The True Heroes of Socially Assistive Robotics

As I meet the many individuals in my robot travels and demonstrations, the persistent question of those who encounter robots is often: “What does this robot do?” Admittedly, a reasonable question to ask. Even in the professional robotics community there is the constant search for: “What are specific use case examples for this robot”?

The answer is that socially assistive robots, in truth their developers, have achieved the next plateau, and are providing demonstrable answers to both of those questions. We can now clearly see that socially assistive robots are providing impactful assistive solutions in autism therapy, pediatric hospitals, elder care, and special needs education to cite a few of the leading use cases. I state ‘assistive solutions’ for a reason. Robots in these disciplines are not intended to replace humans but work as assistive resources that first, enhances the delivery of services, whether it be therapeutic services in autism, exciting and engaging students in the classroom learning experience, creating transformative social experiences and stimulating cognitive engagement for the elderly in skilled nursing facilities. Second, expanding the resources available to those who work in these disciplines, such that they, as professionals, can do more, make a greater difference, and improve upon the resulting success of the targeted benefits.

Multiple University based research has long identified and pointed to the potential of socially assistive robots. And, their ground-breaking research efforts surely are to be recognized and applauded. The potential they envisioned is now being realized. I assure you, that those of us engaged in this arena understand that there is yet much more research yet to do.

But who are the real heroes of this journey marching on to the new horizons of benefits that socially assistive robots can offer? Surely, the engineers, software developers, and researchers would be among the first on that list, however, in my opinion, it is those individuals who contemplate a vision and take the leap to apply socially assistive robots, actually test them, and offer advice based on their experiences using socially assistive robotics in real life situations. They are the truly brave ones who forge the new frontiers, blazing and demonstrating a path for themselves and most importantly their patients, the elderly, the students and the parents that they strive to serve. Without them, the translation of the vision of socially assistive robots in actual practice would not be made possible. There is a difference between research lab theory and real-world applied use.

A few examples of the heroes I have encountered:

An Elementary school teacher who teaches students in a special needs school adopted a socially assistive robot to aid in skills development for almost 100 children with autism. Her weekly schedule of interactions with these children has yielded demonstrable improvements in many of these children’s coping and learning skills. These robot-based mediated intervention sessions have become not only a source of excitement for the children but her detailed session observations have led to the development of autism applications that are even more impactful and beneficial.

A technology specialist at another school created a library of learning sessions that advance the education of special needs students by way of utilizing robot-based learning events that transform conventional lectures into highly interactive, robot led engagement sessions. This teacher’s vision of robot led learning programs have become legendary in the school with students wanting to do them over and over again.

A Librarian in a public library had the vision of enhancing their community’s digital literacy program by adding a robot to their ‘makerspace’ resource. Following the announcement of the robot’s availability to the community, library visits increased by over 700 visits.

A developer had the vision of using the robot to help reduce the pain and anxiety experienced by children facing medical procedures in pediatric hospitals. Working with the child life specialist team in a local hospital they conducted a clinical study and attested to ‘an up to 50%’ reduction in a child’s pain and anxiety.

Without heroes like them, those of us who serve as intermediaries in this effort would be stalled at that final moment of truth. Does what we offer in socially assistive robots actually make a difference? Can socially assistive robots be used in real life situations? Will someone try and use them? Thankfully, due to their vision and courage, the answer is yes. For their cooperation and collaboration, the world will be and should be thankful. They are making a real difference.

Michael Radice is the Chairman of the Technology Advisory Board for ChartaCloud Technologies, ROBOTTECA.com and SociallyAssistiveRobots.com

Six Reasons Why and When I Would Want an In-home Robot?

I continue to read and hear about the forecasts regarding the future adoption and use of social and collaborative robots in the home.  That ‘someday’ they will do ‘this’, or, provide ‘such and such’, all of which sounds very exciting and enticing.

But the fundamental question remains: “Why do I even want, let alone need an in-home robot?”

Setting the entire cost/price/value discussion aside for the moment, I suppose that there are a series of easy potential cultural and social answers.

Such as:

I enjoy technology in any form or fashion.

I think it adds a dimension of convenience.

It makes me feel not alone, more secure.

I am not insensitive to the needs for smarter assisted living technologies for the elderly. However, in this instance, I am addressing the demand from the general population.

In the past I easily understood the need for robots. We already have robots to wash dishes, wash clothes, dry clothes, vacuum, cut grass and plow snow. On reflection, I recall that I didn’t know why I would want a microwave oven when it was first introduced but I do now. But it took a while.

Reflect upon that today, a robot enters the “smart home scene” already preceded and surrounded by ‘voice-activated info boxes’, smart TV screens, security cameras, smart doorbells, mobile smartphones, mobile computer tablets. What would a robot uniquely add to this mixture? 

Essentially, it seems to me that the robot would need to be more than a computer tablet on wheels. Although, that might even prove convenient to some for the robot to hold the tablet, carry it and follow them around.

However, to add a new dimension to the existing ‘smart home’ equation, six robot functions come to mind. It would need to:

1. Be drivable around the house from a remote location.

2. Come and find you when something needs to happen or has happened.

3. Be able to go find and fetch things.

4.  Have a storage compartment to store and carry things.

5. Have a common base platform with interchangeable components so as to be re-configurable for different in home purposes.

6. Interact/integrate with any of the ‘smart-devices’ already in place.

If these conditions were met, I believe many people would be inclined to add an in-home robot. Would you?

Have additional ideas on what would motivate you to buy an in-home robot? Do let me know at mike@chartacloud.com. Mike is Chairman of the Technology Advisory Board at ChartaCloud.

Observations on Robot-mediated Behavior Intervention (RMBI) for autism

I need to share at the outset that I am not a medical expert or an expert in autism diagnosis or treatment. I am however an experienced technology executive with over 45 years of real-world experience on focusing emerging and new technologies to address and solve real world problems and challenges. When I entered the robotics field it was not long before I experienced firsthand the engaging and positive impact that robotic technology had upon children with autism.

The history of the utilization of robots as a pathway vehicle to effective autism therapy has been attested to by many leading researchers. Bottom line is that numerous university-based research studies attest to the positive impact robots can have on autistic behavior intervention. The reasons for the positive findings while varied, group around the following observations. Children trust robots. Most children are captivated by robot interactions. Robots do not tire in their interactions. Robots do not inadvertently convey upsetting facial expressions or use nuanced voice inflections that children find distracting or even upsetting. Robots do not get emotionally swayed off the path.

This article is founded upon my observations while working to increase the attention and focus of clinicians, researchers and educators on the as of yet unrealized future positive possibilities and benefits of robot assisted behavior interventions for autism or what I refer to as robot-mediated behavior intervention or RMBI.

The numbers of children being diagnosed with autism continue to increase at an alarming rate. The CDC now has posted that number at 1 in 59 children. This is a staggering number. The impact on individual lives is also staggering. The average cost for a family to care for an autistic child is approximately $60K/year. Autism is a lifelong challenge and it is not just an early childhood issue. Being able to “skill develop” and prepare younger children for their learning and teenage years and then on to self-sufficient adult living can take years of behavior intervention and skills development. The burden on families emotionally and financially can be crushing. Most therapists would agree that 40 hours of therapeutic and skills development interactions and behavior interventions per week is what is needed. Imagine dedicating 40 hours per week to the treatment of a single child? That is a full-time job for anyone.

At the foundation of robot-mediated behavior intervention lies ‘behaviorist’ psychological principles, that behaviors are the result of ‘stimulus-response’ interactions and that resulting behaviors can be observed by the therapist and learned by the child through the repetitive utilization of such interactions. In the case of autism, we are striving to encourage the recognition and learning of acceptable social interactions and create confidence in their adoption and use by the child with autism.

While many states in the U.S. recognize the need especially for early childhood intervention and many now even provide some financial subsidy or medical reimbursement for such therapy, the available resources outstrip the demand. Most of the burden falls upon special education teachers in public or special needs schools and increasingly on the families of children with autism themselves.

Great progress is being made to culturally embrace children and adults with autism. Autism is now more frequently seen less as a disease or a handicap and more as a condition that bespeaks the uniqueness of a person. “Each child is unique” is the mantra of those impacted or those working with those impacted. While I respect these sentiments, it tends to belie the work that needs to be done to treat such a devastating condition. None the less we must always keep in mind that every therapeutic approach must embrace the uniqueness of the child being cared for.

More than a decade of research has established the fact that human-robot interaction possesses a huge potential as an intervention tool for many children with autism. The world-wide prevalence of autism has triggered the need for training professionals and developing new technologies to efficiently deliver autism intervention to a wave of demand that if it has not already, will soon overwhelm providers.  Technology-aided interventions should be seen as emerging tools for autism intervention and robot-mediated behavior intervention (RMBI). More importantly as robot technology advances and costs lower the possibility of having a robot mediated intervention platform that can be used in a “at home” setting is the real target. Leading researchers have documented that 30 days of 30 minute in home use can have very positive results.

Another noted university researcher has recently stated however, that “Despite impressive new developments in robot-mediated behavior intervention (RMBI), there is a huge gap in understanding among robotics researchers, robotics industries and stakeholders (autistic children, parents/caregiver, and clinicians) on the clinical utility of robots in autism intervention, best practice in RMBI, and the robotics technology (hardware and software) required to establish RMBI as an effective evidence-based practice (EBP) in autism”.

We are entering a new era of robotics and for social robots in particular. Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning when combined with the hardware elements and technologies that comprise today’s robots clearly point to a future where much of the behavior intervention work can be assisted by or transferred to a social interactive style robot. Every day we learn more about robots that can sense emotions and derive diagnostic, personality-based information by ‘reading’ facial expressions. Unfortunately, the momentum in robot-based autism behavior interventions once driven by university-based research programs has lessened as seemingly, in their minds the case for the use of robots has been made. While this is true, we now need to advance, in a unified manner, the software, robotic platform design and the Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) curricula needed to establish the expanded viability of robot mediated behavior interventions. This needs to be done so that more individuals, family members in particular, and not just professional therapists can with the assistance of a social robot, engage in credible behavior intervention and skills development therapies. Families need access to comprehensive social robot-based platforms that can increase the amount of productive skills development time they can provide to a child’s development.  This is especially powerful as therapy in a home-based environment is a more natural and less threatening environment than a school room or a therapist’s office location. This approach would open the pathway to an increased utilization of robots in autism behavior interventions which in turn expands the number of hours that can be applied to therapies and skills development.

Much is being said and written about the impacts, advantages and threats that the advent of the age of robots has and will have on our society and culture. And, those discussions and debates are important and vital to our perceptions and our thinking. However, I believe that the use of robots in therapeutic sessions for autism and many other conditions will only continue to develop and expand. The major objections to the advancement of robots in the medical arena I encounter are (1) robots remove the human touch (2) robots are to expensive and (3) robots will take my job away. To which I observe that we adopt the use of X-ray machines and MRI machines which improve on our human constraints, and that costs will overtime, be reduced as adoption grows and the need for workers in robot related fields will expand, creating jobs. 

What I rarely hear is that robot mediated behavior does not work. Experience the child with autism in front of a robot and you will see the real joy of engagement. It is that experience that makes for the passion to continuously work to advance robot-mediated behavior intervention.

*Michael D. Radice is Chairman, Technology Advisory Board of ChartaCloud Technologies / Robotteca

.

Robots Can Inspire.

Having been in technologies for far too many years to mention, I have always been amazed at the discovery of the unexpected paths when new technologies are introduced. Two recent studies have proven once again, that introducing a new technology, in this case, a robot, into a sector can generate new and innovative approaches to doing things.

 

In the first instance, using robots to teach children seems like the right idea and the right approach. Using robots to teach children expands available instructional resources and robots have the patience to repeat and re-iterate until the correct answer to a question is provided by a student. These are just a few of the attributes of ‘teaching’ robots. There are many more of course. But researchers are discovering that turning the tables can make for a great learning experience. Have the children teach the robot! This approach is the result of an expanding field of robotics studies and a class of robots called “Care Receiving Robots” (CCR). Children take on the task of helping the robot learn to do something and by doing so learn the subject themselves. Suddenly, the number of potential ideas for such an approach is seemingly endless.

In a similarly structured project that I am involved with, students are challenged with a planetary exploration where the robots are on a remote planet, but the students need to solve problems or overcome challenges managed from their Earth-bound operations Center. They need to teach the robots to explore the planet and prepare the new planet’s base of operations in anticipation of humans arriving on the planet.

In another sector, autism, it is deemed beneficial to utilize robots in the delivery of robot-mediated behavior intervention in autism. The approach has been to provide the robots as an augmented resource to/with a professional therapist to deliver the intervention session. Here again, researchers have determined that it is possible and beneficial for family members themselves to use the robot in their homes and thereby expand the amount of therapeutic time that can be given to a child with autism. This is especially powerful as therapy in a home-based environment is a more natural and less threatening environment than a school room or a therapist’s office location. This approach now opens the pathway to an increased utilization of robots in autism behavior interventions which in turn expands the number of hours that can be applied to therapies and skills development.

So, there we have it, inspirations. Children teaching robots and robots in the home doing therapies. These are just two examples of what I have seen time and time again or as the old showman’s saying goes, when it comes to robots: “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Mike is Chairman of the Technology Advisory for ChartaCloud ROBOTTECA

Top 5 Advances Needed in Robot-mediated Behavior Intervention Technology in autism and Why We Need Them

The number of children diagnosed and thus impacted by autism continues to rise, and staggeringly so. Recall, that in 1985 children with autism was estimated to be 1 in 2500. Ten years later in 1995, it was 1 in 500. The CDC now estimates (2018) 1 in 59. Associated lifetime costs have risen past $3 million dollars. Medicaid costs for children with autism is reported to be 6 times the normal at over $10,000.00 per year. ABA therapy at $120.00 per hour for 10 hours of therapy per week, puts therapy cost at an annual rate of over $50,000. per year. 80% of children with autism are in divorced families. The human costs over a life time? Special living requirements? Employment potential? Lost productivity? Social lifestyle impacts? How can these be quantified?

To even have a chance at mitigating these impacts early intervention is critical. The efficacy of early interventions are, therefore, even more critical.

The utilization of social robots in autism behavior especially in early intervention is an emerging and powerful force. The past initial phases of academic research clearly demonstrated that ‘robots’ can be an effective resource used in behavior intervention therapies. We now face the challenge of further developing hardware, software and curriculum that improves upon and enables the transfer of robot-mediated behavior intervention technologies to be more broadly used and more cost-effectively deployed to therapists, special education professionals, school teachers and, yes, even to parents, guardians and family caregivers.

Bottom line is that current intervention methods and resources are not sufficient to address the growing need. As technologists working with autism experts we can and must do more with robots.

What is needed?

I helped organize and conduct a just completed workshop held under the auspices of Carnegie Mellon University’s 2018 Robotic Sciences and Systems Conference in June 2018. The workshop was designed to specifically address this very subject. Participants from academia, education and the robotics industry joined-in to contribute their thoughts about the current state and the future design requirements needed to support the advancement of robot-mediated behavior intervention.

Robot-mediated behavior intervention needs to advance to the next level with:

1    1.     More software behavior ‘APPS’ for use with the robots – especially for early age (3-6) use
2.       APPS that are highly customizable to the ‘speed, sound and voice interaction’ needs and capacities of individual children
3.       Robotic platforms that are less disrupted by the environmental conditions of ‘light and noise’
4.       Advanced technological response interfaces for ‘non-verbal’ children
5.       More accurate and more comprehensive data collection progress and performance data capture facility built into the ‘APPS’

The full list is longer but the above five will help significantly move ‘progress and adoption’ measures. The next major technological phase will be machine-based learning algorithms that designs in real time, custom therapy interventions. I will soon address that subject in a future blog.

Michael Radice is Chairman of the Technology Advisory of ChartaCloud | ROBOTTECA and can be reached at mike@chartacloud.com

How One Robot Can Transform A Library and Its Community

While there is a lot of justifiable discussion about the pros and cons of a future world cohabited with robots, one thing is clear – positive outcomes are being achieved. It seems every day we see a new leap forward in robot construct, artificial intelligence, machine learning object manipulation and facial and emotional visual recognition being exhibited by robots. As someone who is immersed in the world of social robots and robot process automation the pace of innovation I see is staggering.

Equally wondrous in the world of social robots is the creative manners they are being put to use. That too takes imagination. The proliferation of use cases is now significantly expanding beyond proto-typical research. True uses are now being substantiated and legitimized. When one first encounters a social robot the most prevalent question is what can it do? Many times, the environment is a clue to that answer and sets expectations. Encounter a robot behind the concierge desk in a hotel and you expect it can make dinner reservations, get you tickets to a play or make a golf tee time. This is happening. Encounter a robot in a retail cosmetics store and you would expect cosmetic advice based on its perception of your style and ‘facial’ attribute composition. Happening.  Encounter a robot in an art gallery and you would expect expert advice and counsel on the art pieces being displayed. This is happening.

Imagination gets even better. I have experienced seeing a NAO⁽¹⁾ social humanoid robot in a community library and all-of-a-sudden they had an exciting and engaging community digital literacy program. Library traffic and value perception of the library went way up. (Think fundraising.) One robot can serve multiple audiences. In another library, it also became a resource for the local school such that students can do STEM robotics programming assignments at home or in school and then come to the library to test them out on the robot. Parents that have children with autism go to the library to use the robot to do their own ABA/pivotal response training and social skills development exercises and interventions. Art groups are planning to conduct robot performances. The robot becomes a knowledgeable spokesperson, information resource, and presenter for special community educational events. So, this too is happening, and it is engaging and transformative.

Local businesses, community fellowship groups, church groups and individual donors now have a unique opportunity to positively impact their communities with – one robot. One robot causing good things to happen.

Mike Radice is Chairman of the Technology Advisory Board for ChartaCloud | ROBOTTECA www.robotteca.com. (1) NAO is a product of Softbank Robotics.

Observations on the New Era of Retail Brand Management and Humanoid Robots

 Driven by the introduction of humanoid style social robots we are rapidly entering a new era of consumer engagement and with it a new opportunity for marketers and retailers to secure competitive advantage. The initial introductory phases of robots in consumer engagement models have been mostly about fast food restaurants where they work as receptionists/order takers, in consumer banking as product concierge spokespersons, and in airports as information guides. While that will continue, more businesses engaged in a wider variety of consumer ‘retailing’ are finding the use of robots simply too compelling to ignore.

The driving factor is not that robots are less expensive than humans or are being used to replace workers. The real driving factors are that businesses can learn from the robot’s interactions with consumers at a speed and at a depth not possible via human staff and that consumers can benefit from the knowledge conveyed by the robot. Paper-based consumer survey information or store based data collection/extraction exercises can take months to filter and categorize. Today’s technologies enable that time to be reduced to minutes. A properly designed robot used in a consumer retail ‘brand management’ engagement model will add significant value to the consumer relationship and a competitive advantage to the business.

The lure of humanoid robots in a retail settings rests on the robot’s attraction and engagement power. Consumers are drawn to the aura of an interaction with a humanoid robot and the robot’s mobility to ‘meet and greet’ and even lead them on the route through the store to the product of their choice. More deeply is the anthropomorphic effect whereby people trust robots in many instances more than humans.

The digital toolset of consumer engagement platforms that already includes smartphones, chatbots, computer tablets, laptops, interactive digital kiosks has now expanded to add humanoid retail / concierge robots.

A few examples set the stage.

A robot ‘sommelier’ in a wine store that can recommend a wine respective of your taste and price range having recognized you as a returning previous purchaser and knowing your prior experiences would certainly enhance the loyalty and satisfaction of the customer.

A robot in a cosmetics or clothing store that can communicate the ‘hottest’ colors based on the current preferences of ‘celebrities’ or even identify the specific fashion being worn by a celebrity and motivate a purchase suggestion in that store would certainly add to the desirability of shopping there.

With a robot interaction, however, we can now instantly discover quantitative and qualitative data that can guide and refine our consumer engagement strategy.  Properly designed the qualitative element of a robot-based engagement model would enable us to learn/assess/ estimate: age; gender and language for example. Quantitatively, we could learn ‘hot topic’/ issue preferences or the appearance of new or increased demand for certain items or styles etc. and even the emotional posture of the consumer. Decisions about inventory and sales promotions become ever more knowledge-based and data-driven.

What this means is that the engineering of successful future robot-based consumer engagement application design will need to embrace new concepts for consumer engagement, an extensive embrace of gamification strategies, access to third-party information resources, real-time data logging, artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities.

Furthermore, for larger retailers the need to manage a ‘fleet’ of deployed robots from a central location becomes critical. The essential rules for all adopters of robots in retail will be to be sure to frequently and constantly refresh the robot’s general interaction script with new versions, items and news as no one will be stimulated to revisit a boring repetitive robot; and ever strive to raise the level of personal engagement and gamification. The more custom the engagement interaction to the individual consumer the more powerful the model e.g. show your loyalty card to the robot to prompt it to recall the specific ink cartridge that you need for that printer.

Michael Radice is Chairman of the Technology Advisory Board for ChartaCloud and Robotteca.com and a provider of the leading software for Pepper.