IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - December 2013 - 158

resulted in misplacement of the book on the book holder.
Two common reasons that negatively affect executing all
four tasks are 1) the physical limitation of the robot arm
to reach the target configuration, which requires the user
to move the wheelchair closer to the desired target object
and redo the task, and 2) the inaccuracy in calibrating
the robot with its surrounding environment.
In the current state of development and six months after
the end user started work as librarian with the assistance of
FRIEND IV, the execution time of all the four
tasks without user interThe book holder works
action is +5 min. For the
autonomously but can also cataloging process itself,
the end user needs, on
be manipulated by the user average, between 12 and
14 min. One of the goals
in further FRIEND develthrough the user interface
opment is to improve the
to turn over a page or close software and hardware
implementation so that
the time for autonomous
the book.
execution can be significantly reduced. The time
the end user needs for
completing the cataloging of one book depends on her experience as a librarian and in working with speech recognition
software. With increased experience, this time is expected to
become much shorter.
User Acceptability
The robotic system FRIEND III was part of a study of user
acceptance of service robots [12]. In the qualitative part of
that study, several service robots from different areas of
application, including FRIEND III, were introduced to 20
elderly people. With this study, FRIEND was the only robot
that obtained the highest possible rate of acceptability. The
reason for such a high acceptance rate is that for the interviewed people, who were mainly healthy and fit elderly, the
vision of having a robotic system as a support to their independent life at home instead of being dependent on conventional personal care is of high importance. The performance
of FRIEND III in ADL scenarios confirmed that such robotic
assistance is possible.
Further measuring of the acceptance of FRIEND III was
done during a system test with patients in the Neurological
Rehabilitation Centre, Bremen, and during the presentation
of FRIEND III at the REHACARE fair in Düsseldorf
(2009). For this purpose, individuals who tested FRIEND
were asked to fill in a questionnaire, the results of which are
shown in Table 2. The same questionnaire was used for
evaluating the user acceptability in the library workplace
scenario described in this article. The feedback of the
FRIEND IV end user is shown in Table 2 in comparison
with the user acceptability test results of FRIEND III. It is
important to note that the individuals involved in the
158

*

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

*

DECEMBER 2013

acceptability test of FRIEND III had less severe disabilities
than the FRIEND IV end user.
The data from user questionnaire suggest that the acceptance of FRIEND IV is higher than that of FRIEND III. The
higher acceptance recorded may partially be explained by the
fact that the more severely disabled user of this system has
inherently greater readiness to accept automated assistance.
In addition to the FRIEND IV end user, two of her assistants were asked to measure the acceptance of FRIEND IV.
Without any technical background on FRIEND, both assistants needed less than half an hour of introduction. They
had very positive impressions and emphasized the easiness
of control of FRIEND. They also stressed the importance of
FRIEND in giving independence to the end user in performing a professional task with which the care personnel
cannot help.
Apart from answers to the survey questions, the
FRIEND IV end user has given her positive impression on
how her professional life has been changed. She is very
happy to find a job after 11 years without work in which
she can finally use her intellectual skills. She believes that
once the development is finished and FRIEND is available
on the market in the future, it can be significant support to
her in doing her tasks in the library and to other people
with disabilities working in different workplaces.
Conclusions
The research and development of the assistive robot
FRIEND started about 15 years ago. In its first and second
generations, different user support scenarios in ADL were
considered. The first trials on supporting disabled people in
a work environment were performed with the third generation, FRIEND III. In the dissemination process of the
FRIEND III, it was decided to focus on supporting the integration of disabled people into professional life. The reason
is twofold: first, the integration of people with disabilities
into professional life increases their self-confidence and life
satisfaction; second, the successful implementation will
increase interest in such systems from both employers and
financial supporters of development. It is nonetheless recognized that implementing FRIEND in a work place
increases the complexity of the assistive robotic system
because the possible adaptations of the work place environment are limited.
This article discusses the steps that were necessary to
transform FRIEND into a system that supports a quadriplegic end user at work on a daily basis. These steps do not concern only the technical adjustments and improvements of the
system but also the overcoming of reservations from employers, care personal, and disabled users. Clarification of details
with other organizations such as the department of employment and insurance companies are also critical. The robot
usage scenario presented in this article is the support of a
quadriplegic individual working as a librarian retrospectively
cataloging collections of old books. All the tasks concerning
book manipulation such as grasping the book from the book
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - December 2013
