, mimicking a

child’s actions.

Analyze

Analyze



What people expect from a robot, or

what they think it is able to do, affects

the intelligence they think the robot has,

and consequently, the skills they think it

has [C07]. However, scientists explore

theories that derive from non-artificial(human) intelligence, like the theory (see

Figure 16) of multiple intelligences [B15]:

Spatial

Naturalist

Musical

Logical-Mathematical

Existential

Interpersonal

Bodily-Kinesthetic

Linguistic

Intra-Personal

30

Analyze

FIGURE 16 Intelligence types and robots that ‘exhibit’ that kind of intelligence (to some extend, at least)

InterpersonalSpatial KinestheticIntra-Personal Linguistic ExistentialLogical

Mathematical Musical

Visualizing the

world,

navigating

accordingly

Understanding

yourself, what

you feel, what

you want

Finding the

right words to

express what

you mean

Coordinate

your mind with

your body

Sensing

people’s

feelings and

motives

Tackling issues

regarding why

we live and

why we die

Quantifying

things, making

assumptions

Discerning

sounds, pitch

tone, rhythm,

and timbre

Understanding

living things

and reading

the nature

The clocky

robotic alarm

wonders awayfrom the

person that it is

intended to

wake up.

Navigation is a

developed

area.

QBO can

recognize itself

in the mirror.There is no

robot that

‘knows’ what it

feels or wants

though.

Siri is probably

an example of

demonstratinglinguistic skills.

Understanding

the linguistic

skills of a

person is a

different matter

though.

Luxo is a

robotic arm that

dances,creating a trail

of dancing light

behind it. It

doesn’t have a

mind exactly

but it does

coordinate.

Pepper is a

robot that

recognizespeople’s

emotions and

can act

accordingly.

The end of life

care machine

probablydoesn’t

understand

what dying is,

but it guides

people through

dying.

These modular

robotic cubes

can assemblebased on

magnetic poles.

All computers

can perform

mathematical

computations.

Logical? Few.

Guy’s

Hoffman’s bots

can jam,accompanying

a person

playing music.

The pareidolic

robot has too

much free timeto observe the

clouds,

searching for

patterns (of

people’s faces

and other

beings).

Naturalist

Analyze



The autonomy classifier

Autonomy can be defined in regard to

the amount of intervention is needed for

a robot to complete their tasks. Again,

for well-defined tasks it is easy tomeasure if they are completed. For

example an industrial robot that is

responsible for moving things from one

production trail to the next, will have its

task completed if all the pieces are

moved to the next trail without anyone

‘helping it’ (physically or via

teleoparation/interface). For ill-defined

tasks fully autonomous robots simply do

not exist, yet. For example if a robotictoy is to entertain children, but children

get bored of interacting with it within half

an hour, has it completed its task? For

this reason some suggest that

autonomy can actually be measured by

the ‘absence’ of interaction instead

[J16], [C05]. If a person neglects a robot,

will they continue their task? This

approach might help solving classifying

more cases, but in some others mightbe like the case of the tree that falls

down when nobody is around to witness

it has fallen down. So, does it matter if

the robotic toy still continues to play on

its own after the child’s attention has

moved to something else? Well, yes

and no. Yes, because the robot

performs as if it had will on its own (thus

autonomy indeed). No, because it will

not be enough to attract the child’sattention back to playing with it (hence

no interaction with the child which is

part of its task), and because the robot

doesn’t exhibit signs of adaptation.

There is no robot that is fully adaptable

in all types of intelligence, so far.

Examples of robots that have different autonomy levels. Axis ranges from None/Fully Controlled (left) to Fully Autonomous (right).


31

None/Fully Controlled Fully Autonomous

Surgical robotic arms andneedles are used in

specific types of surgeries

(e.g. laparoscopy). They

are fully operated by a

doctor as they are used

for precision reasons

Semi-AutonomousRemotely Controlled Situationally Aware

Mining robots can be

remotely operated from a

safe place for humans.

PABI is a penguin that helps

autistic children socialize. It

is semi-autonomous as it

can both perceive reactions

and controlled by a clinician

in order to give the right

response

Surgical robotic tools Mining robots Assistive Therapy Aerial robots

Quad rotor flying robots

are not only able to

independently navigate

and fly, but they can also

coordinate, if more than

one

Analyze

There is no

existing robot that

can be fully

contextually

aware, not even

for one type ofintelligence.

Analyze



Aesthetics

Aesthetics is a very old notion which

has undergone a lot of changes in its

meaning [B14]. While it is not of crucial

importance to decide in detail whataesthetics is and what not for the

purposes of this project, it is important

to draw the relations of how it affects

the experience of a human interacting

with a robot and understanding how

much it overlaps with interaction

elements in general (see 2.2.5).

For many people, aesthetics is about

beauty, and appreciation of it as the

term is widely used to characterizesomething as (visually) beautiful [B14].

The etymology of the world links to

much more than that though [W11], as

aesthetics derives both from the Greek

‘aisthesis’ (which means to feel, to

sense, having the ability to ‘understand’

through the sensory system) and the

latin root au- e.g. ‘audience’ (perceive).

Generalizing, aesthetics refers to the

overall sensory (not only visual)pleasure and delight [J25]. Such a

definition can draw a line between what

we sense and what we assign to

something (such as construction of

meaning, or emotions) [J15] which can

also help in differentiating what belongs

to aesthetics and what to interaction in

HRI.

There is much duality built-in in the term

aesthetics though in the field of HRI.

One the one hand it can relate to what

the robot perceives (sensors it has, in

order to ‘feel the world’ technically). This

view is often found in literature as

‘robot-centered view’ [J18], [J19]. On the

other one what the human perceives

about the robot (so the term often links

to the form a robot will have, its looks).

This is often found as ‘human-centered

view’ [J18], [J19].

Classifiers on how people see robots:

Morphology

Size

Material

Behavior

Likeability

Classifiers on how robots see the world:

Modality

Awareness (sensors)

32

Analyze

2.2.4

Analyze



The morphology classifier

It is often assumed that robots have to

look like humans in order to be called

‘robots’ [W02]. However, robots can

have make forms, from physical to non-physical. Sometimes, depending on

their visual representation they do tend

to be called differently, or might even be

considered software systems. For

example, if a robot doesn’t have a

physical ‘existence’, it will be called

artificial agent (robotic of software). ifthat agent has a virtual face, it will

probably be called avatar [J17]. On the

other hand, if they have a physical

‘body’ they are embodied robots. If they

more human-alike (anthropomorphic),

they are more likely to be called

humanoids [J16]. If they are moreanimal-alike (zoomorphic), they are

more likely to be called robotic pets.

Moreover robots can look like

caricatures, if they are abstract but

they have facial features [J17]. Or, last

case, they might not look like anything,

just being ‘functional ’, as it happenswith industrial robots, where their form

just serves the task they have to

perform [J17].

33

y

Examples of robots that look different. Axis ranges from Dematerialized (left) to Tangible (right).

FIGURE 18 The morphology classifier

Ambient Wearable

Dematerialized Tangible

Avatars Functional

Ambient

intelligence, and

agents are used

in many fields.

For example

nest can learn

and control a

house’s

temperature

Embedded

Romo is a

robotembedded in

an iPhone with

some extra

embodiment

equipment

Boxie doesn’t

exactly

resemble anyknown animal,

but it could

have been one

Abstract

Objectified Caricatured

Biomorphic

Zoomorphic Anthropomorphic

Zoe is a virtual

assistive avatarthat can

express

emotions

Exoskeletons

are close to

functional

morphology in

order to make

people wake

Philips’ iCat, is

a robotic cat,

apparently.

Hiroshi

ishiguro’s

Geminoid HI-4

is an android

that looks like

himself

Giraff is like

this, because it

has to have a

screen and a

camera

Species of

illumination is a

series of robotsthat look more

like lamps,

than animals.

But they exhibit

a pet behavior

Analyze



The size classifier

As with everything a robot can has a

size, as long as it has a physical form.

A possible axis could range from small

to big, but it is another classifier thatcan be attributed in relation to

something else. However it is quite an

important factor for specific types of

robots and having the same form in

different sizes is not the same.

Moreover selecting a specific size for a

robot might enable or disable some

interactions or trigger a different feelingin the human that confronts it (for

example if it is too big it might seem

threatening).

The material classifier

Analyzing and selecting materials for

products is a field on its own: cheap -

expensive, soft - tough, glossy - mat.

Many properties to define. Yet materialsaffect the overall impression you will get

about a robot. It is absolutely a different

encounter to meat a robot from metal,

than a robot from carton. Roughly put,

this classifier will not be represented in

full detail, though later on there will be a

selection of material to work with (for

prototype reasons). Last but not least,the material of the robot also has an

effect on its price, making it affordable

to end users (or not).

34

y

Examples of robots that have different size

FIGURE 19 The size classifier

Tiny

Small Big

Medium

Tiny bug robot

Huge

Babyloid has the

size of a babyMobiserv has the

size of a sitting

person

Examples of robots that have different material

FIGURE 20 The size classifier

Expensive

Sophisticated Everyday material

Common

Robokind R25 has a

special elastic skin so

that it can be dragged

by motors under it to

display facial reactions

Scrap

Mamoru, a robot

that reminds elderly

to take their pills, is,

the usual, plastic.

Robots can also be

made by scrap

materials and

arduinos

Analyze



The behavior classifier

How a robot behaves and how should

it, is probably the hottest question in

HRI research the last decade [B01],

[W02], [J11], [B17], [J08]. Initially robotswere not to be interacting with people

at all, they were ‘supposed’ to work fully

autonomously in some industrial setup.

Since they began to be more and more

around people, it is a classifier that can

be possibly inter-related with everything

(appearance, first impressions,expectation breakdown, personality,

consistency) and highly affects how

people perceive the robot and if they

will accept a robot after all [J08].

Behavior can be analyzed in many

ways for example if it seems to be

predetermined, appropriate, intentional,competent enough, real-time,

animalistic, human-alike etc [J17], [J26].

Roughly all the above could be included

in a deterministic vs. stochastic

behavior scale. The more a behavior

seems to be stochastic (not repetitive,with intrinsic triggers), the more the

robot will be perceived as ‘alive’ [B17].

35

Examples of robots that are perceived as having different behavioral ‘freedom’, a mind of their own. Axis ranges from Deterministic (left) to Stochastic (right).

FIGURE 21 The behavior classifier

Controlled

Deterministic Stochastic

RepetitivePredictable

Sphero is advertised as a robot, but it is fully

controllable. The only way someone can see it as

alive is not knowing it is being controlled.

Own Mind

Ollie is a balloon-robot that seems to be triggered by

what is happening in a room. It approaches people

and things to investigate from times to times

Hasbro’s furreal animals have a predictable,

repetitive, animalistic behavior.

Analyze



FIGURE 23 The uncanny valley effect

The likeability classifier

The likeability could be defined as how

people really perceive the morphology

classifier, which have an impact on how

they will interact with it [J27]. Whereas,according to the vision of having robots,

someday we would like to have robots

that look like us (see introduction), there is

a strange phenomenon called the

‘uncanny valley’ [J28]. According to

that, there is no linear connection

between how much we like a robot to

how much it looks like (and behaves

like) a human. In fact, when a robot is

too much like a human or when itcombines human over-realistic features

with mechanical parts, the result is quite

the opposite; it is perceived as creepy.

On the other hand, you may prefer an

abstract-looking robot but you cannot

really ‘interact’ with it [J27].

36

Examples of robots that have different likeability, as voted by users within the iPad app http://robotsapp.spectrum.ieee.org. Axis ranges from Creepy (left) to Nice (right).

FIGURE 22 The likeability classifier

Creepy Nice

Diego-San is a

robot baby withexpressive face,

yet open head

and metallic

body with

exposed cables.

Albert Hubo is

a bi-pedhumanoid that

consists of

Albert

Einstein’s head

on a space

suit.

NAO is a small

robot that could

be something

between a child

and a pet

Telenoid has

the features of

a small child

yet could have

been a robot

from a movie

with aliens

HRP-4C is just

too much of a

human, as all

the other

Geminoids and

human-alike

robots are.

Autom is a

weight-loss

coach with

baby-eyes.

In the first

place of

‘niceness’, of

IEEE robots,

there is a robot

with nothing

but an icon of

an abstract

face on it.

DLR Biped is

just a pair of

legs. Not

exactly creepy,

just

unidentified

AILA is a futurespace robot, on

wheels, with a

human shape

that is not too

realistic.

Mori’s uncanny

valley diagram

(simplified and

translated)[J27], [J28].

Analyze



The size classifier

As with everything a robot can has a

size, as long as it has a physical form.

A possible axis could range from small

to big, but it is another classifier thatcan be attributed in relation to

something else. However it is quite an

important factor for specific types of

robots and having the same form in

different sizes is not the same.

Moreover selecting a specific size for a

robot might enable or disable some

interactions or trigger a different feeling

in the human that confronts it (for

example if it is too big it might seem

threatening).

The material classifier

Analyzing and selecting materials for

products is a field on its own: cheap -

expensive, soft - tough, glossy - mat.

Many properties to define. Yet materials

affect the overall impression you will get

about a robot. It is absolutely a different

encounter to meat a robot from metal,

than a robot from carton. Roughly put,

this classifier will not be represented in

full detail, though later on there will be a

selection of material to work with (for

prototype reasons). Last but not least,

the material of the robot also has an

effect on its price, making it affordable

to end users (or not).

Information exchange:

the awareness & modality

classifiers

Under a certain perspective awarenessand modality are the other side of the

coin of each other, in the sense that one

deals with input of ‘information’ and the

other one with output. How this is

conveyed to people could be the

‘responsive’ classifier, what the person

perceives in terms of interaction and

reactions to environmental stimuli.

Those three together are a way to

approach autonomy in terms of

communication with the robot. The kindof information that the robot is able to

receive, process and output also

determine the area of intelligence the

person interacting with it will perceive

that the robot has. For example if a

robot hears, is able to understand what

the person is saying by replying

something relevant back, then the

person will perceive this robot as having

some linguistic awareness.

According to researchers, there are two

primary dimensions to determine

information exchange: the

communication media and the format of

the communication. Most robots

currently utilize three of the five senses

to exchange information: seeing,

hearing, and touch.

These manifest the robot’s intentions

using the following media [J11]:

Visual displays (usually

presented as graphical user

interfaces UIs)

Gestures, including facial

movements or hand ones

Speech and natural language,

which include auditory and text-

based communication and

emphasize dialog interactions. A

sub-category of auditory

communication would be non-

speech audio (various

expressive sounds, like a bell for

alarming someone on a bad

event)

Physical interaction and haptics,

used to invoke a sense of

presence and to promote

emotional, social and assistive

exchanges.

When utilizing more than one of the

above media, then the we are talking

about multi-modal interactions, and

recently attention is focused on building

multi-modal robots in an attempt to

make them react more naturally [J11].

The format of the information varies

across the above mentioned media, but

it affects the quality of the interactionand the believability the robot will have

(if people will be convinced the robot is

actually interacting with them) [J20].

For example the format of the

information exchange in conversational

robots (those the use speech to

interact), can be scripted (with

predetermined answers to specific

words), or a natural language algorithm

can be deployed.

37

Analyze



Interaction

Interaction in HRI, as mentioned

through previously analyzed classifiers,

can be separated into two categories:

Remote Interaction

Proximate Interaction

Remote interaction cases refer to the

human and the robot not being co-

located spatially, even for a small

amount of time, yet communicate in a

way. For example teleoparated robots

in space belong to this kind of

interaction.

Proximate interaction cases refer to

humans and robots being at the same

location. For example you have to be in

the same room with AIBO in order to

play with it.

Within those categories, it is possible to

distinguish applications that need

mobility and physical manipulation or

social interaction [J11]. For example

industrial robots are in need of

physical manipulation, (tele)operation

of their condition and mobile position.

On the other hand social interaction

includes social, emotive and cognitive

aspects and is needed when interacting

with humans for other kind of tasks..

The role classifier

Depending on the application, a robot

might take different roles [J11], [C03]:

Supervisor

Operator

Mechanic

Peer

Bystander

Mentor

Information Consumer

Similar taxonomies are available in the

literature, however the important thing is

to verify how people perceive a robot’s

role and if that is in accordance to its

task. For example a mechanic would be

perceived as a machine within an

industrial application of a robot. When it

comes to more social interactions, the

robot might be perceived to be more

‘alive’, as if it had sense of its self, and

take roles of being a mentor or a peer.

The proximity classifier

Proximity is closely inter-related with the

intended interaction. As mentioned

before this classifier is determined by

whether people and robots arecollocated or not. However the classifier

is not complete if the type of proximity is

not defined in more detail [C11]. For

example in case of physical proximity

there could be interaction qualities

defined as: none, avoiding, passing,

following, approaching, touching.

This factor becomes of major importance

in supporting, closer, social interactions.

Also is being explored as exhibitingcues, for example approaching might

convey intention [C11].

The Responsive classifiers

Responsiveness is another factor that

could lead to believability, comfort

interaction between a human and a

robot and acceptability rates. It isclosely related to the communication

means (input/output capabilities of a

robot) and the general behavior

someone would perceive in a robot. If

there is a response, then the person

would automatically evaluate if the

response fits to the context, if it is

appropriate to the previous stimuli it

triggered the specific response, the

timing of it, and the quality of it in terms

of content. The level of perceivedautonomy is also affected by those

responses. Other sources that might

ruin a good response might be

technology itself. For example a NAO

might be programmed to interact with

you returning proper responses via

speech, but when it moves it makes

mechanical noise and the voice sounds

rather slow and delayed. All these are

cues that the responsiveness is

worsening the general impression you

have for the robot, leading to believe

that it is more of a machine, rather than

an artificial being.

38

2.2.3

Pet, in order to exhibit that it is a

shy robot, avoids to be touched

when in close proximity to a

person.

FIGURE 24 PET

39

Analyze



What is a robot,

what an artificial

companion, and

what is it made of,

after all.

So why bother with all these classifiers,

one might wonder. That is for two

reasons. The first one, was that by

collecting and categorizing robots was

my very own sensitizing, since I had no

prior experience and knowledge in the

field. The second one is in order to

grasp the essence of what a robot is.

The concept of robot and artificial

companions is ‘a moving target’ [W02].

Researchers and everybody else

working in the HRI field, are constantly

reinventing what a robot is considered

to be and what not. If we consider a

robot in the past is not what we

consider a robot today. The first robots

were just tele-operated machines. Thenthe industrial robots were just machines

operating without human contact [J29].

We probably don’t think of industrial

robots as being robots anymore, we

would probably think of them as

‘automated machines’. Nowadays our

expectations are raised to pro-active

and intelligent behavior from a robot.

Personally, after conducting this project,

I see that a new definition of what a

robot is, rises, and the boundaries

between ‘smart products’ and ‘robot’ are

vague. More and more companies are

designing the impression, of products

that think of their own, to deceive

people that they have a sense of self,

and therefore are robots (see Figure 26).

39

2.3.

FIGURE 25 Perceived robot definition

What society perceives as a robot develops with time

Teleoperated

Machine

Industrial

Automations

Service

Robots

Super human-

realistic robot

Intelligent

products with

social

interactions

Artificial

companions?

Past Present Future

Sphero is advertised as a “robot” ball. However it seems more like a

teleoperated toy that could deceive someone that doesn’t know there is an

operator.

FIGURE 26 Sphero

40

Analyze



Sadly there is no definition that satisfies

everyone, or is able to include all the

aspects within. Not surprisingly,

encyclopedias [W16] still have an old

definition of robots:

a robot is "any automatically

operated machine that replaces

human effort, though it may not

resemble human beings in

appearance or perform

functions in a humanlike

manner.

When it comes to artificial companions,

there is no ‘human effort’ to replace.

Their task is to be seemingly useless

[C12] by keeping company. However, if

we take into account the previously

developed classifier map, a companion

is useful, by providing company, but this

task is classified as ‘low criticality’, and

perhaps if that is the only thing it does,it is not perceived as useful enough.

Researchers think that usefulness is

still a needed component in the

equation for artificial companions [J19]:

A robot companion in a home

environment needs to 'do the

right things', i.e. it has to be

useful and perform tasks around

the house, but it also has to 'do

the things right', i.e. in a manner

that is believable and

acceptable to humans"

In order for this to happen the robot

shall behave socially, i.e. it should

possess social skills in order to be able

to interact with people in a socially

acceptable manner [J27]. The first step

towards acceptance and social

interactions is for people to feel they areinteracting with a social presence, they

experience being with another

‘being’ [J38]. The concept of presence

has been argued to be present long

before robots, from the use of traditional

media, such as the television [J39]. An

example of this, from my memories but

probably familiar to everyone, is my

grandma replying to the television

although she knew the television cannot

really understand her or even hear her.

Having it open ‘just to hear someone

within the house’ is another example.

More recently the experience and

research around ‘presence’ has

expanded to virtual reality, computers

and robots [J31], [J38].

Lee [J40] approaches presence as ‘‘a

psychological state in which the

virtuality of experience is unnoticed.’’ As

in the example, he claims that presence

occurs when “technology users do not

notice either the mediated (e.g.,

broadcasted people or places on TV,

telephone conversation partners) or the

artificial (e.g., animated characters or

places, software agents) nature of

objects that are being experienced”.

There are three kinds of presences

[J40]:

physical: The experience of a

physical entity or environment

social: The experience of social

actors including humans and

human-alike intelligences

self: Experience of one’s own

self or selves.

When experiences including physical

entities, social actors or selves are

experienced as if they were real,

feelings of physical, social and self-

presence occur respectively [J40].

When it comes to HRI, the most

important ingredient of an artificial

companion is to exhibit social presence.

If the robot is virtual then the physical

presence is difficult to achieve as a

separate entity (it would be an entity

within the hosting system). The

experience of another self, it is also

difficult for the time being, since

technology hasn’t given robots the

ability to have a real sense of their

selves. However they can give triggers

as if they had a sense of their selves by

conveying the right social cues.

Generating strong feelings of social

presence in HRI is the ultimate goal of

designing artificial ‘beings’ [J17], [J41].

“Without strong feelings of social

presence the experience of social

robots will be nothing more than a

physical experience of artificially

embodied entities” [J38].

The ‘quest’ of current thesis is to designthe evocation of such a presence, find

the proper functionality to it, by taking

into consideration the human factor,

having the functionality attainted to the

target group’s needs.

40

Analyze

41



Getting a basic understanding of how humans can be segmented into

more focused target groups in order to select the most efficient one to

intervene (baby boomers), what are the challenges and which one shall

be addressed (loneliness), which is the right moment to design for

(retirement) and how the situation can be analyzed, is the ground for

designing and determining the context to act.

HumansDe-structuring our nature

41

3.

Chapter Overview

3.1 Growing old

3.1.1 Challenges and problems

3.1.2 Retirement

3.2

Baby boomers

3.3 Loneliness

3.3.1 Loneliness Types

3.3.2

Existing ‘cures’

3.3.3

Current artificial companions

3. 4 Motivation

42

43

44

42

43

44

45

45

46

42

Analyze



Growing old

“It’s paradoxical that the idea of

living a long life appeals to

everyone, but the idea of gettingold doesn’t appeal to anyone.”

$ Andy Rooney

We all have a certain idea in our minds

about growing old, first of older people

we know and then of our own selves as

growing up. Most of the times it is not a

good picture when we think of it

beforehand. And almost everyone of us

will need some kind of help from others

while getting old (or being old). The

quality of life we envision is bad for this

stage of our lives (see Figure 27).

Our envisioned quality of life is based

on three dimensions: the sense of well-being (living area, economic situation

and health in the current definition),

meaning (sense of purpose in life,

manageability and intelligibility) and

value (or self-worth, self-esteem) [J42].

Somehow (societal pressure helps in

those beliefs too [B07]) we think our

health will be incapacitating, there will

be no purpose, since you can’t easily

reflect on the years to come (the ‘end is

too close’), and we will worth nothing,

as old people do, because you can’t do

much [B20].

Challenges and

problems

The truth is that the challenges are

many, and even when we are old there

are all kinds of scenarios to verify theexistence of the feared situations when

we are young (see Appendix 4). Not

everybody ages the same way, so we

won’t face all the things we imagine, but

we tend to think of all the kinds of

problems at once [B20]:

- Physical deterioration,

- Mental deterioration,

- Social participation absence,

- Financial problems (that lead to worse

living conditions),

- Psychological issues (anxiety,

loneliness, depression).

The facts are that that the old

population will exceed, soon, the

capacity of our society to take care of

them (see Figure 28). We need to focus in

prevention and taking care of ourselves, developing resilience and or

own strategy towards being an older

version of ourselves. Although the

exact mechanisms are not known, it has

been long ago argued that the

psychological well-being, affects the

physical and mental deterioration we

will suffer while aging [J43]. The better

physiology we have, the less problems

will emerge, and if they emerge we will

deal with them positively. Having

emotional strength has been associated

with fewer hospitalizations, less drugs

and alcohol consumed, longer life-span

and even less mortality rates [J43],

[J44].

Wanting to focus on prevention the root

of many issues seems to be

loneliness. If not treated early it leads

to depression and even physical

manifestations as high blood pressure

that might be fatal to old people [J45].

The right moment to intervene is

defined by determined when(retirement) and to whom exactly

(baby boomers).

42

3.1.3.1.1

FIGURE 27 Quality of life

Factors related to the quality of life

Environment:

Biophysical

Sociocultural

Health:

Functional

capacity

Coping

mechanisms

Personality

Well-being

Meaning

Value

External Conditions Individual conditions Sense of

FIGURE 28 An aging world

Demographics in America: by 2030 1

to 5 people will be over 65.

Source: Frog Design

43

Analyze



Retirement

Retirement is one of the most crucial

moments that can be a turning point

between are fully independent selves

and our ‘transitioning’ selves towards

being ‘an old person’. For many people

is the moment awareness of ‘growing

older’ just hits off (see Figure 29). In fact

the normal belief is that someone is old

after the age of 65, which is the

retirement age in most countries [B07].

If not dealt properly, retirement, is a

serious cause that will lead to isolation,

loneliness, depression and lack of

purpose or will to live [J46]. It is not

black and white but it is a major

transition that need to be bridged

properly.

Baby Boomers

If prevention is the target, before

problems become serious (or even

apparent) the right moment to intervene

is right before retirement. Right now the

Baby Boom generation is transitioning

from the before-retirement to after-

retirement stage, and will be the next

generation (and larger one, in

demographics, ever) of seniors [R06].

The term indicates more than a

generation segmentation, of peopleborn between 1946 and 1964, it is also

used in a cultural context. Baby

boomers are associated with being the

wealthiest generation, one that formed

the world by rejecting the old traditional

values and creating their own ones.

They are highly contradicting and

demanding, they have high expectation

in their quality of life, they want to stay

‘socially independent’, and they now

“approach old age with a mixture of

fear, denial and bravado” [R06], [R07]:

10% of them predict they willnever retire

40% will keep working as longas they can

71% envision working inretirement

Predictions for future old baby boomers

are both good and bad, wanting to work

for as long as possible promotes

independence, but on the other hand,

what if you can’t work anymore?

Fixating on your work doesn’t sound

very healthy nor does indicate signs of

adaptation to an older self [J47], [J48].

43

3.1.23.2.

FIGURE 29 An aging world

Demographics in America: by 2030 1 to 5 people will be over 65.

Source: Frog Design

FIGURE 30 Generations

Baby boomers: currently 50-68.

1883

1901

1925

1946

1964

1980

2000

2014

Lost Generation

Greatest Generation

Silent Generation

Baby Boomers

Generation X

Generation Y

Generation Z

50

68

44

Analyze



Loneliness

Loneliness, as everything else on this

project, can be found under many

different definitions within literature. We

all know what it feels like though, it is“an unpleasant feeling and is

described as painful and as a lack of

context and connectedness” [T02].

Loneliness is a problem of today’s

(western’s) society and a a ‘silent’

phenomenon [T02]. Many people,

especially older ones, tend to not reveal

those kind of feelings in fear they will

become their family’s burden [B07].

Therefore we cannot have a clear

picture on how many people actuallyfeel lonely, but we can have the large

estimation that 40% of the western

population feels lonely [J49]. Although

there is extensive research in the

correlations between isolation (see Figure

31) and loneliness a direct link is not

found, but there are evidence that one

affect the other. The only certain thing is

that being alone, doesn’t mean feeling

lonely too [J46].

Loneliness Types

No matter what the condition of a

person is (socially connected to people,

or not), loneliness can be felt, and it is

often found as emotional isolation, or

perceived loneliness to highlight that it

is not an objective condition that can be

‘measured’ with observations.

Loneliness is often categorized into two

types according to the above

distinctions as [T02]:

emotional loneliness

social loneliness

That indicates that there are different

‘types’ of loneliness, that are associated

with two different sources [J51].

Loneliness can be:

external , or

internal .

The first one is referred to external

causes and life circumstances to a

person’s life, for example bereavement

of the partner. The second one is

related more closely to internal causes,

like personality type, self-esteem

issues, and existential questions a

person might have [J50]. External

loneliness is mostly associated with

cases of social isolation (or lack of

social connectedness), whereas internal

loneliness relates, among others, with

the absence of a reliable attachment

figure [J50].

It is also possible to classify loneliness

according to past experience and

whether the feelings insist or not [T02]:

not lonely

recently lonely

persistent lonely

recovered from loneliness

The more persistent and long-term

loneliness is experienced, the more

difficult to ‘cure’ it. It is often said that

prevention actions could help people to

avoid it though [T02].

44

3.3.3.3.1

FIGURE 31 Loneliness

Loneliness’ different sources

45

Analyze



Existing ‘cures’

The problematic situation with offering

someone help on alleviating his/her

feelings of loneliness, is that he/she

has to be in the position of realizing and

accepting the fact that he/she feels

lonely (see Figure 32), [T02].

From the moment someone searches

for help, there are few ways that deal

with helping people that feel loneliness,

when this is not disguised under

another clinical condition (e.g.

depression). Besides the professional

help from a psychologist, the rest of the

approaches do not take into account

the type of loneliness per se. Some of

the approaches are:

befriending services, services

that the senior can get friends

from,

coaching services, services that

the senior can get life coach, for

example when needed advice to

manage a retirement process

and build a plan,

consulting/therapy services,

where the doctor tries to give

the senior the necessary tools to

build resilience in order to

develop cope mechanisms

themselves like lowering their

expectations and setting new

purpose in their lives,

Animal-assistive Therapy (AAT),

in order to give the elder an

attachment figure

assistive technology, recent

approaches investigate how to

bring people closer and make

them feel connected to other

people (e.g. communicating with

family) or to technology itself

(e.g. robots)

Current Robots

Using robots in order to alleviate

loneliness’ feeling is often name as

robot assistive therapy (RAT) as well

[J08], where robots substitute the

animals to have a similar being-

assistive therapy scheme. Such

therapies often take place within

nursery homes, as, when in a home

context, usually it is seen as a simple

companion and not therapy (no-one is

to direct the use of the robots).

There have been numerous studies on

how robots can evoke feelings of

companionship to alleviate feelings of

loneliness to older people (and to

children), using experimental/research

robots, robots with open platforms or

general-purpose robots (e.g. NAOs, and

AIBOs) [J08], [J52], [C13], [J53].

However, there is only one

commercially available robot designed

for that purpose; Paro (see Figure 33).

Paro is advertised to “reduce patient

stress and their caregivers, stimulate

interaction between patients and

caregivers, have a Psychological effect

on patients, improving their relaxation

and motivation, improve the

socialization of patients with each other

and with caregivers, and be the World's

Most Therapeutic Robot certified by

Guinness World Records” targeting

demented older people.

Studies including Paro within nursing

homes, showed that it does have a

positive effect in the mood of demented

seniors. They do feel it as a companion,

they take care of it, they even talk to it

all day. Unfortunately Paro deploys

haptic ways of communication (patting)

and some auditory seal-sounds that

make non-demented people get bored

of it really fast. In the case of demented

people it seems it works so well exactly

because they don’t remember and it

functions as an attachment figure, butfor the rest it is perceived as a useless,

silly, not very reactive either, robot

[J08], [54], [C14], [C15].

3.3.2 3.3.3

FIGURE 32 Coping with loneliness

Steps towards dealing with loneliness

FIGURE 33 Paro

The only robot designed for

‘companionship’

46

Analyze



Motivation

A last step before moving to a fully

defined working area would be to have

a basic understanding of how human’s

motivation works. After analyzing the

links and segmenting the area of focus,

it seems relevant to apply motivational

boost to retired people. Regarding the

level of emotional detachment, the felt

loneliness can only be triggered by

external triggers in the beginning.

When acting, you become moremotivated, and at some point this might

become routine, internally operated

[B21]. Moving from disengaged, to

engaged behavior (see Figure 34), from

apathy/anxiety to flow, would be the

goal of this project for future retired

baby-boomers as a means to prevent

loneliness.

3.4.FIGURE 34 Framework of motivated behavior

Steps from a-motivated to internally motivated include the intervention of external triggers

Analyze

47



Before acting and after having digested state-of-the-art literature, a

stepping stone of letting things find its own place was necessary.

Normally that kind of step has many known names in design, such as

formulating design requirements, or defining the problem area. I don’t

feel those words really fit, so I will call it a working area, as it is more

about the effect we want to create by combining the right elements in an

artificial companion. This is the summary of all the necessary boundaries

that formulate a basis to design for.

The contextTurning knowledge into a framework

4.

Chapter Overview

4.1

The design focus, drafting a working area

4.2 The creation of a conceptual framework

2.2.1 Gathering retirement stories

2.2.2

The framework

48

49

49

50

48

Analyze

FIGURE 36 Working problem space



The design focus,

drafting a working

area

The wanted result can be described as

the sum-up of the mapped-areas on the

classification scheme. The interaction

should be within a private environment

(home) and one robot will belong to one

person. The task is to keep company,

which has a low criticality. The robot’s

skills can be ranging from static to

dynamic, as this is a factor that will be

investigated further. It would be good if

the robot could appear to have

existential (sense of self) and

interpersonal (sense of the other being)

intelligence. As far as autonomy isquestioned, it should be perceived as

functioning without needing care,

however, in technical terms that could

also be that it is semi-autonomous.

Morphologically, the main influence was

Boxie. The final proposal shouldn’t look

like a human, or a known pet, but

something that is highly abstract so that

assumptions cannot be made for it at a

glance. Size should be small, to stand on

a desk for example, and portable, but nottoo tiny. The materials would be low cost,

but nice looking. The desired behavior

should convey some stochastic elements

to verify that the robot has existential and

interpersonal intelligence. In terms of

likeability the aim is to involve ‘the

cuteness factor’. Modality will also be

explored further, and the target is not to

deploy only one channel of

communication and use FaceReader in

the visual one. Awareness should be

situational, so that the robot shows that

responds to designed interactions. The

role of it is to keep company, so it

shouldn’t be perceived as ‘machine’, but

on the other hand shouldn’t be ‘too alive’,

just a responsive product. Proximity

should be close, but not intimate.

4.1.

FIGURE 36 Working problem space

Mapping the desired design expectations on the classification scheme

Autonomy

Morphology

Size

Material

Behavior

Likeability

Modality

Awareness

Role (perceived as)

Type of proximity

Intelligence

Skills

Criticality

Task Type

Environment

Human-Robot Ratio 1-1

Private

Keep company

Low

Static Dynamic

Existential

Interpersonal

Semi

Cute

Fully

Low cost

Deterministic Stochastic

Abstract Caricatured

Small

Mono Multi

Situation

Machine AliveMentor/Object

Close

Boxie, has been a major influence

on the directions current project

took

FIGURE 35 Boxie

ResponsiveStimuli-oriented

49

Analyze



The creation of a

conceptual

framework

Although there was an understanding

of the HRI field, current robots and

interactions and what the challenges

around loneliness and growing older

are (see chapters 2, 3), it was still

impossible to have a ground to design.

There were no clear signs how

designing artificial companions can

help older people that feel lonely as it

can be due to a number of different

things. It was decided to tackle

loneliness as an effect of retirement

and the changes it brings to

someone’s life. It is estimated that

many people have trouble in bridging

life transitions from their working

context to their after-retirement

context. One consequence of that

miss-match is a perceived loneliness,

or emotional isolation.

In order to start ideation I felt there

were two parts missing from the bigger

picture. One was that literature doesn’t

describe enough empathetic insights

about how people really perceive

robots and their latent wishes on how

robots ideally should be, and the

second one was how people react

while retiring. The first one was tackled

by conducting participatory, creativesessions (see chapter 5), and the second

one by dividing the target group further

into categories that application of

design can take place. The conceptual

framework enabled me to find

something very specific so that the

final robot proposal is not ‘a bit of

everything’, but a robot that does well

only one thing.

The process of creating the conceptualframework was iterative in itself as

well. First a recollection of personal

memories of people that retired was

collected in order to draft an initial

version of the categorization. Then the

scheme was communicated to people

in order to see their reactions, if they

can possibly see themselves in it or

other people they know. Finally, the

framework was also evaluated (see

chapter 7), via questionnaire and mini-

interviews of people. The goal was not

to create a fully inclusive framework of

all possible categories for retiring

people and their behavior, but a tool, a

stepping stone, that will give the

project a focus and the possibility to

have a design area of application.

Gathering

retirement stories

Gathering retirement, anecdotal stories,

was an eye opener that made me move

from thinking about the project andresearching to doing things. At a first

glance I was able to roughly split the

population in two categories: those that

have a problem when retiring and those

that simply don’t. That brings new

questions though, what do people do

differently if they aren’t facing problems

when retiring? I found two possible

answers to that. They either plan their

actions so that bridging the two lives is

smooth, or they just follow whatevercomes in their way. Those that have

trouble in bridging the two phases in

their lives, either had unexpected issues

or they simply didn’t manage to plan

their way through the expected ones. By

reflecting on the anecdotal stories I had

in my mind, from people I knew, I saw

there were 4 patterns worth splitting the

retiring reactions of people into. It seems

that the patterns are created because of

two axis that map the area: action and

purpose. The combination of those two

create 4 categories based on whether

action is taken towards a certain vision

for your after-retired life or not. After

some more consideration I was able to

give each category a representative

name (see 4.2.2).

The person that doesn’t either

have a purpose or act towards

something.

The whole story behind this anecdote is

perhaps a familiar one. The retiredperson, after the retirement used to

linger in the house, doing nothing. His

children thought this is a very unusual

behavior of him, because he didn’t have

the slightest will to do anything, besides

watching TV, even if their family asked

him to participate in something. This

story came from a friend while

discussing about my project, and she

also confined to me that they were

hoping the situation will change when

the friends of the retired person will also

be retired, as now no-one was at the

same situation to help.

The person that doesn’t act

towards something, but is

dreaming about many things that

could be done.

This person can be easily be mistaken

to belong to the previous category, as

external observers only perceive that

the person is doing nothing. In the

anecdote I collected the story is that the

retired person often expressed he

wanted to do a lot of specific things, but

he never initiated anything, or if he tried

4.2.4.2.1

2.

1.

50

Analyze



4.

3.

2.

1.

something he would quit before people

understood he was even working on

something. Common ‘excuses’ or

difficulties expressed was that money

wouldn’t be enough to realize his

dreams, so why even try?

The person that doesn’t seem to

have a purpose but he is active.

The anecdote from this story belongs to

a very social person. After retirement

she seemed to participate in everything

possible, visiting members of the family,

friends, participating in events

organized by the local community etc.

However, to the external observers, itwas obvious she wasn’t happy and

nothing was helping replace the

absence of the working life. All those

actions didn’t seem to come from an

inner will of acting, just from a will not to

be alone.

The person that has both a

purpose and action towards it.

The anecdote associated with this

category belongs to a person that

planned his retirement almost for 2

years before the retirement took place.

He had a lot of hobbies that were not

related to his job, so when he retired he

had schedule a whole year of practicing

his hobby around Europe.

The

framework

Naming those 4 different anecdote

stories, directly brings a more abstract

focus that includes more people thanthose stories did. By communicating the

framework to people, all were able to

see someone they knew, or even

themselves, in one category of the

framework:

The Planner

The Sheep

The Daydreamer

The Sleeper

When putting everything into a diagram

(see Figure 37), it is easy to classify those

categories from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ cases.

The planners seem to be able to takecare of their own bridging of the gap,

not exhibiting alarming signs to their

relatives and friends of feeling

emotionally isolated. The sheep causes

the least of the thoughts to the

surroundings because he/she still

remains active in life and interest

doesn’t seem to be lost. What is

troubling the relatives in this case is

what will happen if a truly engaging task

is not found till all this energy is gone.

The most concerning cases, culturally,

are those cases that do not act.

Especially in the case of daydreamers,

it is perceived that there zero chancesto achieve your ideas if you don’t even

try, or if you give up easily. When we

experience someone reacting in this

way feelings of sadness are usually

evoked for their case but culturally we

are not comfortable with intervening to

their lives. The worst of all cases is that

were neither action, nor dreams

accompany a person’s behavior after

retirement.

The reflection of the framework is that isnot a static framework. In the aftermath,

we are all a combination of sheep,

sleepers, daydreamers and planners

from time to time. For example a

sleeper might be a demotivated planner

in reality.

4.

3.

4.2.2

FIGURE 37 Conceptual Framework, focus

Four different types of reactions to retirement

!"#$%&

'!(($%&

')*'+(&,&(( ')*'+(&-), sheep planners

sleepers daydreamers

motivation

personal goals personal goals

motivation


motivation

motivation

Envision



iiIn this part attempts to explore

possible futures are described.

In order to cover the gap

between the fields of design

and robot engineering, room to

feelings and intuition was

given, using methods that

enable diversion of new ideas

and opportunities. The

byproducts of this phase, in

combination with the findings

of the previous part of

analysis, are the interaction

vision and goal, along with the

‘appropriate ingredients’ that

seem to be needed to establish

the envisioned human-robot

interaction.

Envision

Envision

52



CompanionshipFrom future context to ‘friendly’ qualities

In the first mode of the project, the analysis, which was mainly literature

review, de-constructing and re-constructing the notions of HRI, robot,artificial companion, and the baby boomer generation, took place.

This allowed for a clearer understanding of the context, the factors and

gave the project a focus.

Usually after having such an analysis done, a designer is able to start

designing, as either design problems or opportunities are arising.

However my experience was that when I attempted to design, all the

ideas I had where really far away from being considered as relevant;

they were all over the place. Understanding was there, but I lackedempathy about what people really want in an artificial companion.

Such qualitative information isn’t available in the literature, so explorative

research has to take place.

Therefore this chapter approaches the question:

How can a designer shape future interactions between people and

artificial companions?

5.

Chapter Overview

5.1

From literature to vision

5.2

Three creative sessions towards companionship

5.2.1 Session planning

5.2.2 Facilitation

5.2.3 Results

5.3

Creative session towards future functionality


5.3.2

Facilitation

5.3.3 Results

5.4 Creative session towards interactions


5.3.2

Facilitation

5.3.3 Results

5.5 Interaction Vision

5.6. Interaction Goal

53

66

71

74

75

55

60

62

66

68

70

71

72

72

54

53

Envision



From literature to

vision

In the literature [J11] it is reported that a

designer can affect interactionsbetween humans and robots by

affecting five attributes:

Level and behavior of autonomy

Nature of information exchange

Structure of the team

Adaptation, learning, and

training of people and the robot,

and

Shape of the task

“Interaction , the process of working

together to accomplish a goal ,emerges from the confluence of these

factors . The designer attempts to

understand and shape the interaction

itself, with the objective of making the

exchange between humans and robots

beneficial in some sense” [J11].

With the theory and conceptual

framework presented in the previoussection, some of the attributes are

defined. For example we are talking

about a one-to-one human-robot

interaction as in order to evoke the

sense of companionship you need a

personal artificial companion.

The general target area can be defined

for the level and behavior of autonomy.

We know that artificial companions

need to be at least semi-autonomous in

order to be considered as having

intentional behavior [C04].

However the rest of the factors are

under exploration. Linking literature to

building a future interaction is a quite

challenging task. There is no outer

framework, despite the fact that there

are some methods in HRI (mostly

known methods from other fields, like

HCI) [J11]. A lot of questions are not

easy to answer with conventional

design methods, such as how can we

design the future interactions, why

should an artificial companion exist and

why would it do for people, do we need

an artificial companion that emotions

are relevant?

In order to answer those questions and

build an interaction goal and interaction

vision I combined tools and methods

from Vision in Product design (VIP) and

Creative Facilitation (CF) [B09], [B10].

While I didn’t follow any of those by the

book, I kept the philosophy of both inorder to bring the theoretical knowledge

to a level that would have applicable

use. In VIP it is important to de-structure

and re-structure the notions in order to

see with ‘new’ eyes what is needed to

be designed by establishing why it has

to exist ‘‘raison d’être’. The core values

of VIP are: freedom, responsibility and

authenticity and they are met by using

the right Creative Facilitation tools to

converge, analyze and interconnect the

different ‘building blocks’ (factors). CF

has many tools in order to break

assumptions, reaching visionary (often

non realistic) points of view, and then

bringing them back to earth. Most of the

times the end-result of a CF might be

disappointing but what it matters is the

insights you get during the facilitation of

the session, the stories people tell and

the discussions they make. After thesession further analysis is possible (if

needed) by the designer.

I used this approach of conducting CF

sessions two times during the project: in

the beginning (before ideation) and

while refining the concept (end of

ideation). In total five sessions were

conducted. In the first place (three

sessions) it helped in revealing design

opportunities that would be both down

to the ground yet free of false

assumptions about what people want

from an artificial companion. In the

second one (two sessions) I wasquestioning the concept itself, how

could it be further detailed in

functionality and interaction by gaining

unbiased input (so participants didn’t

know what the concept was).

In all of the sessions the participants

were students studying either

interaction or strategic design which

was very helpful in thinking out of the

box, in both a visionary manner and inregard to interactions. All of the

discussions were interesting, insightful

and to the point. To my surprise every

single thing that emerged during those

CF sessions were things that are also

mentioned in the literature. With the

only difference that the participants

haven’t read any of that literature.

Which just confirms the importance

explorative research can have and the

rich insights it can give you despite

being often dealt as a waste of time by

corporations [B10].

In the end of the first round of sessions,

I was able to combine theory to

exploration insights by formulating an

interaction goal and vision.

5.1.

54

Envision



RQ5.

RQ6.

Three creative

sessions towards

companionship

In the first round of sessions, the goal

was to get inspired in order to be able

to connect the dots between theory

and design but, mainly, to get empathy

about what people want from an

artificial companion. A side question

to the exploration was what role could

emotions play in your relation with an

artificial companion, given that the

companion would be able to read them

from your face (just as FaceReader

does). Reflecting back on the research

questions (see chapter 1) the relevant ones

were:






companion?





Since FaceReader can read six

emotions (without including the neutral

state), I assumed that it would be

overwhelming for the participants to

include all of them in one session. I

decided to split them along three

different sessions:

Happy | Sad

Scared | Angry

Disgusted | Surprised

This selection was made because in

this way there is an association

between the emotions of each pair: they

can be somewhat related, by being

almost opposite feelings. According to

that, the pair happy-sad was an

immediate selection, whereas for

pairing the rest (scared-angry-

disgusted-surprised) was not possible

to create a one positive versus one

negative emotion as they all negative

(minus the surprised one). However it

seemed a better fit to put scared

together with angry as they are a bit

opposite by expressing a defensive

versus offensive stance.

From session to session small

alterations occurred, taking under

consideration comments the

participants had, and personal

observation on the flow, outcome and

quality of the discussions during the

session. As it is always mentioned in

CF, a plan is always needed so that you

can improvise and handle issues away

from it, if necessary [B10]. This was also

the case in those three sessions. For

example in many cases I had to steer

the discussions away from ethical

matters (and they arose in all three

sessions), since it was not part of this

project’s goal. On the other hand I didn’t

want to give the participants a clear

view of the goals as it would limit their

view before they even start the session

(something that is against thephilosophy of CF).

As additional information on the

organizational part of those session, I

chose to keep them rather small in

numbers so that intimacy levels and

stories created are easy to get shared

and discussed. The sessions didn’t last

longer than 1.5 hour (as people are

getting too tired to be creative after that)

with no intermediate break in order not

to lose focus.

Last, but not least, the result was that

after those sessions I had a clearer

focus and grip of the overall project.

There were many insights that I got

directly from the discussions made, but

I also gathered, clustered and analyzed

the post-its from all three sessions.

Even though the participants were

different, and the emotions used as

well, they all had the same patterns,

which was interesting to see.

As mentioned earlier, the last exercise

of CF usually invites the participants to

build something out of their exploration

(either a design, a vision, a story etc),

and most of the times it is expected to

be unusable by the designer. That was

also the case for these sessions, the

end result was of rather low quality, but

it was interesting trying to figure out why

it doesn’t work whereas the sessions

were so fruitful.

Nevertheless, the planning of the

sessions worked out quite well.

5.2.

S i Pl i videos was the best option Using a analysis phase I had conducted For

55

Envision

5 2 1



5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

Session Planning

The structure of the session had as a

goal to give the participants an

understanding of what I am doing, the

overall project and the available

resources, without intervening withwhat they believe about it. Instead I

wanted them to build their own opinions

and view on it. The only thing I wanted

to affect in their thinking was what they

perceive as ‘robot’, because it is so

often misinterpreted. The general

outline of the sessions was:

Sensitizing Participants

How to define companionship

Clustering and discussing

Characterize companions you

know


Form personalities

Future scenario ‘what if’

Sensitizing participants

In order to sensitize participants and get

them aligned to the view I gained by

conducting the analysis, I estimated it

was not enough to just explain the topic

to them. I had to show them some

cases of robots, and in particular of

artificial companions. Pictures are not

enough in order for someone to

understand the interactions and the

impressions you get from a robot, so

videos was the best option. Using a

blog, where I collected many different

types of artificial companions, some in

the borderline of what an artificial

companion is, (see Figure 38), I selected

few examples of them for the

participants to view. From creepy ones(over human realistic), to cute ones

(artificial pets for children), or even

robots that are just made from boxes.

Besides sensitizing them with videos, I

also gave them few insights from the

analysis phase I had conducted. For

example that the role of artificial

companions is what their name is

conveying, keeping company, which is

not ‘much’, yet so difficult to shape tasks

and interactions. That it would be good

to be empathetic towards people, but wedon’t know how. Also that research

shows that the cases that have better

acceptance, seem to be the ones that

are ‘stupid, but cute’, as people just

project assumptions onto them.

5.2.1

FIGURE 38 Artificial companions, the blog

A selection of

artificial

companions,

available at

http://

artificialcompan

ion.tumblr.com/

was used in

order to give

participants an

understanding

of how much arobot can be

different from

what the word

‘robot’ is

currently

associated

with.

56

Envision



How to define companionship

Since the area is quite undefined, an

explorative brainstorm is the best step

to make the participants find their point

of view on the topic. The How To’s

technique (H2) is very simple and starts

with a central question. The question

was ‘how to define companionship’, by

looking into personal experiences,

friendships, belongings and writing

down every possible word that comes

into in your head. The general idea of

H2s is to diverge, by creating a pool of

points of reference for later use. It is

advised to the participants that nothing

is really irrelevant in this phase, and to

postpone (self)judgement. The H2 can

spiral out in many iterations (especially

if participants have trouble writing downmore than 2-3 words), building a core,

and outer circles that can associate to

the topic (like an onion). This way the

result is quantity and variation. The

objective is that each member can

contribute to the definition of the posed

question, so that many different

perspectives are in the table. When

iterations seem to be enough (not too

many though), it is nice to invite every

member of the team to have a small talk

about what he wrote down. This

technique usually is followed by a

typical clustering of concepts and

further discussion within the team on

how to cluster and title the groups.

Characterize companions you

know

The next task is to write down as many

adjectives as possible that characterize

the qualities of a companion. To do so,

the participants are advised to have a

flash back to personal experiences with

friends, pets, objects. This task

functions almost as a H2 layer on top of

the previous one. Again, the direction is

not to judge the relevance, or not to

write down only the ‘good’ properties, as

often, what we receive from our

friendships and companionships is not

only good. People tend to romanticize

notions that are helpful in the aftermath,

but we need to diverge even more and

look beyond that. So, if they experience

that a friendship they had was acquired

because someone was ‘shy’, or

‘ridiculous’, or ‘annoyingly talkative’ then

those are definitely adjectives we want

to see in the table. In the end a small

talk is made by everyone, and cluster

into a scale from positive to negative.

Form personalities

Having access to all of the above (in

form of post-its) the participants are

asked to select some of the things and

formulate a persona/personality. This is

a step towards converging the session

and a preparatory mid-step for the next.

Future scenario ‘what if’

The future perfect is a technique that is

based on story telling. It is the final step

of the session where every building

block, falls into place. The future perfect

scenario is that there is a lady, of 60

years old. She doesn’t work and

therefore she says many hours at

home, alone. Imagine that you are an

artificial companion, that has the

qualities of personality you just

selected. What would you do if you

sensed that the lady is ‘under the effect’

of the following emotions (two emotions

are given per session):

Happy | Sad

Scared | Angry


The participants brainstorm and present

their stories to the rest of the team.

As with every CF session, for closure,

every participant is invited to give shortfeedback about anything they want. It

can be advice about how the session

was conducted, or a question they have

want to discuss further. In any way the

session is predicted to end with further

discussion on something the

participants found interesting or difficult.

57

Envision

FIGURE 39 Creative Session no.1



Working with emotions: Happy | Sad

Interaction design | Strategic designstudents

Participants

58

Envision




Working with emotions: Scared | Angry


Participants

59

Envision




Working with emotions:



Participants

Facilitation companionship were quite extravagant. • A robot with (pretended) dementia

60

Envision

FIGURE 42 Pixar’s lamp

5.2.2



Facilitation

First Session

The first group dealt with the topic in a

very humorist yet serious and

concerning way. Many times the

discussion was turned to ethical and

psychological issues. For example the

question that was discussed was

whether it is ‘safe’ to leave an older

person that lives alone with an artificial

companion or will it affect its well-being

negatively, in an irresponsible manner,

since it cannot know the full context, or

how serious it is.

Besides those kind of concerns the

group discussed that most of the times

you chose to make friends the oddest

ones, not those you look ‘good for you’.

Companionship is often based on

vulnerabilities, since otherwise there

are no opportunities to show that you

really care, or offer your help. Being a

bit crazy is another quality that is on the

borderline between good or bad,

depending on the case. Usually itaffects you in a way that changes your

bad mood and motivates you to do

things. The bad thing is that sometimes

it motivates into crazy things as well.

The personalities they chose to

construct, out of the pool with the

adjectives and the definition of

They all agreed that designers deal with

such things (companionship, loneliness,

elderly) in way too ‘serious’ way,

whereas there should be some

‘lightness’ to counterbalance the

negativity of the notions themselves.One participant said, “I don’t really know

if I will change opinion when I will be 60,

but I wouldn’t want company from a

serious companion. I would prefer it to

be a bossy, mischievous weirdo that

sometimes yells at me for worrying too

much and not being boring ”. So the

personalities they built were shy, sloppy,

day-dreamers, grumpy and they even

had hobbies of their own (one could

cook and another one used to play thepiano once upon a time).

This team was the only team that was

able to construct stories for the final

task of the session. I attribute that to

two factors. The first is that the

emotions this session had (happy/sad),

were the ‘easiest’ ones. The other one

was the humor levels of this group, that

made those stories so impossible, yet

so compelling if were indeed true for a

companion. They did build their own

vision of motivating elderly based on

projecting qualities of generation Y

when they will be 60, humor,

vulnerabilities and not taking life too

seriously as a ‘medicine’ to loneliness.

Indicative stories they created included:

that kept on asking “where is the

piano”, every time the elder person

was sad, for distraction.

• A robot that was an idiot, but

mischievous enough to always ask toget carried out of the house for a

walk instead of standing still inside.

• A robot that was over-sharing,

complaining all the time, that started

describing cooking recipes when the

elder person was happy, asking for

that recipe for dinner.

• Last, a robot that was so brave,

honest and direct that every time the

elder person was sad was getting

mad at him. There was a post-it

saying: “Sad? Again? There is no

reason to be sad. I will jump out of

the window instead of you ”. And

another one: “Why worry? You will

die, I am the one that will stay here

forever! ”

Second Session

The second group was more concerned

about defining how an artificial

companion can seem “alive”,

“believable” and how that would be

translated to interaction qualities, ‘flavor’

of voice, wording. For example,

someone said that “pixar’s lamp would

be the best companion ever, it was so

motivating just to see it moving around “.

He also continued by saying “but if it

had to talk then I would really have to

think about how to make it trustworthy

by giving it a deep, calm voice, and that

would ruin it with that kind of

movement ” (see Figure 42).

They also discussed philosophical

questions, for example, how much

“attached” should you get to your

artificial companion?

The personas the second group built,

were nothing but boring or normal, as

well. Someone from the group

associated the session with a famous

Japanese product that has extreme

attributes too (see Figure 43). This group

was the only one that had a long

Pixar’s lamp was brought up as

an example of “believable

animacy of a lifeless object”

during the second session.

5.2.2

discussion on negative adjectives on The second group took the story telling They also built their own vision of a to the rest of the groups that they

61

Envision



companionship being actually positive

under certain circumstances and they

created a middle category (between

positive and negative) when clustering

for those. For example, if you are a

slow-tempo friend then probably youmake other people either get annoyed

by you, or also feel relaxed.

The personas they constructed

however, they were less developed

(they used 3-5 adjectives each). This

might be because this group had six

participants that may felt that explaining

a bigger persona would take too much

time (or they just would had preferred it

to be more simple).

quite seriously. The assigned emotions

were quite difficult for a robot to deal

with, as it seems (scared, angry). They

tried to build stories that could trouble-

shoot the situation by asking too many

open questions at the elder. Such aswhat is going on, why are you like this,

what can I do for you etc. But they gave

up trying, ending up discussing if that is

a means of stigmatizing the elder

person further by making them feel

incompetent, like a child that need to be

told what to do and what not. They also

mentioned that old people usually don’t

like to be told what to do (which would

have been quite a right guess for the

specific target group).

perfect robot using the metaphor of “a

guardian angel” that is around you

always, providing structure, daily

rhythm, but only appears when it is

really needed and not to bug you. Or a

knight, that is noble, kind, and able tosave you (see Figure 44).

Third Session

The third group followed the same

patterns when defining what

companionship is, more or less. They

discussed about how you may have

similarities with your friends but also

differences and that what comes above

all is to reciprocate and have an ‘equal’

rate of giving versus receiving in order

to keep a ‘fair’ relation with someone.

They also discussed that it is important

to have more similarities in things like

views on life itself, and differences in

superficial things, to keep an interesting

relation.

This group had difficulties both in

constructing personas and stories. In

order to deal with the first I asked them

to create one persona all together. That

might have happened because the

session was quite early and creative

thinking was difficult to evoke. However

it was interesting to see how different

(see Figure 48) the personality they

created collaboratively was, compared

created many individually. They actually

collected all the attributes that were

‘nice’ to have, after discussing a lot of

time about what should they include

and what not. The result seemed to be

a boring character, and they actuallycommented about that, realizing that it

conflicted with everything that they said

previously about companionship.

When trying to approach the task “what

if” you were the robot, and what would

you do if the elder was surprised or

disgusted, things became even more

difficult. On the one hand there was not

enough input to support any kind of

action with the given personality, and onthe other one nothing seemed to be

relevant for those emotions. They felt

that both of the emotions will not have

been caused by the robot itself and the

robot wouldn’t be able to change any of

those two states anyway. Surprised

doesn’t seem to be bad or important

enough to do anything at all either.

The discussion ended by commenting

that it would be good to have the robotdo something more helpful for you that

could actually change your mood, or

motivate you. Which was just an

indication that those two emotions are

probably not very relevant for an

artificial companion.

The bankman, a Japanese,

modern savings ‘pig’, starts

shouting and gets angry, if

nobody gives it money.

FIGURE 43 Money box withpersonality

A robot, with the qualities of a

knight, was what a participant

from the second session

envisioned.

FIGURE 44 Vision of a robot

Results life. Meaning could be in the form of do on their own. It seems that Turkle is own interests and mind although he

62

Envision

5.2.3



In a meta-analysis level, all post-its

were collected and re-organized, in

order for the bigger picture to be

revealed. It is easy to see that people

can contradict themselves, but theyconsciously know what they don’t

want, whereas determining what they

do want is much more vague (see Figure

45). They don’t want someone that will

bug them, as an artificial companion, or

someone that would be too close and

constantly around them.

It seems that they imagine themselves

having the opportunity of a much more

friendly relation with a companion

than would give some meaning in their

sharing experiences, feeling cared and

able to care back, sharing stories/

secrets, being over the comfort zone

sometimes, learn something new, do

something new. Anything that could

light up your routine, providestructure but not restrain you ‘too

much’.

They described their vision on artificial

companionship as having the ‘feeling

of another existence‘ without having to

worry to much for behaving within

boundaries, or with the fear of being

judged for not being ‘good enough‘

and without having that presence linger

on for a prolonged period around them;our friends usually also have things to

right after all, we do live in a time that

people want to feel connected but not

too intimate [B06]. For baby boomers

independence is something they grew

up with, and it would be indeed too

difficult to just tell them want to do. Thatis if you want to design lost-lasting

relation between a person and an


Another important thing that would lead

to long lasting interest is what people

expressed about the ingredients of an

artificial companion. Most of the

literature advocates [C04] that

companions should act within the

(social) norms by being appropriate in

responses, agreeable and ‘good’ in

general in order to contribute to the

owners well-being. It seems that in

order for a relation to last longer and not

become a burden, or just a boring one,

we are attracted most by those that are

a bit odd. Not too much, just enough to

mess up a bit with our comfort zone and

our daily routine. Having someone that

always acts in favor of you is so

predictable, boring and a sign that you

are not really alive (you would have

probably said the same even for living

people). Participants outlined the

characteristics of a companion as one

that has vulnerabilities, is not perfect

as it would make you not feel safe or

your self, it leaves traces of having its

would be dedicated to you in case of

need.

One thing that I didn’t expect and

surprised me much, was that people

don’t want to deal with ‘heavy’ issues in

a ‘heavy’ way. If you define loneliness

as a problem you should take care of

not handing it with so much

‘seriousness’ making it seem even

worse. In order for balance to be

maintained participants felt that humor,

provocation and even self-sarcasm

should be present even though it looks

like you are not dealing with the

problem seriously.

Last, but not least, in literature there is

extended discussion on whether an

artificial companion has to be useful in

functionality. In some cases, performing

useful tasks, it is even part of the

definition of what an artificial companion

is [J27]. I would say that people want

something that would have an obvious

(positive) effect on their mood, or if that

is not possible to not be bugged and feel

they need permission to not be happy for

a while. Besides realizing how having a

companion is, in total, beneficial, having

a companion that is able to offer some

useful services shouldn’t be a necessity.

People described their pets as the best

companions a man could have, and they

are not per sé ‘usable’.

FIGURE 45 What people don’t want from a robot

63

Envision

FIGURE 46 Gathering all companionship ingredients



Post-it notes from all three sessions followed the same patterns and moved around

the same notions. Some post-its were the same in more than 3 copies (all sessions

and more than one person per session had the same ideas)

64

Envision

FIGURE 47 Gathering all companionship adjectives



Adjectives on the left are considered good, whereas adjectives on the right bad.

However, under certain circumstances all can be helpful, that’s why mid-ranks were

created.

65

Envision

FIGURE 48 Gathering all personas



Personas from the 1st session are the most elaborate, provoking and funny. From

the 2nd session they are still interesting but a bit more serious. From the 3rd one, the

collaborative result is quite boring.

Creative session Session Planning diverging, when it would be time to

converge The artificial companion5 3

66

Envision

5.3.1



5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

RQ5.

RQ6.

towards future

functionality

In the second round of creative

sessions I had a semi-developed

concept already. However I was still

wondering how can we refine a future

vision, and what can be done in order

for a complete concept to be built. I was

sure about what the ingredients of a

companion are (artificial or not), but I

wasn’t sure how that translates to tasks

or behaviors. I was basically looking for

things I have possibly missed so far,verification of the basic building blocks

of the project. Reflecting back to the

research questions, they are still the

same ones with the previous session:





behavior of an artificialcompanion?





What changed now is that the

participants can get a different level of

abstraction as input. For example there

can be certain directions about the

ingredients of an artificial companion, or

a first version towards a vision.

Therefore emphasis is put in how to

transform everything to behavior, and

how it can become clear that such a

companion has benefits by providing its

company.

The final outcome of the session is not

a vision anymore, but a concept

proposal. As with the vision session,

and any other CF session, the quality of

the end result is not expected to be a

great design, or a great idea [B10].

Since time of a session is limited the

main insight is not what participants

present in the final five minutes, but

what they explain about it and how they

got there.

For this session I was not the facilitator,

but I did provide guidance along the

planning phase and was present during

the facilitation to document the process

and discussions. I didn't participate, as

it would create too much bias, but I was

answering questions or bring back to

track misdirected discussions.

In order for the facilitator (Laura

Engelshove, strategic design student at

TuDelft) to be able to plan her session I

created a one-page description of the

problem area, the goals of the projectand the wanted outcomes of the

session in particular. She compiled a

draft session plan that was approved by

me. The session was conducted by

Laura as a final requirement to her

course “Creative Facilitation”, therefore

I was not involved in finding

participants, arranging the time and

place, etc. The session would last 3

hours.

The participants would get a basic

criteria set but not the current state of

my ideas/concept so that they are able

to diverge on their own. They were

provided with the following information:

The target group of the project:

Retired people of age 50-70

years.

The problem area of the project

is the prevention of loneliness in

the target group.

In order for not to be biased from the

beginning, criteria on artificial

companion would be given after

converge. The artificial companion

enables:

The senior to discover its

personal story, helping him to

make up his mind about whathe/she wants in life

The senior to generate ideas on

possible things to do/tasks

Motivation to achieve goals or

dreams

The session followed a generic diverge-

converge scheme. In more detail the

tasks would be:


Analyze the problem area

Brainstorm Ideas


Selection of main ideas

Concept creation

5.3.

67

Envision




In order for the participants to get into

the right mood for the session, anappropriate icebreaker was selected.

Everyone had to introduce themselves

by saying their name and what they

would dream of doing when they

retired. After that they should say the

names of everyone that already said

their names before them plus what they

will do when they retired too.


Continuing after the funny, yet to the

point, sensitizing part the problem area

would be defined by a technique called

‘flower associations’ [B10]. Basically this

technique is very similar to any other

association technique (e.g. the plain old

brainstorming), only that you start with

a specific word or notion and you gather

relevant notions around creating a

flower. It is based on the fact that our

knowledge consists of a network of

many things in our mind but if they

haven’t been triggered recently they are

unreachable.

Association techniques ask you to bring

everything down related to the initial

word/concept. Usually the first 10 things

are obvious, but the rest are becoming

more individual based on experiences.

A pool of relevant words was created for

two things:

free time

(how you spend with things you

like)

retirement

(what are the challenges)

Brainstorm ideas

After having analyzed the two central

terms the participants are called tobrainstorm by brainwriting possible How

To’s they would like to investigate into

more. Then merging, if possible, or

clustering of them occurs in order for

the team to select which of them would

be the ones to continue with.

With 5 H2s, a technique called ‘dynamic

brainwriting’ takes place. Every

participant will brain write down relevant

things replying to the H2s for 5 minutes.After those 5 minutes, they switch

places and answer the next H2. This

continues until all participants have

answered every H2.

A small presentation takes place on

how every H2 was tackled and then the

usual clustering and grouping takes

place.


The clustering of the H2 will lead to the

selection of the most interesting ones to

be used as ideas. If ideas are not

enough (in numbers or quality) more

input can be incorporated by introducing

another chain association using

seemingly irrelevant words in order to

trigger more creativity.

Concept creation

The last half an hour the participants

will work as a team, using everything

generated so far in order to create a

concept. The concept will be presenting

with a poster in a small presentation

setup.

Facilitation The team wrote down the following H2

in order to continue:

The selected H2s were developed

further via brainwriting. The team was a

cats that could enable you into meeting

new people. It would be able to sooth

68

Envision

5.3.2



!

!

!

!

!

After the sensitizing the participants

were already in the right mood for

brainstorming. The areas analyzed, free

time and retirement brought up quite

expected results. The interesting thingto mention is that despite the different

initial point the notions generated out of

this session were quite similar to what

was generated in the previous three

sessions on companionship.

Somehow free time ended up being

defined completely by ‘friendship‘ and

things you enjoy doing that do not really

require much effort (besides sports

perhaps). In general the words thatcame up were revolving around sports,

relaxed activities, leisure, learning new

things, traveling, and enjoying food-

drink with friends.

On the other category, the retirement,

participants associated a lot of ‘heavy’

notions to it. Categories ranged from

physical consequences from dying to

becoming disabled, and emotional

consequences from having no purposeto feeling lonely. It is remarkable to see

how prejudiced young people are about

retirement and old age, exactly like it is

mention in the literature [B07].

Retirement directly marks the end of a

person’s life, like there is nothing else

between retirement and death.

H2 give the feeling of doing

something active without too

much effort

H2 still develop personal skills

after you are retired

H2 make the learning process

easier

H2 avoid to forget things

H2 stimulate friendship

H2 overcome the barrier of

starting a new hobby

H2 keep someone company

H2 not feel alone

H2 become someone’s best

friend?

H2 make a product trustworthy?

H2 react on overwhelming

emotions?

g

bit low on ideas, and by reflecting on

the overall flow of the session I think the

main reason was that it was too long (it

was actually double the time from the

previous sessions). Therefore

associations were a bit shallow. The first

H2 (develop personal skills after

retirement) was mostly answered in a

do-what-you-like way and start new

hobbies. Which was already another

H2. The barrier of starting new things

was answered in making new friends

and having reminders/motivation by

them. Which again, was interrelated

with the H2 of not forgetting things.

Perhaps the most interesting remarkwas that the participant translated

“companionship” into “how to make a

product trustworthy” and the whole

situation of being overwhelmed by a

new state in your life (retirement) to

“how a product can react on

overwhelming emotions”. The first one

was expressed using a lot of things that

are mentioned in the previous session

as well, like “be there when you need

it”, or “share personal stories”. The

second one was dealt mostly by the

idea that a product will play soothing

music back to you.

The conceptual result of the session

was a vibrating cat (see Figure 49) that

would be tactually connected to other

p p

you down in case it tracked from your

emotions that you are sad or stressed

by soothing sounds. Moreover it would

act as reminder to things you told the

cat you want to do (given that people

usually tell a lot to their cats).

Although it sounds absurd and quite

futuristic, a lot of those functions are

already present in current artificial

companions, but participants were not

sensitized in that direction on purpose.

For example Paro, the robotic seal, is

indeed supposed to calm you down by

cute, soothing reactions to your touch.

A vibrating cat was the result of the

CF session

FIGURE 49 Vibo

69

Envision


Towards trustworthy, friendly ‘products’




Participants

FacilitatorLaura Engelshove, Strategic design student

Results

70

Envision

5.3.3



Besides observations I made during the

facilitation of the session I judged there

would be no further insights by

thoroughly gathering all post-its in an

attempt to analyze them again. The

main remarks I kept from the session

directly, were:

Young people associate things

that they like doing to friends.

Few times friends are not

associated if activities, like

sports or other hobbies for one

person, are implied.

Young people have a bit of

distorted view on retirement and

what it means. Life seems to

end in retirement and all of the

sudden there is no purpose.

They are both extreme, one-sided

views, but they do contain trails to

facts. In the first generalization

friendship and having a good time areconnected in a quite obvious way. It is

true that people prefer things that

require low effort and give ‘easy

pleasure’ (hedonic). Socializing is an

easy source of happiness. When we

want to pursue personal growth goals

things are different and require a lot of

effort (eudaimonic) [C04]. Note how

participants used quite interesting

wording in the H2 for acquiring new

hobbies when retired: “H2 overcome the

barrier of starting a new hobby”,indicating there is an initial threshold

that seems quite high.

On a meta-level of reflection the most

interesting thing to consider further was

the whole connection between artificial

companionship that has to ‘stay a

product’, which even appeared in a

post-it note (see Figure 51). Although the

end concept was a cat, the participants

discussed that an artificial companionshould still be a ‘common product’ and

not something that would remind you of

a human as it would be too weird to

connect to something like that. On the

other hand they were aware that you

cannot expect a mutual involvement, or

a long-lasting interest to a relation with

a robotic cat. One of them also said that

he had a Furby once upon a time and

he got bored of it within 10 minutes. But

they were not sure how they could

approach the design of ‘something’ that

is a product, not ‘too’ human but it is

able to give you a purpose in life and

motivation. It is contradicting to see that

they suggest the product should have a

personality or that you could give it a

name (see Figure 52). Another sign of how

people can easily name what they don’t

want whereas how much confusing it

becomes to be conscious about you

would want.

The most interesting discussion was

around how you can trust such kind of

product in order to consider it your

companion. They almost build their own

point of view on how you should

become over ‘stages of friendship’. In

real life you cannot buy a friend, nor you

can directly make your friend someone

you met. There are a lot of steps in

between. It is like a taming process.

First you just meet, then some time isspend and the relation is ‘upgraded’ to

an acquaintance. In the beginning it is

probably about having fun. In a later

stage it is about proving that you can be

there if needed from both sides. The

participants translated this to how a

product can become ‘trusted’ by getting

it involved in things that give you a

purpose. Like reminding you of things

you said you would do (and then you

didn’t). That functionality seems to be

what a human would do, or your friends

in that case. Therefore the real insight is

that the interaction shouldn’t remind you

of a human-human interaction by

making clear where is the line between

a product and the living beings.

Post-it note from the session

FIGURE 51 “Keep it a product”

Post-it note from the session

FIGURE 52 “A product with a name”

Creative session Session Planning Analyze the problem area

5 4

71

Envision

5.4.1



4.

3.

2.

1.

RQ5.

RQ6.

towards future

interactions

This is the final creative session of my

project and had as a goal to focus on

envisioning interactions and

implications of those. It was conducted

the same day with the previous one,

and the initial goal was to use the

output (result and some of the

brainstorm post-its) as an input, so that

participants can already start from a

specific point. However, since the

previous session was a bitunderdeveloped in terms of diversion

the diversion part was repeating and

the whole idea was aborted. The same

research questions apply to this

session, with emphasis in interactions:






companion?





For this session I was not the facilitator

either, I did coordinate the planning of it

beforehand, so that the two sessions

have different focus and outcomes. I got

a bit more involved within the session in

giving directions, besides documenting,although I was not a participant so that I

don’t influence that much.

The goal was to focus on the

interactions without dealing with the

functionality, but dealing with the

scenarios in a ‘scenarios follow

interactions’ manner. I’ve put more

limitations than criteria and mainly that:

the artificial companion cannot

speak

Therefore interactions should be dealt

via other communications means.

All the rest of information were the

same with the previous session.

Niké Jenny Bruinsma, (interaction

design student at TuDelft) was the

facilitator of this session. The session

was conducted by her as a final

requirement to the course “Creative

Facilitation”, similarly to the previous

session. It lasted 3 hours too.

The outline for the session was:



Exploring Interactions

Selecting and discussing

Scenario creation


The sensitizing part was planned to be

an icebreaker. This time everyone had

to share a story of their childhood where

they remember something of their

grandparents. A more detailed

description of the attributes that

characterize the nature of the artificial

companion will be given after diversion.

The central brainstorming axis will be

loneliness in retired people. The

technique used was brainwriting with

small iterations trying to answer the

following questions:

Assume an ideal solution is

possible: what could elderly do

that they cannot do today?

What has prevented the

problem from being addressed

properly till now? Why are

current solutions not working?

Answering to those questions would

lead the participants to formulate an

opinion, as a group, by completing the

sentence ‘So, the problem is .... ‘.

After a problem statement is formulated

it will be revealed to the participants that

the ‘ideal solution’ that we were

mentioning before is an artificial

companion. Characteristics on the

artificial companion will not be part of

the brainstorming, but rather a

discussion after the description of them.

It is described that it is an artificial

companion that can ‘read your

emotions’, is not able to talk and has an

equal relation with the retired person,

helping him to stay motivated.

5.4.

Exploring Interactions Facilitation

Aft th it ti t l iti i

Results

D it t h i di tl f l

does aging have to be a bad thing?”

From this question the discussion

i d ff t d fi di h th

72

Envision

5.4.2 5.4.3



In order to explore interactions based

on the above details, the ‘silent game’

will be used. Basically it will be a role-

playing game where few scenarios will

be acted out by 2 people, one being theartificial companion and one being the

owner of it. The audience will observe

and reflect on the performed

interactions. This method is often found

as ‘robot theater’ [C04].

The owner of the artificial companion

will not be aware of the scenario that

they are performing. Instead he would

be asked to understand what the

artificial companion wants to say,without being able to talk. The audience

will take notes on how information was

communicated.


By selecting interesting parts of

everything that took place in the

session the participants will be asked to

make their own scenarios.

Concept creation

The last part of the session is to act-out

few scenarios using dolls.

After the quite sentimental sensitizing

participants engaged in a very serious

discussion about the obstacles people

face while growing old. Initially, as

expected, the first round of problems

noticed revolved around physical and

mental deterioration. However in the

next rounds of brainstorming, by writing

down the most important points, they

were brought to the conclusion that we

are our own enemies, putting obstacles

on our selves while growing older. The

problem analysis phase ended by the

participants constructing and

summarizing the whole discussion into

a sentence.

From that point on the most interesting

part of the session began, the robot

theater. For this part the facilitator

prepared small scenarios. One person

would be the robot that would have to

communicate one small task to the

owner of the robot without talking. Then,

the participants would analyze the

involved interactions and comment on

how the task was communicated. Thescenarios were simple, such as: asking

the owner to get dressed in order to go

for a walk, or announce that

grandchildren would visit later. Finally,

the session ended with a new round of

conversation regarding interactions and

future problems noticed.

Despite not having directly useful

insights for my conceptualization, this

was the most inspiring and provoking

session.

The main remarks I kept from the

session directly, partly similar to the

remarks of the previous session, were:

Young people tend to think

about aging in a very ‘heavy’

way. It seems so distant that we

imagine the future to be very

dark and difficult.

Interactions, when limiting the

opportunity to communicate

intention without using the

verbal channel, become plain

body language. Which is

probably not the desired

interaction we want from an


Regarding the first point, it was again

very obvious that people fixate easily on

the physical and mental deterioration

that aging brings. However I was glad to

see an unexpected turnout in the

discussion when someone questioned,

as if thinking aloud, “if you exclude the

physical deterioration that affects the

mental processes too sometimes, why

spinned off towards finding whether we

are the obstacle in this ‘heaviness’ we

see around aging. The participants

concluded that part of the problem is

our attitude, perception of the world,

mismatch in habits, acceptance that we

change, insecurity, misunderstanding,

and, above all, no openness, especially

in the current old generation, for new

things that can lead to a balanced aging

process. They constructed the

statement “so, our problem is that old

peoples’ passive mindset, keeps them

from indulging life!”. Which made very

clear that despite the health problems,

the loneliness, the comparison betweenwhat we used to be and the fear for the

future, the key to the solution is an inner

process of becoming more open.

The second remark, derives from

observations during the robot theater.

The participants, those that were

involved in the enactment, were

reflecting that it was very awkward to

communicate something without words,

and quite funny. The more the ‘robot’-participant couldn’t communicate exactly

what it was meant to be communicated,

the more the ‘owner’-participant

observed that the body language was

overly exaggerated to compensate for

the loss of words. The audience was

able to reflect even more on this.

73

Envision


The ‘robot’ theater:

2 performing, 6 observing




Participants

FacilitatorNiké Jenny Bruinsma, Interaction design student

Interaction Vision5.5.

74

Envision



They soon realized that there is a

pattern on our communication. For

example, if the robot wanted to

‘activate’ the elder to do something,

then it would imitate the action of vividly

walking towards the door. The owner

kept on asking, using words, if the

meaning he/she understood was what

the robot meant, and the robot would

reply nodding the head upwards of

downwards. Besides body language,

pointing with finger, the participants

observed that there would be no real

communication between a person and

a robot because, when words are not

used, we rely understanding on our

gaze with a certain way that implies

intention (rapid actions, emotions that

can be seen in our eyes, and in the

muscles around our eyes). Forexample, if someone goes towards the

window, take a look outside and then

quickly open his/her eyes open and

move towards the door, we will

probably think that someone is visiting

him/her at that moment. The most

crucial conclusion of this robot theater,

is that the insights can be contradicting

when used in real situations or human-

robot interaction. If we try to implement

all this body language, facial

expression, and, subtle gaze

movements in a robot, it means we just

injected the robot with the most

anthropomorphic behavior we could.

From that moment on people will

unconsciously treat that robot as a

human being, and not as a product,

which results in awkward situations and

unwanted designs. On the other hand

we’ve learned that whatever has a

screen, has a graphical interface similar

to a computer’s interface. So we expect

to see buttons, images, and text. On a

reflection level the participants

discussed that having a robot that

behaves more like a product and lesslike a human being is less stressful.

During the theater they experienced

that a human-alike behavior would lead

to having someone following you

around the house, which seems cute in

the beginning, but a burden after a

while.

Summarizing the insights from the

conducted participatory workshops the

interaction vision begins to shape up of

a future interaction between humans

and robots.

The relationship people, digging into an

unconscious level but also in a

conscious level, it would be desirable to

have the following characteristics:

Be an equal relation, as much

as possible.

Not too intimate, yet close,

mutual in reciprocity and close.

Not perfect, yet not too human-

alike.

Long-lasting effect, not tiring,

keeping the interest alive.

In order for this vision to happen, the

following considerations should be

taken into account:

As far as equality is involved, many

current artificial companions take

advantage of a baby-human or pet-

human relation which requires from the

person to feel the other side is

incompetent to take care of its own self.Having an anthropomorphic or

zoomorphic representation doesn’t help

in this situation. The vision is to adopt a

visual representation that doesn’t

predispose people to act in this way, but

in a neutral one. Moreover it would be

desirable the robot to exhibit a state of

having its own mind. This way it will not

result in having a robot that follows you

around in order to satisfy what the

‘master’ wants. Having an own mind,

not being always in accordance to what

we are instructed to do, gives the

person the impression that this relation

is equal. Too much obedience directly

gives the false impression that we are in

charge.

At a latent level, during the workshops,

participants revealed that they wouldn’t

like something that would be too

intimate to them, knowing more than

they would like to reveal themselves.

This is a non-safe interaction zone.

Trust and proximity (physical, but mainly

emotional) should have steps, as any

kind of relation. Trust is something that

should be earned, and the metaphor of

taming came along. We don’t really

5.5.

3.

2.

1.

4.

tame products, nor robots in that

matter, but friendship is a bit like that.

We test the other person by doing

Interaction Goal5.6.

75

Envision



We test the other person by doing

something and expecting their reaction.

Trial by trial we go a step beyond the

previous challenge.

Many times it became apparent that we

tend to think too negatively about

aging. However, after reflection, people

expressed preference over a

ridiculously humoristic companion, over

a serious one that would constantly

remind them what is right and what is

wrong. Especially in the first workshop

participants envisioned a whole world

of imperfect attributes that would result

in a balanced final behavior. Despite

not wanting human-alike behavior, as it

triggers uncanny valley effects, keeping

some imperfections or extreme

characteristics doesn’t seem to evoke

overly realistic behaviors of an android.

In contrast it just seems to make them

more approachable, mortals like us,

and easier to get accepted.

Last but not least, the optimal relation

should be a lasting one. Many of thecurrent artificial companions are

reported to make people get bored of

them within few hours. Companionship

is not a notion to last just a few hours,

new things should be explored so that

the interest is kept alive and the relation

will grow.

In a glance, the project aims to help

people while aging by preventing

loneliness. A first impression, and

logical inference is that the opposite of

loneliness is to connect people.

However, combining literature findings

and the insights from the workshop I

would actually argue that the opposite

of loneliness is feeling alive, having a

purpose, inner will and wants, not just

being socially connected. Especially in

cases of emotional perceived

loneliness, the ‘cure’ of bringing people

together and make them connect

doesn’t seem to have an effect if there

is no inner will to connect. When

interest is lost, we all feel lonely. On the

other hand, if we are completely alone

but engaged with activities that satisfy

our personal needs we don’t feel lonely.

Therefore the goal is to keep people

active, in a way that would make them

feel satisfy. In order for this to happen,

keeping the support to many different

options seems to be necessary, as we

don’t all want the same things. Somepeople might indeed feel alive by being

social connected, and that might be one

goal of personal growth for them. Some

other might feel alive while learning new

things, compensating the feeling of

existential loneliness while growing

older.

Taking a look back at the conceptual

framework (see Figure 54), the specific

goal is to help people that do not act ontheir own, by supporting that process

with an artificial presence’s motivation.

However, that doesn’t mean that the

rest of the categories will not benefit

from such a motivational aid. Sleepers

and daydreamers have trouble putting

their thoughts into action, and the main

research question is whether motivationboost from a robot is enough.

Nevertheless, since the framework is

dynamic, and a sleeper might transform

into a sheep from time to time, the

question remains the same for all.

5.6.

FIGURE 54 Conceptual Framework, focus

Supporting inactive people become active

!"#$%&

'!(($%&

')*'+(&,&(( ')*'+(&-), sheep planners

sleepers daydreamers

motivation


motivation


motivation

motivation

Ideate



iiiIn this part the ‘squiggled’ road

to conceptualization is

presented; from unveiled

opportunities, to low-fidelity

prototypes. Participatorymethods were used, adopting

an experimental approach for

the development of the initial

ideas. The byproduct of this

phase is the concept that

derived from the explorations,

gathered insights, and

participants’ feedback.

77

Ideate

Buddy



Creating the concept has been the most challenging step in this project,

or perhaps should I say steps. There were many iterations within this

iteration of conceptualization and many times I moved back from getting

feedback to fix the concept. The usual approach of ideating by creating

three proposals didn’t work. Instead, the concept was evolved by

adopting a central idea, the metaphor of a coach, and developing it

further by explorative prototypes.

yTowards an artificial companion

6.

Chapter Overview

6.1

Iterations Overview

6.1.1 Suggesting tasks

6.1.2

The cards exploration

6.1.3 Small bored robot with sound

6.1.4 Big bored robot with animation

6.2

Final Proposal

6.2.1 Embodiment & features

6.2.2 On a service level, befriending stages

6.2.3

The role of emotions, a machine state

6.2.4 Storyboard of use

78

82

80

81

81

82

87

88

89

79

Iterations

Overview

I realized my approach was not the

most appropriate one since I barely had

a clear view on the topic and what

used in later stages (although the

distinction might be hard to make) in

order to “test, receive feedback and find

78

Ideate

6.1.



Overview

A common approach that it is often

advised to follow within the studies at

TuDelft, is to create three concepts. Arumor in the circles of professional

studios is that this helps the clients to

have the opportunity to select the best

fitted one, and one the other hand for

the design studio to promote the one

they think it is the right one. This

happens by proposing a ‘bad, a wild, and

a good one, the one we want to be

selected’ concept. However this

approach failed miserably in my case (see

Appendix 3). By trying to ideate three initial

draft ideas after literature review, all

ideas seemed a huge step that didn’t fit

and didn’t have potential to get evolved.

people want. I thought I should try a

more service-alike approach, where the

concept is evolved using one small bit

to begin with and is built up, adding

insights by insight, using explorations

via prototyping [B19]. Explorational

prototypes are meant to “generate

insights, develop your thinking about a

situation and gather insights”. Whereas

evaluating prototypes are meant to be

fail-points” [B19].

The initial starting question, taking into

consideration the conceptual

framework, is what does those people

need, or how do they differ? For

example what it is that a planner makes

different compared to a sheep, or how

could we reverse the process for a

planner to find the answer?

Evolving the notion of an artificial coach by trial-and-error explorative prototyping.

FIGURE 55 Iteration steps

Prototype for exploring Prototype for evaluating

Assign tasks Card Tasks Bored Robot Big Thinking Robot Capturing Reactions Young participants Test Older participants Test

From the observation that planners

have structure, on how to reach their

goals, the initial sparkle of the concept

Suggesting

tasks

proper way. The social presence was

no-where present in the experiment,

and it was just me asking things to

79

Ideate

6.1.1



was born. Buddy would be the

metaphor of a coach, that can offer

people:

Structure to bring down goals

from un-realistic to realistic

pieces,

Reflection in order to realize

how you feel about certain

actions,

A small motivation boost to havereason to start with your goals,

A framework to hold on to and

make goal-chasing a routine to

be easy to follow, open-ended,

and up-to you to decide the

pace.

Suggesting tasks, was the first

exploration towards a fuller concept.

Perhaps the quickest exploration ever,

because it failed before it even started. Itried to engage people by sending them

tasks (that I knew people wanted to do

anyway), but there was no will in

following. The criticism on that was that

the setup of the experiment was not in a

people, in the eyes of the participants.

Moreover by simply suggesting tasks I

intended to help people at a ‘sleeper’

stage, but I made it difficult for anyone

else to participate by not giving the

chance to create their own tasks.

Therefore I proceeded with the second

exploration, the task-cards.

FIGURE 56 Conceptual Framework, missing links

Planners

Sheep

Daydreamers

Sleepers

They have structure.

They need reflection in order to figure

out why they follow and what they like.

They need a push to start acting

towards their dreams.

They need to reflect and act in order to

find things they like and keep doing

them.

FIGURE 57 Attempt to assign tasks to sleepers

The cards

exploration

However you had to reflect on the cards

the opposite way around, starting from

feeling out what would you like to

One participant dropped out of the

experiment not being able to write

anything on the cards that focused on

‘ ‘

the goals should be written down at

your own pace, and at no point should

you feel obligated to follow the card.

f

80

Ideate

6.1.2



This exploration took place with 3

young participants. The participants

were given a kit of cards that would

allow them to break down a long-termgoal into pieces for short-term action.

The kit had cards that asked you to fill

in the sentence:

“I would be happy if I could

________________________

Today,

Tomorrow,

This week,This month,

This year”.

achieve in the long-run, returning step

by step to what can you do today.

The results were really interesting. All

three participants had a difficult time in just starting the whole assignment by

staling on what the ultimate goal could

be. One of them told me “if I write it

down, it is real!”. That was the moment I

decided that writing down is part of the

final concept, because you cannot

easily erase things you wrote down, it is

a bit like betraying yourself. So this is

something that puts your goals into the

‘conscious’ zone of your mind. It

seemed like you needed to commit to

yourself that you will start acting if you

write it down.

‘what to do today’, or ‘tomorrow’. That

might be because all three of them

chose really bold long-term goals and

we are not used to plan how can we

reach our goals by reversing the way of

thinking and splitting it into smaller

goals.

From the rest of the two participants

that continued the test one of them

stopped in the middle of the week,

feeling it was too much pressure to

think over his goals every day. However

that was a problem with the

visualization with the cards (they had

numbers 1, 2, 3, and he assumed that

they meant to write down something

everyday). But that was not the point,

That wouldn’t be the objective of the

concept.

However the other participant didn’t see

it that way, and he told me that heskipped the task somedays. The

problem with him was that the task was

not over and he had to do the same

task for many days. The interesting

thing is that every day he wrote down

the same task, but in a more articulated

way.

A funny observation was that one of the

participants have put the cards in the

mirror of his bathroom. He said “it was

the perfect place to see them fresh in

the morning, so that he can reflect”.

FIGURE 58 Attempt to give structureto daydreamers

FIGURE 59 Results from one participant of the task-cards

Small robot

with sound

The results were again both surprising

and interesting. Just by an animated

character with 2 frames, the sense of

‘ th ’ b i t b t i d

Big bored robot

with animation

The result of that was not encouraging

me towards the usage of any kind of

screen. People thought the robot was

“l di ” thi d th h ld

81

Ideate

6.1.3 6.1.4



In order to step into the ‘artificial

presence’ zone, the next exploration

had to do with a fast prototype of a

bored robot. The robot had eyes andwould observe around and he would

make a sigh sound every now and

then. I asked two participants to use

this when they felt completely

unmotivated of doing anything, in order

to test their thoughts while being

‘sleepers’.

‘another’ being seems to be triggered.

Moreover one of the participants told

me “it is like it is mirroring yourself. You

are bored, so when you see someone

else being also bored you realize you

also look that bad and you want to

change your condition”. Of course,

there was also negative criticism,

regarding the predictability of the

actions the animation performed and

that after a while you start ignoring it

because of that.

Continuing the explorations I wanted to

test how the robot can communicate

thoughts and information back to you. I

didn’t want to use any kind of UI, atleast not in the conventional way that

we know UIs in computers. I imagined

the robot can have its own abstract

language of visualization and wanted to

test if abstract shapes would convey the

same feeling (boredom) to the previous

experiment, with a different expression.

“loading” something and they should

wait. We are too used to seeing screens

with buttons and we associate the

affordances of them to any kind of

screen we see. I imagined the robot

could have its own visual vocabulary

but that would need people to train on

that vocabulary. The decision was to

exclude the screen for information

exchange and adopt a conversational

way of communicating with the robot.

FIGURE

60 Results from one participant of the task-cards FIGURE

61 Results from one participant of the task-cards

82

Final proposal

Embodiment & Features

Ideate

6.2.

FIGURE 62 Buddy aesthetic influences

6.2.1



4.

5.

6.

3.

2.

1.

The final proposal includes the

refinement of the concept both on a

visually representational level and a

functional level. Feedback during the

explorations were utilized in order to

reach this level of refinement. The

interaction qualities were also taken into

consideration in creating something that

would convey that it is approachable,

vulnerable, well-made, personalizable,

not in need of care, has a sense of self,

distant yet not intimate to people, a

robot yet a product.

The functions it performs, or that you

can perform are:

Have its own daily routine,

wake-up, observe the world

around, feel bored, fall asleep in

the nights, send you a message

if no-one is interacting with it for

too long.

Analyze facial emotions when a

face is in proximity and react

accordingly.

Keep track of your tasks by

keeping your inner goals a

secret. Buddy allows you to

borrow its tokens, right on them

and return them for it to keep

them as a safe-bank of goals for

future reference.

Motivates you, using a

conversational app, when you

perform short-term actions

towards your goal. Think of it

like a coach, not in doing

exercise but in life.

Keep you company by acquiring

a relation that build-up slowly

with time. Buddy is quite shy, so

it won’t let you take its tokens on

the first day. First it has to get to

know you and you to know it.

Friendships need time.

Buddy can connect to other

Buddies, so that tasks can be

shared with other people, if you

want to ask for help on

something that you cannot

manage yourself.

Visual moodboard for Buddy’s representation: modern yet as simple as possible

6

83

Ideate

FIGURE 63 Final Proposal pt.1

Buddy consists of an embodied

companion, tokens and a mobile app.



84

Ideate


Buddy reacts to token deposit of

completed tasks.



85

Ideate


Buddy is a social conversational robot



Ideate


Buddy can help you have an overview

on the completed tasks, like a goal-bank.



On a service

level, befriending stages

Through the creative sessions

being there when needed also play an

important role. The notion of building

relations through stages between

humans and artificial companions is not

The stages that lead to unlocking new

functionality are determined by time

passing by for the time being:

Of course, the more you interact with

Buddy and the goal-token system the

more rewarding the experience will be.

The target zone is optimally Buddy to

87

Ideate

6.2.2



3.

2.

1.

4.

5.

Through the creative sessions,

participants indicated that it would be

nice for the robot to stay a product,

however no matter if we are talkingabout trusting a product or a person,

there are stages in our relation that

make our trust grow with time. Other

qualities, like reciprocity, reliability,

new [J36]. However, since there is no

standardization, a general ‘taming’

process will be defined for the current

project between Buddy and the owner.

It always helps to have an intermediate

person to get you introduced to

someone new (or even something new),

but it is not necessary.

stranger

acquaintance

companion

friend

best friend

become a friend, or to put it differently a

trusted product. If that happens the

owner will be in position to accept

mentorship from what Buddy has tooffer for the task-management of goals

and motivational effects will be optimal.

At this stage Buddy will be perceived as

a companion, an other being.

In order for the relation between Buddy and the owner to grow up, functionality has to unlock gradually, as if you were meeting a new person. It’s part of being social.

FIGURE 67 Befriending Stages

Stranger Acquaintance Companion Friend Best Friend• You receive Buddy and

you know nothing about it

• Accepting Buddy as a gift

will probably life

hesitations in hosting it in

your home

• Buddy can come with an

open long-term goal for

you to decide, or with a

gentle recommendationfrom your friend that

gifted Buddy to you

• Buddy will ask for your

name in the SMS app,

and you can give it a

name too

• It will live on a daily

routine, but it won’t be

much interactive, yet

• After a couple of days of

staying with you, it will

start making questionsabout you. Share its

secrets, and asks yours.

• This is the target zone of

relation of Buddy and

you. Buddy will ask for

your long-term goal.

• It will also prompt you to

borrow its tokens for your

short-term goals.

• It will be thrilled when

tokens are returned to

the deposit-bank for youcompleting something

and sad if no goals!

• Optimally Buddy will

become a friend.

Someone you can

confide your goals

without getting criticism

on what you did and what

you didn’t.

• In that stage Buddy will

get concerned if you

don’t interact often with itand ask you if you are ok

through SMS.

• Buddy is not

destined to be

your BEST

friend ;)

FIGURE 68 Buddy’s machine state of operation

The role of

emotions, a machine

state

88

Ideate

6.2.3• Motivation

• Energy

E i

Buddy’s core stats:

• Fall Asleep

energy ++



2.

1.

Buddy has a basic set of ‘core stats’. Its operation is also affected by external variables like: time passing by, time of the day,

environmental triggers (like face detection).

state

Utilizing FaceReader’s valence

readings from the person’s face (that

can happen either through Buddy or

through the mobile phone’s camera

while using the app), Buddy will adopt

two stances:

artificial sympathy

artificial compassion

In the first stance it will react like amirror to the person’s emotions. So it

the person has positive emotions, a

positive state will be triggered. (So

Buddy is sympathetic towards us)

In the second stance it will react in the

exact opposite way. Friends are not

always affected by our mood, even

though they understand our position.

Instead they try to cheer us up. It might

also be the case that our friends are in

an unmotivated mood and we should

cheer them up instead. In those cases,

Buddy will adopt an action-opposite

reaction from the scheme. (So Buddy is

showing compassion, but is not

affected too).

IDLE

SLEEP

DAYDREAMMOTIVATED

PLANNER

• Experience

• Time spend on each state

BORED

• Send SMS of suggestedtasks for the owner

• Send SMS of dreaming ofBuddy’s tasks

• Ask if there is

anything going on• Present overview of past

tasks, send reminders

energy ++

energy --

motivation ++

motivation --

• Observe

motivation ++

energy ++motivation ++

energy ++

motivation --

energy --

motivation --

energy --

motivation ++

energy ++

motivation --

energy --

energy -- motivation ++

energy ++

motivation --

energy --

Storyboard of

Use

Buddy can have a standard routine of

goal, the interaction with Buddy

happens via the SMS app and the

tokens. Each token represent a short-

term goal, and can be stored within

B dd ki d f

Future extensions can include some

functionality for the tokens as well, like

tracking time of a task automatically

(from the time you take the token, till

i B dd ) M h

Buddy can begin with a fixed goal for

you, in case a friend has observed it

would be good for you to set such a

goal and gifted Buddy to you (for

l ‘b l f l i

89

Ideate

6.2.4



Buddy can have a standard routine of

using it, and some alternative ones.

Mainly, after you have set the long-term

Buddy, taking advantage of a money-

bank box. Tokens can be personalized,

by writing down reflections at the back.

you return it to Buddy). Moreover they

could be share to ‘outsource’ tasks or

simply ask helps from others.

example ‘be less stressful, exercise

more’), or come with an open initial goal

for you to decide.

There can be many different routes to using Buddy, depending on the stage. However an overall view could be the above one.

FIGURE 69 Example scenario of use

!"##$%&'#( *+,-$

!"##$ &'(( )*+,- .-,)/0+( )-1,-2) 2/ 2*-")-,3 +)4'05 6/, + )-1,-2 7+143 &*+2 &/"(#

2*- ")-, ('4- 2/ +1*'-8- )/9-#+$:

;-$3 0/& 2*+2 $/" +,- 9$

*/)23 9+$ < )*+,- + )-1,-2

&'2* $/": < ")-# 2/ 7- +1/+1*3 0/& <=9 ,-2',-#> <

#,-+9 /6 2,+8-(('05 2*- &/,(#

/0- #+$> ?*+2 &/"(# 9+4-

$/" *+..$ 2/ +1*'-8-)/9-#+$:

;-$ !"##$3 < &/"(# ('4-

2/ ('8- *-+(2*'-,> @/)2 /62*- 2'9- < +9 2// 7")$

2/ 2*'04 +0$2*'05 7"2

&/,43 &/,43 &/,4>

Hello!

I’m

BUDDY

!"#$%&'(%'") +,%-)

!"##$ &'(( ')*+,#"-. '*/.(01 &23* '* -3) #, 0,+*2. "/.+ 3)# *2. +,(. ,0 *,4.)/5

Validate



ivThis part is concentrated on

the evaluation steps towards a

validated conceptual

framework and concept. The

validation was an iterativeprocess itself, including the

evaluation of the concept in

two stages both on

participants of younger age

and of the target group. The

byproduct of this part is a

deeper understanding of the

acceptance of the proposedconcept.

Validate

The conceptFrom framework to proof of principle

91



Validating the concept is perhaps the most exciting and frightening stage

of designing for the designer. Prototyping for evaluation means that

there will be users, feedback from them and the truth will be revealed!

No matter what the designer had in mind during the process, the crash-

test is how the end-users will accept the end-result. The strong points

and the fail ones will be revealed. The intention, within the scope of a

graduation project, is not to reach a perfect end-result but to reveal thosepoints and suggest corrections/additions to the concept.

Therefore this chapter approaches the question:

Would people want to use Buddy if it were a real product?

p p p

7.

Chapter Overview

7.1

The Conceptual framework

7.2 The Concept, prototyping for evaluation

7.2.1 Planning the evaluation test

7.2.2 Young Participants

7.2.3

Older Participants

7.2.4 Insights

7.3 Prototyping for facereader usage

92

101

95

96

98

94

100

The conceptual

framework

The most valuable insight from this was

that my framework overlooked one

factor, whether the retired person was

happy with their own condition or not.

Society often makes many

retirement, inactivity was classified to

be a ‘bad’ condition. With the evaluation

of the framework it became clear that

there are cases that are actually happy

with being inactive when retiring

92

Validate

7.1.



Part of evaluating the whole concept

was the validation of the basic structure

that it is based on, the framework (seechapter 4.2). If there are fundamental

problems with it, then chances are that

the whole concept is not very strong. In

order to evaluate the framework I

distributed a small questionnaire (see

Appendix 2), asking people to share

stories of retired people and classify

them under one of the following

categories. At the same time I had mini-

interviews with people asking the same

question just changing the format.

Society often makes many

assumptions, and the image we reflect

on the world might not be accurate to

what we feel. That has been the veryfundamental problem of emotional

isolation anyway. In the first version of

the framework, using anecdotes of how

people were perceived while and after

with being inactive when retiring,

especially if they have been working

very hard. Trying not to criticize people

for not being active, a short period ofinactivity only seems beneficial.

Otherwise, prolonged periods of not

pursuing inner wishes will unavoidably

lead to emotional isolation. Therefore,

FIGURE 70 Validated framework

Complete picture of a full conceptual framework

UnsatisfiedSatisfied

PlannersExplorers

On a break Opportunists

Routine

VictimsSheep

Sleepers Daydreamers

PurposefulPurposeless

Active

Passive

PurposefulPurposeless

Active

Passive

the framework was not completely

useless in its principle. In fact,

validating it and adding the rest of the

categories revealed its true complexity

without taking away any of its

You can notice (see chapter 4.2), that the

main difference is that I hypothesized

that what people around the retired

person perceive, reflect their actual

satisfaction of their situation However

cannot know if a planner is a bit of a

routine victim, in case he/she failed to

achieve the exact goal he had in mind or

whether he/she had to compromise.

after retirement are not neither tested in

this project nor depicted in the

framework.

Lastly, the opportunist is the satisfied

93

Validate



4.

3.

2.

1.

8.

7.

6.

5.

without taking away any of its

applicability to the design problem. The

full range of (new) categories can be

summarized as following:

Satisfied

The Planner

The Explorer

The Opportunist

The ‘On-a-Break’ person

Unsatisfied

The Routine Victim

The Sheep

The Daydreamer

The Sleeper

satisfaction of their situation. However

this, as emotional loneliness, turns out to

be a hidden state, known only to the

retired person. One can be actuallyhappy, or not, with belonging to any

stage of the framework. Inner

satisfaction is like there are two sides of

the same coin:

- planners vs routine victims,

- explorers vs sheep,

- opportunists vs daydreamers,

- sleepers vs ‘on-a-break-.

For example, the planners are not

always happy. I was surprised to find out

stories of people that stayed active,

purposeful, to the eyes of external

observers, but not really being happy;

the ‘routine victims’. Reality is that we

cannot be sure if an active person that

still pursues its goals after retirements

feels emotionally isolated or not. It mightbe that he/she stays active out of habit,

or out of necessity (for example if there

is a need of extra money, besides

pension, the retired person will continue

to work). We cannot really know if a

person that seems to be a planner is a

routine victim in reality. Moreover we

On the exact opposite direction, we

cannot be really sure if a completely

inactive person is a sleeper or a personon-a-break. There is a difference that

only the inactive person knows. The on-

a-break reaction is a quite natural

reaction to cases that there has been

heavy, stressful workload for too many

years, so the person actually enjoys

having all this free time, relaxing.

The other side of the sheep, is the

explorer. The sheep has no other choice

but following what other people do, inorder not to stay inactive, the explorer

does that as a result of enjoying the

whole journey and not the result of it

necessarily. It could be that explorers are

easier to get satisfied by simple things

(like just socializing and ‘being’ at a

place), whereas sheep innerly can only

be satisfied when achieving more

eudaimonic pleasures, therefore they

cannot really find satisfaction at ‘just

being followers’. Or that their

momentarily satisfaction is enough to

last over long-term goal satisfaction

[J30]. But that is a non-tested theory

over the framework, that could be true or

not. The relation between expectations

before retirement and reality outcomes

y pp

pair of the daydreamer. They are the

‘lucky’ ones. There are stories that

indicate that these people had dreamsfor the after-retirement life, they didn’t

really planned them out, but things

worked out towards that direction

anyway.

Reflecting on the whole scheme one

might also add that there is another

factor that can be involved. Whether a

person is introvert or extrovert. It sounds

quite logical to infer that it is easier for an

extrovert to be a sheep and more naturalfor an introvert to draw themselves back

into a daydreaming stance. Somehow,

maybe societally biased, we associate

action (or perceived action from our

surrounding people) with introversion/

extroversion [J33]. In any case, it seems

that the framework was able to serve its

initial purpose, simplify the transition

from researching to designing Buddy. In

the after-math Buddy doesn’t seem to

‘harm’ any of the addressed categories,

whereas does seem to be a small help to

all of them. Nevertheless, the weak spot,

is how can somebody recognize who

needs Buddy when distinction between

satisfied retired people and unsatisfied

ones is such a subjective judgement?

The Concept,

prototyping for

l ti

94

Validate

7.2.



2.

1.

evaluation

Testing the concept was a challengingtask. There were many considerations

beforehand, such as: what kind of

people should I test it with, should they

be sleepers, young-old, how long will

the experiment last, should I test the

whole concept or parts of it, and what

kind of prototype can I use for that

purpose. After a lot of consideration the

rationale was to split the evaluation test

into two parts:

Testing with Generation Y,

Testing with Baby Boomers.

Conducting the same experiment in two

generations will give extra insights

between the differences of those two.

Moreover by applying the test first to

young people a first round of insightswill help to fix the prototyping setup for

the, provisioned, more demanding and

judgmental older generation setup. A

separate section will evaluate the

intended usage of FaceReader and the

readings that can be received during

such a test.

Finding people for the experiment

proved to be much more difficult than I

expected, especially for the oldergeneration. One tricky point was that I

couldn’t pre-screen people and

categorize them to the framework, in

order to select sleepers or daydreamers

for the experiment. Wanting to test the

long-term effect of hosting Buddy added

an extra level of difficulty into finding

people that would have free time and

will to do something like that. My non

existent connection network in older

generations within the boundaries of

Netherlands didn’t help much either.

Previous explorative tests indicated that

the framework is dynamic. So there are

points that we feel demotivated, as a

sleeper, moments we daydream without

expressing our intentions to anyone or

acting towards them, times we just go

with the flow, and times we plan-act-

achieve. Therefore, there was no point

in pre-screening people, just applying

the test and having insights at what

stage people are usually around

afterwards, instead. If there was a

motivation boost due to Buddy, then I

would simply have feedback that the

participants’ activity was increased

towards a specific goal, more than

before that they didn’t have Buddy.

Feelings of companionship shouldn’t beaffected by the framework, since it is

used just for the motivation boost.

As far as evaluating parts of the

concept or the concept as a whole, I

decided it would be more interesting to

see the aspects of acceptance, feelings

of companionship, and the motivation

change when having Buddy. Therefore

the concept as a whole process should

be evaluated, compromising or leavingdetails of it out. Creating a prototype

that could be given out for a week to

participants was the tricky part. I had

thoughts of prototyping it using

arduinos, webcameras, iphone but then

I realized that such a prototype wouldn’t

be portable and it wouldn’t last longer

than few hours before going out of

battery. The solution was to prototype

by giving to people a prototype that

would host the same functionality but

without being functional. Then people

would be guided what to do with it as if

every piece of it was representing

something functional in the future.

Eventually the final testing was

conducted with 2 generation y

participants and 2 baby boomers (bothcouples). Testing it with couples was an

interesting twist, as everyone had its

own, personal Buddy but common

feedback sessions with me. However

I’ve asked the participants to try not to

influence each other’s process (which I

knew that wouldn’t happen), but it was

interesting to see how the discussion

between the couple would evolve in the

end.

Special care was given so that even the

prototyped Buddy will emit the intended

interaction qualities in the way it is

visualized, even though it will be just a

‘sketch-prototype‘ and not a functional

one. The quality of the prototyping

should convey a ‘mortal’ robot, yet a

well-made one that would last, even

one made with care especially for the

participants. A hint of humor should be

present, and Buddy should be cute,

simple and nice as an object.

Something that would make people feel

that they can put on display within the

boundaries of their home, and not

something to trow in a drawer.

2

1.

Planning the

evaluation test

The planning of the evaluation test

ld b lit i t th h

Participants would receive the following:

Embodied Buddy prototype.

First the young participants would

evaluate Buddy, and then the older ones.

The prototype will be adjusted according

to the feedback from the first round. The

pre-test session serves the purposes of

right or wrong way of doing this, that they

should feel free to keep their own pace

of assigning tasks to themselves and

that I won’t affect their pace throughout

that week. They should also feel free to

95

Validate

7.2.1



3.

2.

1.

3.

2.would be split into three phases:

Pre-test session for explanations

Hosting Buddy for 1 week

Post-test feedback session

Tokens that would symbolize

short-term goals that should be

carried with them as a reminderand be returned to Buddy when

finished.

Structured writing diary-alike of

their reflections to the activities

completed.

sensitizing participants to follow the test

through discussion in a general and

more specific level. The general levelwould be about artificial companions,

and what the project is about. The

specific level would be instructions on

what it is expected during the 1 week of

keeping Buddy in their homes. It should

be clear for participants that there is no

express their opinion, bad or good, in the

post-test session. Questions during the

post-test session would include whatthey found interesting versus what they

disliked. Whether they would continue

such a process, if Buddy had an effect

on their motivation levels and how would

they feel if Buddy was able to track their

emotions.

FIGURE 71 Evaluation test

Outline of the steps a participant would make

1) The participant writes down thelong-term goal. That’s a secret!

2) Short-term goal details are writtendown and carried around as a token

4) When short-term tasks arecompleted the token goes back to Buddy

3) The participant reflects on how it feltcompleting a short-term goal

1.

Young

Participants

The evaluation with the generation y

participants was conducted with 2

“adopt a healthier way of life”, whereas

her steps towards that was:

do some exercise,

96

Validate

7.2.2FIGURE 72 Buddy prototyping for young participants



3.

2.

1.

4.

5.

3.

2.

participants was conducted with 2

people at a very different stage of their

lives that brought many rich insights

about contribution Buddy can have.

The girl was between jobs, and had lots

of free time within her house, a very

similar situation to as if she was retired,

almost. The guy was working full time

and was quite busy. They were both

very enthusiastic for getting Buddy as a

gift and were fighting over who is gonna

get which one (see Figure 72). I was

surprised to find out they bothexperienced the effect of Buddy’s

companionship, in very different ways.

The girl mentioned “He has been a

good company, helping me put

thoughts into action. He was a bit silent

though, but he was there in its place all

the time”. Which was an expected

comment since Buddy was indeed very

silent. The unexpected part was to have

in her mind that Buddy was a physicalpresence that remind her of her goals

in the house, without that being

stressful or an unpleasant pressure.

She was so proud of having Buddy that

even talked about it to friends and

carried her written tokens around to

show them. Her long-term goal was to

drink more water,

include a portion of fruit/

vegetable everyday.

Her reflection on the tasks was mostly

negative (marked with orange and red

stickers), with only the ‘drink more water

task’ marked as green. She said that

she completed the tasks but felt that it

took her too much time till she did or

she wasn’t good enough at it, or didn’t

do it as often as she initially wanted.

However she appreciated that she was

acting towards a vision, and that there

were many reminders (like carrying the

token or seeing Buddy standing at the

bookcase).

The guy reacted differently to the test.

The first days of the week he has been

very busy to do anything for Buddy. Hehad the long-term goal, “improve my

dutch language skills and endorse the

dutch culture”. He kept the long-term

goal at the back of his head, not carrying

around the tokens. There were points

that he wished he had an empty token

with him, in order to write down a short-

term task because ideas were coming in

his head on occasions while away from

Buddy and his house. For example,

while on his way to work he saw a

bookstore. He thought it would be helpful

to buy a notebook to write down new

dutch words. He knew that those kind of

tasks are not really tasks, but felt very

motivated to be able to include them in

his list and have something to deposit to

the Buddy-bank (he even ranked them

with a green sticker). He was also not

very happy with goals that took him too

long and he even felt like quantifying

them. His short-term goals were:

Read the news in Dutch,

Read the news for Eindhoven

about my profession,

Buy a notebook for new words,

Write down 10 new words

Search online of a dutch course

Buddy was presented as a gift. The tongue is separated to pieces-tokens.

97

Validate

FIGURE 73 Evaluation test no.1

Giving Buddies to young participants to

live with them, for one week.



Accepting Buddy to the house

Participants

Older

Participants

The experiment slightly changed for the

older participants Since Buddy has

to the personal notes someone takes

for themselves. The tokens were also

separate, in order to change their

physicality from paper (that was in the

previous test) to something that can be

i d d

98

Validate

7.2.3FIGURE 74 Buddy prototyping for older participants



older participants. Since Buddy has

been so ‘silent’ in the previous round

with the young participants, I decided

that one of the two older participants

will communicate with Buddy in an

SMS-alike setup. So one of the would

report the long-term and the short-term

goals through SMS to a contact named

BUDDY (or named under a name they

would choose). On the other side of the

line, it was me, with pre-fabricated

motivational SMSs. I wouldn’t really

reply to the actions and reflections of

the participant but I would rather givelines that could have been a reply to

many things. For example:

“that’s a great step towards your

goal! Engaging with a task

always seems difficult before we

start, but keep on reminding

yourself how good it feels

during an activity and when

something is achieved. We

enjoy things more when we’ve

put personal effort in them.”

By using SMSs for the one participant

and written app-alike prototyped notes

for the other, effects of a conversational

artificial companion could be compared

carried around.

The evaluation was conducted with twobaby boomers, a couple, in their

mid-50s. The participants were close to

retirement (2 years from it), and have

already been thinking about what they

will do after. They said that they had

certain thoughts about it, but there

didn’t seem to have feasible actions to

be done to reach them.

Their reactions were much different

from the young couple. Moreover thereactions between the SMS participant

and the handwriting-notes one were

really different in the artificial presence

effect I observed. Surprisingly,

beginning the experiment was very

difficult for them. They were discussing

for about an hour, during our first

session, what kind of long-term goal

would they chose, since they had

common long-term goals as a couple.

As the experiment evolved theyreported to me that the SMS participant

found it very difficult to put all this

thinking into the goals and the actions.

The other one find it a very easy task,

just to write down goals. The SMS

participant had as a long-term goal “live

healthier, enjoying life more with my

family”, whereas the other one “improve

our social life”. Neither of them carried

the token around.

The representation of Buddy was more minimal for older participants.

99

Validate

FIGURE 75 Evaluation test no.2

Giving Buddies to older participants to

live with them, for one week.



Accepting Buddy to the house

Participants

1.

Insights

Overly the insights I observed and

would point out for the young

generation would be:

The insights, as I observed them from

the older participants, were:

The SMS participant worked

more on the assignment, felt

100

Validate

7.2.4FIGURE 76 Buddy results from young participant



3.

2.

4.

3.

2.

1.

4.

They felt a ‘presence’ in the

house, although the prototypewas not interactive, that

influenced them to remember

and think more often about their

goals,

The person that had free time

wanted to carry the token

around, whereas the busy one

found it a hassle. However the

busy one had times that needed

the tokens with him in order to

write down ideas on the spot,

Personalization of the robot and

the tokens seemed to be a part

of the interaction and the

relation build-up. For example,

one robot was returned with

drawn eyebrows to me (see Figure

76).

Both participants said they

would like something like that,

with more functionality (e.g.

reminders).

more supported, although her

personal reflection was that it

was a very difficult, mental, task.

She perceived the SMS

generalized replies to be me

responding to her actions. She

said: “I thought, you were

replying to me, and I found the

lines very wise and true, when

you said how when beginning a

task seems difficult, but then you

enjoy it”.

The tokens were useless in their

case, as there was no means to

do something with them, or

personalize them. It was like the

token was the SMS itself, and

the written prototyped app for

the other participant, instead.

Both expressed that they liked

the idea, and that they would

buy something like that... for

someone else, and not for them,

if they didn’t seem to invade

someone’s life ‘too much’.

Comparing the two couples there could

be some differences:

the older generation was much

more defensive towards use of

technology,

the young generation tended to

give a negative rate on

themselves after a task,

the older generation thought

‘someone else would be a better

fit to accept such a gift, like their

children’. Whereas the young

generation though “this would

be a great gift for our parents’.

and some similarities:

they had subtle, yet existent,

effect from Buddy as a

presence,

they brought the task to their

needs and pace.

Buddy as returned with eyebrows, personalized, after the 1 week of the test

Prototyping for

FaceReader

Usage

101

Validate

7.3.

FIGURE 77 FaceReader prototype-ready

Inception-mode: a person inside a

camera, as seen within an ‘open’ Buddy.



Usage

In order to cross-check whether theinsights from the creative workshops

(see chapter 5) were true, that is that

valence only would be relevant to be

used within Buddy for emotion

recognition, a small test was set-up.

The prototype made (see Figure 77) was a

Buddy on the outside that carried a

camera on the inside. The task was to

confront people with a Buddy that

displays abstract thoughts (illustrated

as abstract moving things on the iPad’s

screen). People, while interacting with

Buddy, would be recorded. Later, the

footage would be analyzed using

FaceReader. The results (see Figure 78)

showed that, mostly, the user had

mostly positive emotions. Sometimes

FaceReader was not able to read his

face, and therefore his emotions,

because he turned his head to other

directions. However, in no case, couldwe say that by reading emotions like

‘disgusted’ would be useful for Buddy to

know as it cannot be easily evoked in

such a context. Older participants also

mentioned that, if in any case, had a

negative feeling, they would ‘show it’ in

front of Buddy anyway.

102

Validate

FIGURE 78 FaceReader footage

Footage analyzed by FaceReader as

captured from Buddy’s camera.

VideoTime Emotion

00:00.0 Unknown

00:02.1 Neutral

00:04.2 Happy

00:05.4 Neutral

00:06.5 Unknown

00:20.8 Happy



00:21.9 Unknown

00:24.0 Happy

00:25.9 Unknown

00:32.4 Neutral

00:37.5 Unknown

00:38.6 Neutral

00:43.2 Unknown

00:45.1 Happy

00:45.8 Neutral

00:53.9 Happy

00:54.6 Neutral

00:55.5 Happy

00:56.7 Neutral

00:58.2 Unknown

00:59.8 Neutral

01:01.2 Unknown

01:02.1 Neutral

01:03.3 Unknown

01:20.8 Neutral

01:21.6 Angry

01:25.0 Neutral

01:31.2 Unknown

Analyzing facial expressions duringfeedback session

Participants

Reflect



This final part includes

reflection on many different

levels regarding this project.

Discussion on the methods

and approach used on how to

design robots per sé is the

main one, followed by

recommendations for

alterations of the proposed

framework, concept,

methodology, and personal

reflection on the whole

process.

Reflect

ConsiderationsThe beginning is the end is the beginning

104



Chapter Overview

8.1

Concept, post-evaluation thoughts

8.2

Insights, the future of artificial companions

8.3

On methods and conflicts of fields

8.4 Future recommendations

8.5 Personal reflection

A project is only half complete without a proper reflection on the insightsthat derived from it, considerations for future work or addition/changes to

the proposed design, the followed approach, recommendations towards

the company and last, but not least, personal reflection. This way people

that may be interested in similar kind of studies will not repeat the same

mistakes I did, and will be able to learn from what I learned.

8.

105

107

108

108

106

Concept, post-

evaluation

thoughts Otherwise I will just be too tired from

get along robots, and technology in

general. However the proposed solution

was bared a ‘technological‘ one,

intentionally to overcome such

acceptance issues. Perhaps this is why

people get to be hesitating in the

people interested in a robot that does

only one thing. From the weekly tests, I

cannot assume that this will not happen,

and I would definitely be curious in

having insights from longer tests.

105

Reflect

8.1.



Overly I am quite satisfied with theoutcomes of the final user-tests of the

concept. To be honest, I expected much

less acceptance of such a concept,

especially from the older generation.

Although it is a known issue that

participants to such user-tests engage

because they want to help the facilitator

of the test, and they consciously think

they socially interact with the person

behind the wizard-of-oz setup and not

with the artificial being [J31], I reallythink that the somewhat long-term

conduction of the experiment made

them change their minds in the end. It

seemed that what Buddy’s true effect is

that it gently pushes into your

conscious zone thoughts we usually

leave as a big ‘maybe‘ in the back of

our heads. Having a ‘presence’ dealing

with such kind of goals puts you into a

position of just thinking that there

should be some action towards them,

instead of only thinking. It becomes

obvious that just thinking about your

goals is a matter of luck whether it

happens or not. A participant out-loudly

realized that “even my free time has to

be planned in order to be enjoyed.

work and everything else I have to do,

and I will just melt on the couch thewhole afternoon”.

The real challenge of accepting such a

concept though, as a real product,

dwells in the very beginning of getting

introduced to it. At a first glance it

doesn’t seem like a product that people

would buy for themselves, but they did

end up thinking it would be a nice gift

for people they know and have the

comfort of ‘interfering with their lives’with, in a nice way. Somehow the initial

thought is ‘that this product is not for

me, but for someone else I know’. That

is a major consideration for the target

group as well. The irony is that the

young participants found this a great

solution for their parents/older relatives,

and that the older participants found it a

great suggestion for their children/

younger relatives! In my opinion this

reflects back to the findings of theliterature around the emotional isolation

(see chapter 2.2). We are very difficult,

almost in denial, in admitting that we

need external forces of help. Another

thought is that no product fits to

everyone and some people will never

beginning, since the word ‘robot‘ has

very biased associations and why they

change their acceptance stance after

they spend a week with Buddy.

Buddy was a design challenge of how

much can we subtract from the notion of

‘robot‘, keeping only the ‘minimum‘ to

evoke feelings of companionship. In

order for this to happen I found myself

many times iterating only to realize that

I have accidentally added too many

things to the proposed design, and thatI have to go back a step and remove

those again. That happened from the

first step of ideation, till the very end

when I was dealing with the aesthetics

of Buddy. It is a difficult decision

between having an artificial companion

that would be very focused on doing

one thing right, and having a

sustainable interest in interacting with it.

Current artificial companions are the

perfect example of ‘featurefatigue’ [J32], as they do a bit of

everything (supporting skype-alike

communications, agendas, home

assistance, etc) that they end up being

anything but companions. On the other

hand I can see a problem in keeping

After careful testing and consideration I

would envision certain things being part

of Buddy:

Personalization of the device, in

a very low-tech way, like

drawing on it, or changing its

shape by helping it ‘grow’ with

your materialized goals.

Possibility to extend the network

of goals that Buddy supports byrequesting help via other

‘Buddies’. For example if I need

help on my goal of ‘renovating

my house’ I can send an

invitation of ‘painting the house

this weekend’ to my friends.

Adding functionality to the

tokens. Tasks can have

automatic track, given that theybelong to certain categories.

Time, distance, physical effort,

are just example sensors

currently embedded in similar

tracking devices that could be

useful for some tasks.

1.

2.

3.

Insights, the

future of artificial

companions the best artificial companion

It is a category of products that comes

with a highly biased interpretation or its

name. When people hear ‘robot’ they

imagine everything they see in the

movies and directly become defensive.

From the user-tests, while looking for

emotions, then they would just be in

front of Buddy only with a ‘happy’ face.

There is a huge unexplored space of

simpler interactions, one could say that

an artistic boundary has to be crossed,

ff f (

106

Reflect

8.2.



The future of artificial companions isunder... construction. All this technology

is so expensive, but the main point is

that it is not relevant to the interactions.

Take AIBO for example, that was ahed

of its time, technologically, when

produced, but very high-end for

consumers to buy it [W13]. In general

demand of robotic companions is

reported to be very low, in home-

contexts. It is a product that has a long

way till it becomes mainstream, andperhaps Buddy, is just a geeky gadget

for now and not a robot, in the public’s

mind.

The notion needs to be redefined

urgently, in a more human-centered

product interaction relation, as

technology promises so bold things

right now, that wipe expectations out

when you finally confront it. For

instance, Pepper (see Figure 79), the

newest home-companion, is extremely

life-alike in its movements and can

understand emotions. People that met

Pepper certainly have an owe as a first

impression to interacting with it, as it is

very well made, and probably one of

advancements so far [W12]. However, on

a subjective level the reviews are ratherdisappointing with big titles like “I met

an emotional robot and felt

nothing” [W12], which says so much

about the relevance technology used

has to the meaningfulness of

interactions with people. When I began

this project I needed a thorough review

of what is out there, and I wouldn’t say I

am convinced that this is the right

direction for companions.

participants I bumped into this issue

countless times, especially in the older

generation. People seemed very

reluctant to host a robot in their houses,

even a prototyped one, if it carried

potentially ‘spying‘ technology. There

were participants that cancelled the test

because of the existence of a camera

that could analyze their facial

expressions into emotions later on.

Even more importantly they confessed

that if Buddy was able to read their

but the effects of the interaction (see

Figure 80) seem to be so much thrillingthat a robot with a screen that can read

your emotions. The only problem is that

this is not what people would actually

call ‘a robot’. My personal, humble

opinion, is that we envision future

robots completely in the wrong way.

Maybe robots are not what we once

thought of, maybe we need a

generation of personalize-it-yourself

automatic products first (see Figure 81).

FIGURE 79 Pepper FIGURE 80 Junior,a lamp that lives when you breath

FIGURE 81 Moti,a robot for autistic children

On methods and

conflict of fields

When starting to read the literature

d HRI d i t th f lion [J34], [J35]. This can barely give

thing to do. However they did carry the

tokens with them when they were invited

to write on them, even if they had

complains that the papers were easy to

get lost inside bags when carried.

At the same time the feedback sought by

screen of the Bid-Buddy, she turned and

asked “is it thinking? Should I wait”?

Which immediately shows that for some

things our mindset is already set by

things we know (in the specific case a

loading computer’s screen), so the

t ti h ld h

107

Reflect

8.3.



2.

1.

around HRI, a designer gets the feeling

that it is a field prevailed by scientists,

engineerings and programmers. The

ground is not mature, yet, for a

designer’s approach and this manifest in

the absence of specific methods and

publications that test the relation of

humans to robots under ‘real-life’

circumstances. There are endless

publications of quantitative lab-tests that

do not necessarily lead to hypotheses

that can be used by designers in order

to step from research to designing. Onthe other hand, a designer’s approach

might sound naive, artistic or completely

ungrounded to all of the above people,

as it is highly qualitative approach that

utilizes empathetic hints during the way.

Wherever the common ground is, the

link that is missing is conducting user-

tests that are long enough to indicate

sustainability and relation-changing

issues, in the real final intended

situation. The challenge is to buildrobust enough prototypes to test over a

long period of time, without utilizing

existing robotic platforms that do not fit

in the context. Many hypothesis are

tested in re-programmable NAOs, such

as social intelligence, persuasion and so

consistent results, from an interaction

point of view, as the robot is intended fora different context (of use and

environment), it is giving the wrong

impressions and expectations to the

users and is like forcing the embodiment

of a character into the wrong body.

Developing self-functioning platforms,

just to test interactions and intentions of

users with every little twist of the

concept, is, if not impossible over long

periods of time-test, surely painful and

demanding. Technology, in prototypestages, will probably stop working if you

intent to give it to people without having

access to it and responses might be poor

without the ability to wizard-of-oz-control

the machine. My way out of this situation

was to prototype with leaving technology

out, but keeping the prototype functional

in a way. So the process remains the

same by substituting pieces of

technology with pieces of abstraction. It

is important though that you can do

something with those abstract, replaced

pieces, otherwise people will not use

them. For example, when testing

Buddy’s tokens people didn’t carry them

when they were not invited to write on

them, because it seemed a redundant

At the same time the feedback sought by

participants should be more than

quantitate and more than qualitative too,

researchers should target at getting out

the latent thoughts of participants [B18].

Someone’s ‘structured’ opinion, during

an interview is not truly useful, yet good

to know. However I consider I got the

most out of the insights in two cases:

When I saw people trying to

figure out what is going on with

the prototyped robots,

In relaxed, ‘off-test’, moments

before or after a scheduled

feedback meeting with the

participants.

In the first case, it is disarming how easy

you test what you prototyped wrongly,

what affordances of the object aren’tcommunicated and what the cues reveal

or not. It is just a matter of observation

what people manage to do and what

they automatically think-aloud during that

exploration. For instance, a participant,

while seeing the visualization in the

representation should change.

In the second case all the principles of

generative research are set, without the

exact intention to have such a kind of

session. The participants are sensitized,

because they know the project already,

and if you make them feel comfortable

enough to say anything they thought,

you directly have their latent thoughts.

For example, the most funny comment I

received about a big prototyped-box-

Buddy was before the test started andexactly after a session with smaller box-

Buddies has ended. The participant, the

moment I introduced the Big-Buddy to

him, he cheered “oh my God, Buddy, you

grew up! Is that because I fed you all

these tokens last week?”. Which of

course was a moment somewhere

between making fun and filling the silent

space while I was preparing the test.

However it is not just a coincident to see

participants connecting effort put in aprevious test with changes in the shape

of the prototype. In fact the spontaneity,

besides being amusing, reveals a cause-

and-effect continuum in the interaction

and the relation-building with Buddy,

which just makes sense.

Future

Recommendations

As recommendations towards the

company and the future applications of

products. The power of

h i l i d

Personal

Reflection

Projecting myself in the mind state I had

when I was starting this project is a

robotics. At some points I felt I almost

h d t i t th h l i d t

108

Reflect

8.5.8.4.



company and the future applications of

FaceReader into artificial companions,

my explorations showed that there are

a lot of commercially exploited potential

with certain bumps to be overcome in

the way. That would be:

Modifying acceptance rates to

older target groups, designing

their expectations further,

sensitizing them before they

even use the final product. Avoid

calling the final result ‘robot’.

Using the least possible

technology, given that it is

relevant and contributes to the

experience, and not because it is

possible to use it.

General insight recommendations for

continuing research and development

on artificial companions would be:

Keep the physicality of

representation to different parts

of the robot, including the robot

itself. Our mental states react

differently to real objects and

changing, evolving and

personalizing physically a robot

is a very intriguing one to be

investigated more.

Keep it simple and focused.

Products, and robots, are easier

to be accepted and

comprehended when you can

easily describe what they are

made for.

Look for other kinds of contexts

to apply FaceReader within an

artificial companion, starting from

easier, target groups.

Psychological contexts, as the

one explored in this project, can

be very subjective in what fits

and what doesn’t. Contexts with

objectively-analyzable results will

help the company develop the

capacity to apply knowledge

gained to more difficult contexts.

People are not comfortable in the

thought of having robots as

friends, yet. They would easier

accept a robot as an assistant

[C10], [C08].

when I was starting this project is a

complete different picture of what I have

now in mind. I initiated the project

because it was not ‘just another

product’, I thought it could meaningfully

contribute to people’s well-being, and

that I could personally contribute to this

field by researching from a designer’s

perspective of view. I thought that I

would learn how to become a better

designer at sketching, researching,

user-testing, improve my design

thinking skills by analyzing andcombining insights from different fields,

and at whatever an interaction designer

is called to do these days. Reality is that

all of the above are true, I was wrong.

What I really needed in the way was not

to improve my design-skills, but to

improve my soft-skills. Suddenly

everything but designing was relevant.

Micro-management of the project,

organizing workshops or user tests,reaching out to people in order to find

participants, changing roles,

communicating results, getting

everyone on the same page, convincing

people (and sometimes myself as well)

that a design approach has a place in

had to re-invent the wheel, in order to

figure out what’s the next step. When

you open the door to HRI, you literally

open a waterfall of literature directly into

your head. Turning this knowledge to

design steps has be a very challenging

switch to turn. Following the insights

from the user-tests feels very inspiring

but not always aligned to the business

world. Nevertheless I did realize that I

was able to think by prototyping, and

not by sketching, which soon became

part of my iterations. When somethingcouldn’t fit, it was immediately obvious

in the prototype, and I had to go a step

back.

Creating a personal viewpoint and

theory of the future artificial

companions, selecting a specific focus

and target group, in order to create a

product that would add value and be

desirable by people still seems like a

mission that doesn’t feel like conquered,by one designer alone. Don’t get me

wrong, I do believe the project has

valuable insights. But society will need

more than one project to build the right

relationship with artificial companions.

One swallow will not make spring, right?

Append



110Appendix 1

References[J]ournals



[J01] Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P.

(2009). Special issue editorial: Design &

Emotion. International Journal of

Design, 3(9), 1-6.

[J02] Castellano, G., Leite, I., Pereira,

A., Martinho, C., Paiva, A., & McOwan,

P. W. (2010). Affect recognition for

interactive companions: challenges and

design in real world scenarios. Journal

on Multimodal User Interfaces, 3(1-2),

89-98.

[J03] Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra,

G., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Hawk, S. T., &

van Knippenberg, A. (2010).

Presentation and validation

of the Radboud Faces Database.

Cognition and Emotion, 24(8),

1377-1388.

[J04] Guo, G., Guo, R., & Li, X. (2013).

Facial expression recognition influenced

by human aging. IEEE transactions on

affective computing, 4(3), 291-298.

[J05] Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. (1982).

Felt, false, and miserable smiles.

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6(4),

238-252.

[J06] Williams, P., & Aaker, J. L. (2002).

Can mixed emotions peacefully

coexist?. Journal of Consumer

Research, 28(4), 636-649.

[J07] Martınez-Miranda, J., & Aldea, A.

(2005). Emotions in human and artificial

intelligence. Computers in Human

Behavior, 21(2), 323-341.

[J08] Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., &

MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of

healthcare robots for the older

population: Review and future

directions. International Journal of

Social Robotics, 1, 319-330.

[J15] Hekkert, P. (2006). Design

aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in

product design. Psychology Science,

48(2), 157-172.

[J16] Yanco, H. A., & Drury, J. L. (2004).

Classifying human-robot interaction: an

Transactions on

Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21(3),

473–509.

[J22] Nickles, M., Rovatsos, M., &

Weiss, G. (2004). Agents and

computational autonomy: potential,

for a robot companion. Autonomous

Robots, 24(2), 159-178.

[J28] Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani

[The uncanny valley]. Energy, 7(4), 33–

35.

111Appendix 1: References | Journals



[J09] Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E.,

Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001).

Bad is stronger than good. Review of

general psychology, 5(4), 323.

[J10] Stappers, P. J. (2007). Doing

design as a part of doing research.

Design research now, 81-91.

[J11] Goodrich, M. & Schultz, A. (2007):

Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey. In

Foundations and Trends in Human-

Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203-275

[J12] Turing, Alan (1950), "Computing

Machinery and Intelligence", Mind LIX

(236), 433–460.

[J13] Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., &

Ryan, L. (1994). The dimensionality

and correlates of flow in human-

computer interactions. Computers in

human behavior, 9(4), 411-426.

[J14] Desmet, P. M., & Hekkert, P.

(2007). Framework of product

experience. International Journal of

Design, 1(1), 57-66.

y g

updated taxonomy. In SMC (3) (pp.

2841-2846).

[J17] Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., &

Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of

socially interactive robots. Robotics and

autonomous systems, 42(3), 143-166.

[J18] Young, J. E., Sung, J., Voida, A.,

Sharlin, E., Igarashi, T., Christensen, H.

I., & Grinter, R. E. (2011). Evaluating

human-robot interaction. International

Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1), 53-67.

[J19] Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Socially

intelligent robots: dimensions of

human–robot interaction. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B:

Biological Sciences, 362(1480),

679-704.

[J20] Rose, R., Scheutz, M., &

Schermerhorn, P. (2010). Towards a

conceptual and methodological

framework for determining robot

believability. Interaction Studies, 11(2),

314-335.

[J21] Albus, J. S. (1991). Outline for a

theory of intelligence, IEEE

p y p

risks, and solutions, 2969(1)

[J23] Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence

without representation. Artificial

Intelligence, 47 (1–3), 139–59

[J24] Bonnasso, R. P., Firby, R. J., Gat,

E., Kortencamp, D., Miller, D. P. and

Slack, M. G. (1997). Experiences with

an architecture for intelligent, reactive

agents, Journal of Experimental and

Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 9(2-3),

237–256

[J25] Goldman, A. (2001). The

aesthetic.

[J26] Kerepesi, A., Kubinyi, E., Jonsson,

G. K., Magnusson, M. S., & Miklósi, A.

(2006). Behavioural comparison of

human–animal (dog) and human–robot

(AIBO) interactions. Behavioural

Processes, 73(1), 92-99.

[J27] Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S.,

Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., &

Koay, K. L. (2008). Avoiding the

uncanny valley: robot appearance,

personality and consistency of behavior

in an attention-seeking home scenario

[J29] Dautenhahn, Kerstin (2003):

Roles and functions of robots in humansociety: implications from research in

autism therapy. In Robotica, 21 (4) pp.

443-452

[J30] Rutledge, R., Skandali, N., Dayan,

P., and Dolan, R. (2014). A

computational and neural model of

momentary subjective well-being.

PNAS, published ahead of print August

4, 2014, doi:10.1073/pnas.1407535111.

[J31] Nass, C., and Moon, Y. (2000)

Machines and mindlessness: Social

responses to computers. Journal of

social issues 56.1 : 81-103.

[J32] Thompson, D., Hamilton, R., and

Rust, R.. (2005). Feature fatigue: When

product capabilities become too much

of a good thing. Journal of marketing

research 42.4: 431-442.

[J33] Eysenck HJ (1991) Dimensions of

personality: 16, 5 or 3? criteria for a

taxonomic paradigm. Personality and

individual differences 12:773–790

[J34] Torta, E., Oberzaucher, J.,

Werner, F., Cuijpers, R. H., & Juola, J.

F. (2012). Attitudes towards socially

assistive robots in intelligent homes:

results from laboratory studies and field

trials. Journal of Human-Robot

Interaction, 1(2), 76-99.

[J39] Lombard, M., Reich, R. D., Grabe,

M. E., Bracken, C. C., & Ditton, T. B.

(2000). Presence and television.

Human Communication Research,

26(1), 75-98.

[J40] Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence,

[J46] Victor, C., Scambler, S., Bond, J.,

& Bowling, A. (2000). Being alone in

later life: loneliness, social isolation and

living alone. Reviews in Clinical

Gerontology, 10(04), 407-417.

[J47] Hartman-Stein, P. E., &

Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1),

S33-S42.

[J52] Turkle, S. (2006, July). A nascent

robotics culture: New complicities for

companionship. In American

Association for Artificial Intelligence

112Append



, ( ),

[J35] Ham, J., Bokhorst, R., Cuijpers,

R., van der Pol, D., & Cabibihan, J. J.

(2011). Making robots persuasive: the

influence of combining persuasive

strategies (gazing and gestures) by a

storytelling robot on its persuasive

power. In Social Robotics (pp. 71-83).

Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[J36] Stronks, B., Nijholt, A., van der

Vet, P. E., & Heylen, D. K. J. (2002).

Designing for friendship: Becoming

friends with your ECA.

[J37] Breazeal, C., Takanishi, A., &

Kobayashi, T. (2008). Social robots that

interact with people. Springer

Handbook of Robotics, 1349-1369.

[J38] Lee, K. M., Peng, W., Jin, S. A., &

Yan, C. (2006). Can robots manifest

personality?: An empirical test of

personality recognition, social

responses, and social presence in

human–robot interaction. Journal of

communication, 56(4), 754-772.

explicated. Communication theory,

14(1), 27-50.

[J41] Breazeal, C. (2003). Toward

sociable robots. Robotics and

Autonomous Systems, 42, 167–175.

[J42] Sarvimäki, A., & Stenbock%Hult, B.

(2000). Quality of life in old age

described as a sense of well%being,

meaning and value. Journal of

advanced nursing, 32(4), 1025-1033.

[J43] Reker, G. T., Peacock, E. J., &

Wong, P. T. (1987). Meaning and

purpose in life and well-being: A life-

span perspective. Journal of

Gerontology, 42(1), 44-49.

[J44] Luo, Y., Hawkley, L. C., Waite, L.

J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Loneliness,

health, and mortality in old age: A

national longitudinal study. Social

science & medicine, 74(6), 907-914.

[J45] Singh, A., & Misra, N. (2009).

Loneliness, depression and sociability

in old age. Industrial psychiatry journal,

18(1), 51.

Potkanowicz, E. S. (2003). Behavioral

determinants of healthy aging: Good

news for the baby boomer generation.

Online Journal of Issues in Nursing,

8(2), 127-146.

[J48] Gfroerer, J., Penne, M.,

Pemberton, M., & Folsom, R. (2003).

Substance abuse treatment need

among older adults in 2020: the impact

of the aging baby-boom cohort. Drug

and alcohol dependence, 69(2),

127-135.

[J49] Yang, K., & Victor, C. (2011). Age

and Loneliness in 25 European Nations.

Ageing and Society 31(8): 1368-1388.

[J50] Forbes, A. (1996). Caring for older

people. Loneliness. BMJ: British

Medical Journal, 313(7053), 352.

[J51] Van Baarsen, B. (2002). Theories

on Coping With Loss The Impact of

Social Support and Self-Esteem on

Adjustment to Emotional and Social

Loneliness Following a Partner's Death

in Later Life. The Journals of

Gerontology Series B: Psychological

AAAI.

[J53] Tao, Y., Wang, T., Wei, H., & Yuan,

P. (2010). A Behavior Adaptation

Method for an Elderly Companion

Robot-—Rui. In Social Robotics (pp.

141-150). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[J54] Wada, K., & Shibata, T. (2007).

Living with seal robots—its

sociopsychological and physiological

influences on the elderly at a care

house. Robotics, IEEE Transactions on,

23(5), 972-980.

113Appendix 1

References[C]onference Proceedings & Workshop Proceedings



[C01] Desmet, P. M. A. (2011, October).

Design for happiness: Four ingredients

for designing meaningful activities. In

Proceedings of the IASDR2011, the

fourth world conference on design

research (Vol. 31).

[C02] Michalowski, M. P., Sabanovic, S.,

& Simmons, R. (2006). A spatial model

of engagement for a social robot. In

Advanced Motion Control, 2006. 9th

IEEE International Workshop on (pp.

762-767).

[C03] Scholtz, J. (2002). “Human-robot

interactions: creating synergistic cyber

forces.” In Multi-Robot Systems: From

Swarms to Intelligent Automata

(Proceedings from the

2002 NRL Workshop on Multi-Robot

Systems) , A. C. Schultz and L. E.

Parker, eds. Kluwer Academic

Publishers. pp. 177 – 184.

[C04] Bartneck, C., & Forlizzi, J. (2004,

September). A design-centred

framework for social human-robot

interaction. In Proceedings of the 13th

IEEE International Workshop on Robot

and Human Interactive Communication

(pp. 591-594).

[C05] Goodrich, M. A., Crandall, J. W.,

and Stimpson, J. L.. (2003). “Neglect

tolerant teaming: issues and dilemmas.”

In Proceedings of the 2003 AAAI Spring

Symposium on Human Interaction with

Autonomous Systems in Complex

Environments.

[C06] Meystel, A. M. (1996,

September). Intelligent systems: A

semiotic perspective. In Intelligent

Control, 1996., Proceedings of the

1996 IEEE International Symposium on

(pp. 61-67). IEEE.

C C S

[C11] Huttenrauch, H. and Eklundh, K.

S. (2004). Investigating socially

interactive robots that give the right

cues and make their presence felt.

Proceedings of the CHI 2004 Workshop

on Shaping Human-Robot Interaction,

pp. 17 – 20.

The First IEEE/RAS-EMBS International

Conference on (pp. 483-488). IEEE.

114Appendix 1: Conference Proceedings



[C07] Ray, C., Mondada, F., & Siegwart,

R. (2008, September). What do people

expect from robots?. In Intelligent

Robots and Systems, 2008. IROS

2008. IEEE/RSJ International

Conference on (pp. 3816-3821). IEEE.

[C08] Roy, N., Baltus, G., Fox, D.,

Gemperle, F., Goetz, J., Hirsch, T., &

Thrun, S. (2000, July). Towards

personal service robots for the elderly.

In Workshop on Interactive Robots and

Entertainment (WIRE 2000) (Vol. 25, p.

184).

[C09] Chatley, A. R., Dautenhahn, K.,

Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S., &

Christianson, B. (2010). Theatre as a

discussion tool in human-robot

interaction experiments-a pilot study. In

Advances in Computer-Human

Interactions, 2010. ACHI'10. Third

International Conference on (pp.

73-78). IEEE.

[C10] Dautenhahn, K., et al., (2005).

What is a Robot Companion – Friend,

Assistant or Butler?, in Proccedings of

the International Conference on

Intelligent Systems and Robots.

[C12] Kaplan, F. (2000). Free creatures:

The role of uselessness in the design of

artificial pets. In Proceedings of the 1st

edutainment robotics workshop (pp.

45-47).

[C13] Stiehl, W. D., Breazeal, C., Han,

K. H., Lieberman, J., Lalla, L., Maymin,

A., & Gray, J. (2006). The huggable: a

therapeutic robotic companion for

relational, affective touch. In ACM

SIGGRAPH 2006 emerging

technologies (p. 15). ACM.

[C14] Kidd, C. D., Taggart, W., & Turkle,

S. (2006, May). A sociable robot to

encourage social interaction among the

elderly. In Robotics and Automation,

2006. ICRA 2006. Proceedings 2006

IEEE International Conference on (pp.

3972-3976). IEEE.

[C15] Marti, P., Bacigalupo, M., Giusti,

L., Mennecozzi, C., & Shibata, T. (2006,

February). Socially assistive robotics in

the treatment of behavioural and

psychological symptoms of dementia. In

Biomedical Robotics and

Biomechatronics, 2006. BioRob 2006.

115Appendix 1

References[B]ooks



[B01] Breazeal, C. L. (2004). Designing

sociable robots. MIT press.

[B02] Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic

theory of personality.

[B03] Turkle, S. (2007). Evocative

objects: Things we think with. MIT

press. 1st edition.

[B04] Stein, L. (1927). The ABC of

Aesthetics.

[B05] Turkle, S. (2005). The second

self: computers and the human spirit.MIT press. 2nd edition.

[B06] Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together:

Why we expect more from technology

and less from each other. Basic books.

[B07] Nelson, T. D. (2002). Ageism:

Stereotyping and prejudice against

older persons. MIT press.

[B08] Rubin, J. (1984) Handbook of

Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design,

and Conduct Effective Tests. John Wiley

and Sons, Inc.

[B09] Hekkert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2011).

ViP-Vision in Design: A Guidebook for

Innovators. BIS Publishers.

[B10] Tassoul, M. (2009). Creative

facilitation. VSSD.

[B11] Homer (circa 800 BC). The Iliad

[B12] Needham, Joseph (1991).

Science and Civilisation in China:

Volume 2, History of Scientific Thought.

Cambridge University Press.

[B13] Wiener, N. (1966). God and

Golem Inc.: A Comment on Certain

Points where Cybernetics Impinges on

Religion. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT

Press

B[20] DelCampo, D. S. (2006). Aging:

What to Expect and how to Cope. New

Mexico State University, Cooperative

Extension Service.

B[21] Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J.

(2011). This is service design thinking:

Basics tools cases Wiley

116Appendix 1: Books



Press.

[B14] Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P.

(Eds.). (2011). Product experience.

Elsevier.

[B15] Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of

mind: The theory of multiple

intelligences. Basic books.

[B16] Murphy, R. R., (2000) Introduction

to AI Robotics. Cambridge, MA, USA:

The MIT Press.

[B17] Turkle, S. (2010). In good

company? On the threshold of robotic

companions. Close Engagements with

Artificial Companions: Key Social,

Psychological, Ethical and Design

Issues. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

John Benjamins Publishing Company,

3-10.

[B18] Sanders, E. B., & Stappers, P. J.(2012). Convivial toolbox. Generative

Research for the Front End of Design.

B[19] Blomkvist, J. (2010).

Conceptualising Prototypes in Service

Design.

Basics, tools, cases. Wiley.

117 Appendix 1

References[R]eports



[R01] P. P.M. Hekkert, J.S.M. Vergeest,

S. Jin (2009), Toward Sustainable Well-

being, Research Portfolio IDE/TUD

2008-2012, Delft University of

Technology, Delft

[R02] McKinsey Global Institute (2013).

Disruptive technologies: Advances that

will transform life, business, and the

global economy (Vol. 180). San

Francisco.

[R03] Noldus (2014). FaceReader

Methodology. The Netherlands.

[R04] Gunderson, J. P., & Gunderson,

L. F. (2004). Intelligence= autonomy=

capability. Performance Metrics for

Intelligent Systems, PERMIS.

[R05] Waag Society (2012), Real-life

care stories

[R06] Hamilton, M., & Hamilton, C.(2006). Baby Boomers and Retirement.

Dreams, fears, and anxieties. Sydney:

The Australian Institute.

[R07] Anderson, D., & Kennedy, L.

(2006). Baby boomer segmentation:

eight is enough. AC Neilsen Consumer

Insight Magazine, Fall/Winter.

118Appendix 1

References[W]eb Pages



[W01] Delft IDE’s research

competencies. Retrieved 20.6.2014

from http://www.io.tudelft.nl/en/

research/

[W02] Dautenhahn, K. (2013): Human-

Robot Interaction. In: Soegaard, Mads

and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). "The

Encyclopedia of Human-Computer

Interaction, 2nd Ed.". Aarhus, Denmark:

The Interaction Design Foundation.

Retrieved 20.6.2014 from http://

www.interaction-design.org/

encyclopedia/human-

robot_interaction.html

[W03] Gates, B. (2014). A robot in every

home. Retrieved 20.6.2014 from http://

www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-

robot-in-every-home/

[W04] Facial Action Coding System.

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved

20.6.2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Facial_Action_Coding_System

[W05] Unimate. Robot hall of fame.


www.robothalloffame.org/inductees/

03inductees/unimate.html

[W06] Zunt, D. "Who did actually invent

the word "robot" and what does it

mean?". The Karel #apek website.


capek.misto.cz/english/robot.html

[W07] Online Etymology Dictionary.


www.etymonline.com/index.php?

allowed_in_frame=0&search=robot&se

archmode=or

[W08] Leonardo3.net. Leonardo da

Vinci's Robots. Retrieved 20.6.2014

from http://www.leonardo3.net/

leonardo/press/pdf/L3%20-

%20libro robot-hi.pdf

[W14] Quora, What does it feel like to

be old? Retrieved 30.05.2014 from

http://www.quora.com/Aging/What-

does-it-feel-like-to-be-old

[W15] Britannica, Robot definition.


www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/

119Appendix 1: Web Pages



_ p

[W09] Robotics Research Group.

Robotics History Timeline. Retrieved

20.6.2014 from http://

robotics.ece.auckland.ac.nz/index.php?

option=com_content&task=view&id=31

[W10] The guardian. Eugene passed

Turing test (2014). Retrieved 20.6.2014

from http://www.theguardian.com/

technology/2014/jun/09/scientists-

disagree-over-whether-turing-test-has-been-passed

[W11] Online Etymology Dictionary.


www.etymonline.com/index.php?

term=aesthetic

[W12] Byford, S. I met an emotional

robot and felt nothing. Retrieved

20.7.2014 from http://

www.theverge.com/2014/6/19/5820080/ meeting-softbank-pepper-robot

[W13] Borland, J. Sony puts AIBO to

sleep. Retrieved 20.7.2014 from http://

news.cnet.com/Sony-puts-Aibo-to-

sleep/2100-1041_3-6031649.html

p

505818/robot

120Appendix 1

References[T]hesis and dissertations



[T01] Breazeal, C. L. (2000). Sociable

machines: Expressive social exchange

between humans and robots (Doctoral

dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology).

[T02] Schoenmakers, E. C., van Tilburg,

T., & Fokkema, T. (2013). Coping with

loneliness. Vrije Universiteit.

Appendix 2

QuestionnaireQuestions and answers

121



122

Age of

retirement

What was

their

profession?

Where do

they come

from?

Other Describe the whole story

65 Fisherman Greek Sleeper He planned to enjoy his life by relaxing, spending some time with good friends and family and take care of himself.

55

Baker,

Shopkeeper,

Entrepreneur

Dutch

Having ideas, doing

those, not all

planned

Retirement happened suddenly (could sell the shop), no fixed plans, do a lot of nice stuff like traveling, and some volunteer work together with

partner.

Appendix 2: Questionnaire | The answers



62

Social

Worker/

Handyman

Dutch Daydreamer The retirement was caused by a burnout , so not planned. Don't think there were any plans for after retirement.

55Mechanical

EngineerIran Planner

I don't know what he planned in the beginning. He didn't share, but as I understood him, he started reading as much as possible (he already read

before retiring but he added more time). He continued with working. he always said "I am getting bored with sitting in the house" . In general he

enjoys working and be updated, so he is trying to not be retired mentally or even physically, since he goes also to gym (not really a gym, but like

working out hours with other retired people)three days per week and I know he enjoys it.

55Manager in a

chemical plantDutch Planner

"My father is/was mainly occupied with taking care of the needs of other, he has a big social network around him(family and frames). My mother got

ill and he supported her, so that she could stay living at home. So, he is mainly busy with taking care of others. He is know 83 so it is difficult to

remember the first years of his retirement.

56Electrical

Engineer Greek PlannerThey planned to open a little store selling goods that are of personal interest to them. A few years before. They have saved up enough to do

whatever they wished and travel at least twice a year.

65 Engineer Turkey

Creates daily

routines and seems

to enjoy

I don't think they planned much, just find small stuff to engage and it seems to work, not much trouble yet. Just not big plans..

65 Teacher Dutch PlannerIn the years before the retirement they started to work less. Their plan was to go traveling, so they bought a camper. Right now they are spending a

few months a year traveling trough Europe.

65 Teacher Dutch Planner"Started painting and doing sculptures in wood and stone. Currently planning to cycle to spain in summer and training to do so. Busy with

grandchildren, etc."

64Magazine

editorDutch

Happy to retire,

worked long

enough

Was happy to retire, worked since 15 years old. Took on a lot of hobby's, mainly in the field of craftmanship.

55Mechanic /

FitterDutch Sheep

This is hard to say, because this person is grandfather, and I don't know what he was planning to do. As far as I know he did what my grandmother

wanted to do, and he liked doing that (so he was a follower). However, when his wife died, he didn't really have much motivation to do things (of

course, this is normal after a beloved person dies), but he still participates in everything.

65

Worked at a

cargo service

company /

airport

Dutch Planner The plan was to spend more time with family and friends and to play more sports. It has worked out good so far, also with support of his wife.

Appendix 3

Ideation, rejectedon failed attempts to create ‘three concepts’

123



Miss-matched concept no.1:

a robot that visits your family instead of

you and brings news back to you in the

format of captured video of your family

talking to you.

124Appendix 3: Ideation | Rejected




a robot that takes you to place that you

have vivid memories or, in order to

capture the storytelling of them for your

future relatives.

125Appendix 3: Ideation | Rejected



Morbi tincidunt odio sit amet dolor pharetra dignissim. Nullam volutpat, ante a frin

gilla imp erdiet, ipsum lorem set dui neque.


a robot that travels instead of you into

places that you would like to go but you

can’t. While on the go you can

communicate with people the robot

sees.

Appendix 4

Aging storieshow does it feel to be old?

126

For developing empathy, because I am not that old, I searched

for some stories from people that are old online. When I started

this research I realized I don’t have access to old people. I was

surprised to find out how rich insights internet searches can give

you instead.



Ton is usually in his room watching

television. He takes no initiative to get

something started; if the care staff didn’t

get him out of bed in the mornings, he’dbe there all day. He is not curious at all

about technology; the care staff turns on

his television. He has no contact with

his fellow residents and no interest in

doing anything with them. Sometimes

the staff move him to the corridor so

that he can join their care meeting. He

likes that well enough, but quickly bores

of it and wants to go back to his own

room. Once a week his son, his only

visitor, drops in for a chat. He does not

go anywhere himself.

He has no sense of the day progressing

and does not know when he ought to be

doing something, or what. The care staff

try to structure his day somewhatthrough routine daily activities like

eating and washing, but if you ask him

what he does he says: “I do nothing all

day.”

His only activity is occupational therapy,

which he enjoys. Ton doesn’t care for

games, but does enjoy watching films

on TV. He likes the old comedy TV

series Toen Was Geluk Heel Gewoon.

Others do his shopping for him, but hetakes almost no notice. His carer

explains that they go through the

shopping list once a week.

Ton

“I do nothing all day”

[R05]

127 Appendix 4: Aging Stories



Liesbeth is not one to give up. She is

determined to live independently as

long as possible. She often goes out for

a stroll, using her walking frame to holdthe bottle that supplies fresh oxygen,

via a slender tube, to her nose. When

she gets home she plugs the tube into a

special apparatus that allows her to

walk around the house freely. The tube

can easily get tangled up with furniture,

however, so she has chairs but no sofa,

leaving more room to maneuver. She

lives in a care location in the centre of a

large city. This was a conscious choice;

in a city there’s always something goingon, something to see. She loves being

able to look out of her window and see

the activity. The curtains are sometimes

drawn shut, however. She attaches

great importance to privacy and rest.

She thinks it important to keep up with

the times. She knows exactly what she

wants and is not afraid to give her

opinion. She leads an active social life,but takes part only in those activities that

she finds really interesting. Liesbeth can

still do everything she wants, and never

needs to be pushed into action. She

would, however, like to have a clearer

idea of what is being organized around

her. She always wants to know what’s

going on, so that she can get involved

with the activities she finds most

interesting. But she does not want to use

a computer for this purpose. She’sreluctant to begin, for fear of discovering

what she is no longer able to do. If a

technology could help her to be more

independent, however, she would

definitely embrace it.

Liesbeth

“I want to stay a part of the world”

[R05]

128Appendix 4: Aging Stories



Morbi tincidunt odio sit amet dolor pharetra dignissim. Nullam volutpat, ante a frin

gilla imp erdiet, ipsum lorem set dui neque.

I am the same age as Sean Connery

and Clint Eastwood. In Dog-years that

is really really ancient. I am shorter than

either, but heavier than both. I am notsure if that makes up for it. I was once

the captain of the school basket ball

team. But it was in the UK and we didn't

have pom-pom girls. Here I am on the

diving boat in Italy. The man with the

beard was Reg Vallintine: once the

British Spearfishing champion; he could

swim down over 30m on one breath. I

could only do 20m. I once wanted to be

a painter. I liked Op-Art, but everyone

was doing it in the 1960's. Here aresome of my paintings. I taught Special

Needs children how to draw pictures

using letters of the alphabet. Each one

had to make a picture with their own

name...

So, what does it feel like to be old?

It's a bit& like this, with a cat that has

luminous eyes and sleeps on its back.From time to time something reminds

you of the past. You remember things.

Mostly nice things. There is a tendency

to reminisce, meander, and ramble when

talking and writing about the past, and I

wonder if anyone is listening, reading, or

caring much. But that is not feeling old,

it's more like wondering if there isn't

something better I could be doing. There

is of course, but I can't be bothered.

That's it. When you get old you feel youcan't be bothered because most things

don't matter that much. Or not as much

as they used to. Or not as much as they

ever should have done. I just wish I had

known that then when I was younger.

Stan

“When you get old you feel you can't be bothered because most

things don't matter that much”

[W14]


1. "Old" is not a number. "Old" is a

state of mind



state of mind.

2. With aging comes some

deterioration of body parts. My hearing

problem has gotten worse. Fortunately

hearing aids have gotten better. I wear

glasses all the time. I have arthritis,

which is sometimes painful. I was

diagnosed as "pre-diabetic" five years

ago, lost some weight, and have

controlled it with diet. A lot of my hair is

gone, and what's left is white.

3. In my head, I seem to be pretty

much the same as I was at the age of

four, except I know a bunch more stuff.

4. There are very few new problems.

This is the value older people have to

offer the young. We've experienced a lot

of stuff. It is also the Achilles heel of the

aging. When an actual new problem

appears, we may not recognize it.

5. I prefer the music of my youth. I play

classical music stations to avoid

whatever is current pop. I like country

music and female country music

singers.

6. Dislike almost all Hollywood movies

with a budget larger than the amount

someone could conceivably spend for a

house. They just use the extra money to

blow up things and wreck cars. Preferindependent and foreign films. Never go

to theaters.

7. Dislike most network TV other than

sports. Prefer a few cable shows on USA

and TNT. Guilty pleasure: DWTS.

8. Still working as a freelance writer. Still

making a few bucks.

9. Still in love with and living with the

woman I married in 1958.

10. When my father-in-law hit 90, he

said, "I'm getting old." That works for me.

I'll let you know when I feel like I'm

getting old.

Barry

“Old is not a number, is a state of mind”

[W14]


When my mother was this age I thought

she was ancient. But at about that age

she once told me that she still felt 16

inside and now I know what she meant

• The pluses: I've been through a lot, and

I know a lot. I've had a huge amount of

experience in navigating business and

personal issues. Thanks to all those

years of experience I've got some

perspective that a younger person just

can't have. I have witnessed with my

own eyes a period of astonishing change

in human history politics business and



inside, and now I know what she meant.She's 82 now. My dad will be 90 in a

few months. That's old. I'm not really

old.

Being a young person is like being a

stem cell. You might go anywhere,

become anything. You are all about

potential. When you get to be my age

you are considered to be fully formed as

a human being, the sum of your past

experience.

I am afraid that someday I'll be unable

to learn to use new technologies (I got

my parents a Kindle Fire for Christmas

and sat with them to show them how to

use it and they are both entirely

flummoxed by it, will probably never use

it unless I am sitting there coaching

them), and I would hate that, because

every new thing I've ever learned how

to do has been such an improvement inmy life to date.

When I was young I used to say that I

couldn't wait to be 35, because I figured

I'd have all my shit together by the time

I was 35. FAIL

in human history, politics, business, andtechnology. That, too, gives me some

perspective.

• The minuses: my metabolism has

slowed down a lot. I'm less flexible than I

used to be. My stamina for walking is still

very good, but since breaking an ankle a

few years ago I have a touch of arthritis

in that ankle (as the orthopedist warned

me I would) and it bothers me in cold

weather (and sometimes in warmweather too). I have less energy than I

did 20 years ago.

• The neutrals: I'm both more and less

patient than I used to be. I have a lot less

tolerance for bullshit than I used to, but a

lot more tolerance for the foibles of

human nature. I'm much more conscious

of mortality in general (my own and that

of others), and quicker to speak the

words "I love you" to my family and

closest friends. I used to be more

trusting, more inclined to take people at

face value. Having been betrayed a few

times, I am now more discriminating in

deciding whom to trust.

Stephanie

“I’ll be 56 in a few months. I'm not really old. I'm middle-aged. ”

[W14]

designing artificial companionship through explorative research in order to prevent loneliness in...

Documents