Abstract
This article reports observations from a field study in which medical responders used a social telepresence robot to communicate with participants playing the role of a trapped victim in two search and rescue exercises. The interaction between the robot, victims, and responders suggests the coexistence of two distinct social identities for the robot. One which is a pure conduit for the remote medic, and another in which the robot is treated as an independent social actor. Participants acting as victims demonstrated fluidity in interacting with each identity. The social identify of a robot has important implications for the development of future telepresence systems, particularly in the healthcare domain. Since victims in the exercises gave attention to both the robot and the remote medic, it is possible that the robot’s social actor role may divert attention from the remotely connected individual. The work provides a starting point for investigation of role conflict between a remote medical professional and the robot they are using to assist a patient.
References
[1] Cindy L. Bethel and Robin R. Murphy. Non-facial/non-verbal methods of affective expression as applied to robot-assisted victim assessment. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pages 287–294, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. 10.1145/1228716.1228755Search in Google Scholar
[2] Jennifer L Burke, Robin RMurphy, MichaelDCoovert, and DawnL Riddle. Moonlight in miami: Field study of human-robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1-2):85–116, 2004. Search in Google Scholar
[3] V. Groom, V. Srinivasan, C.L. Bethel, R. Murphy, L. Dole, and C. Nass. Responses to robot social roles and social role framing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), pages 194–203, 2011. 10.1109/CTS.2011.5928687Search in Google Scholar
[4] Annica Kristoffersson, Silvia Coradeschi, and Amy Loutfi. A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Advances in Human- Computer Interaction, page 3, 2013. 10.1155/2013/902316Search in Google Scholar
[5] Maja J Mataric. The role of embodiment in assistive interactive robotics for the elderly. In AAAI fall symposium on caring machines: AI for the elderly, Arlington, VA, 2005. Search in Google Scholar
[6] Robin R Murphy and Jennifer L Burke. Up from the rubble: Lessons learned about hri from search and rescue. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 49, pages 437–441. SAGE Publications, 2005. 10.1177/154193120504900347Search in Google Scholar
[7] Robin Roberson Murphy. Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 34(2):138–153, 2004. 10.1109/TSMCC.2004.826267Search in Google Scholar
[8] B. Reeves and C. Nass. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press New York, NY, USA, 1996. Search in Google Scholar
[9] Laurel D Riek. Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 2012. 10.5898/JHRI.1.1.RiekSearch in Google Scholar
[10] Scott M Sasser, Richard C Hunt, Ernest E Sullivent, Marlena M Wald, Jane Mitchko, Gregory J Jurkovich, Mark C Henry, Jeffrey P Salomone, Stewart C Wang, Robert L Galli, et al. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients. recommendations of the national expert panel on field triage. Recommendations and reports/Centers for Disease Control: Morbidity and mortality weekly report., 58(RR-1):1–35, 2009. Search in Google Scholar
[11] I. Straub, S. Nishio, and H. Ishiguro. Incorporated identity in interaction with a teleoperated android robot: A case study. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pages 119–124, 2010. 10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598695Search in Google Scholar
[12] Fumihide Tanaka, Toshimitsu Takahashi, Shizuko Matsuzoe, Nao Tazawa, and Masahiko Morita. Telepresence robot helps children in communicating with teachers who speak a different language. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pages 399–406. ACM, 2014. 10.1145/2559636.2559654Search in Google Scholar
[13] Tzung-Cheng Tsai, Yeh-Liang Hsu, An-I Ma, Trevor King, and Chang-Huei Wu. Developing a telepresence robot for interpersonal communication with the elderly in a home environment. Jounral of Telemedicine and e-Health, 13(4):407–424, 2007. 10.1089/tmj.2006.0068Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[14] Katherine M Tsui, Munjal Desai, Holly A Yanco, and Chris Uhlik. Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 11–18. IEEE, 2011. Search in Google Scholar
[15] Antoine A. J. van de Ven, Anne-mie A. G. Sponselee, and Ben A. M. Schouten. Robo m.d.: a home care robot for monitoring and detection of critical situations. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, ECCE ’10, pages 375–376, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. 10.1145/1962300.1962391Search in Google Scholar
© 2016 Zachary Henkel et al.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
