IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2011 - 27

concern, is not a major issue of concern. SAR systems are
designed so the robot does not apply any forces on the user.
On the other hand, the user can touch the SAR system, and
in some cases (as with Paro, see earlier), such contact is part
of the therapy. However, in a majority of systems no physical
contact is involved, and the robot may not even be within
reach of the user, though it is typically within the social interactive space conducive to one-on-one interaction through
speech, gesture, and body movement.
In this section, we examine some of the aspects of SAR
technologies that are unique and ways in which SAR systems, in particular, might impact not only the user directly
but also others in the shared context. In particular, the most
prominent nonphysical risks posed by SAR systems include,
but are not limited to, attachment to the robot, deception
about the abilities of the robot, and influence on the human-
human interaction of a robot's user.
Relationships, Authority, and Attachment
It is safe to assume that a robot would not be the only
caregiver/therapist for an assisted individual. Typically,
care is provided by human caregivers, including professionals and family members. Thus, the SAR system impacts
all of these individuals in various ways. For example, a
robot that does something that a human caregiver would
otherwise do (e.g., providing encouragement for performing exercises) might have as much impact on the
human caregiver as on the patient, through the reduction
of tasks related to a patient or through the reduction of
workplace monotony. Specifically, many SAR systems
are being designed to reduce the burden and burnout of
family members and other caregivers. A SAR system
might also provide a benefit to a caregiver by monitoring
multiple aspects of the patient and providing ongoing
quantitative assessments.
Sharkey and Sharkey [19] described another significant ethical dilemma that occurs when a user becomes
emotionally attached to the robot. While establishing
engagement and having the user enjoy interactions with
the robot is a goal of SAR, attachment can also result in
problems under certain circumstances. For example, if
the robot's effectiveness wanes, its scheduled course of
therapy concludes, or, if it suffers from a hardware or
software malfunction, it may be taken away from the
user. The robot's absence may, in cases of attachment,
cause user distress and possibly result in a loss of therapeutic benefits. Attachment issues can happen with users
of all ages, from children to adults and to the elderly.
Such issues can be particularly acute in users who cannot
understand the causes for the robot's removal but can
arise even with users who have full understanding of the
circumstances. Our experiments with SAR robots interacting with elderly users and users with Alzheimer's disease, mentioned earlier, demonstrate that such users do
engage with robots and miss them when the robots are
removed [21].

Perception and Personification of the Robot
As discussed earlier, one goal of an effective SAR system is
to establish a relationship with the user that leads toward
intended therapeutic goals. However, since the user cannot
be fully informed about the limitations of the robot, the
following issue arises: Is there deception inherent in the
personification of a robot by a user or a caregiver? Such
personification could be unintentional, arising from the
caregiver referring to the robot as him or her, ascribing
feelings to the robot, and assigning the robot greater intelligence than it may have. Studies have shown that people
quickly form mental models of robots they are presented
with, much as they do of people. Those models are often
incorrect as they are based on what people know best:
other people. The designers of the robot may purposefully
manipulate the perceptions of the user toward therapeutic
goals or may not intend to do so at all; in any case, if such
perceptions are incorrect, the user is deceived.
Deception is a risk created by the use of robots in assistive settings. Some roles of SAR systems are most closely
associated with people, such as those of a therapist, companion, teacher, or coach. In those roles, the robot may be
constructed to physically
resemble and act like *
a human equivalent. In
The most prominent
other scenarios, the robot
may fill the role of a pet
nonphysical risks posed
or toy, with physical form
to match. While it may be
by SAR systems include
assumed that the physical
form of the robot is delibattachment to the robot,
erately designed to evoke
the desired type of reladeception about the
tionship with the user,
there can be unintended
abilities of the robot, and
ways in which the robot
is perceived and received
influence on the human-
by the user. Studies of the
so-called uncanny valley
human interaction of a
already demonstrate that
the level of humanlike
robot's user.
realism of the robot has
an unexpected impact on *
people [10]. Similarly, the
size of the robot has an impact on the interaction and
perceived role: studies have shown that robots that approach
the height and size of the user are received with some trepidation compared to smaller embodiments [11]. The way the robot
is dressed and accessorized can also influence how it is perceived; a robot in a lab coat and wearing a stethoscope might be
perceived as being medically competent even if it is not.
The issues of physical appearance are in many ways just
the tip of an iceberg; communication is also crucial.
Whether the robot speaks, and if it does so, with a synthetic
or recorded voice, male or female, accented or not, and
containing emotion or not are all important parameters
MARCH 2011

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2011