IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2017 - 93

Figure 5. The ten robots designed during the student course.

During the experiments, we identified a number of
weaknesses in the current platform. To begin with, the tool-
kit has currently been used in what we might call low-fidelity
(experiment 3) and high-fidelity (experiment 4) prototyping
scenarios. However, as part of future work, we want to
develop a middle-ground approach that is more durable and
more attractive than cardboard embodiments yet simpler to
design than the custom CAD-based designs. A software tool
to automatically generate laser-cutting plans from an
embodiment design could be part of the solution. Second,
the project's documentation could be further improved. For
instance, video documentation of the assembly process
would make it much easier for an individual to indepen-
dently copy the robot. Improving this aspect could encour-
age project propagation.
To summarize, in this article we have detailed our experi-
ences with open-source robot hardware in an academic con-
text. We have described the strategies we used in the design of
low-cost, DIY social robots, elaborating upon the design and
production techniques we employed. We have also described
the results of a series of experiments in which novices build
and modify these robots, as well as our efforts to disseminate
the platform. Finally, we discussed the challenges we perceive
for the proliferation of open-source robotics hardware to suc-
ceed. While some roadblocks remain, the open-source
approach could facilitate and accelerate future robotics
research, enabling studies that would otherwise have been too
difficult, or indeed too expensive, to complete. We remain
convinced that the open-source hardware paradigm holds

much potential in academic research, both within the field of
robotics and beyond.
References
[1] J. Wainer, D. J. Feil-Seifer, D. A. Shell, and M. J. Matarić, "The role of
physical embodiment in human-robot interaction," in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2006, pp. 117-122.
[2] J. Goetz, S. Kiesler, and A. Powers, "Matching robot appearance and
behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation," in Proc. IEEE
Int. Workshop Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003,
pp. 55-60.
[3] D. Li, P. L. P. Rau, and Y. Li, "A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot
appearance and task," Int. J. Social Robot., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 175-186, 2010.
[4] I. Leite, A. A. Pereira, C. Martinho, and A. Paiva, "Are emotional
robots more fun to play with?" in Proc. 17th IEEE Int. Symp. Robot and
Human Interactive Communication, 2008, pp. 77-82.
[5] K. M. Lee, Y. Jung, J. Kim, and S. R. Kim, "Are physically embodied
social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of
physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in
human-robot interaction," Int. J. Human Comput. Stud., vol. 64, no. 10,
pp. 962-973, 2006.
[6] C. Bartneck, J. Reichenbach, and A. Breemen. (2004). In your face,
robot! The influence of a character's embodiment on how users per-
ceive its emotional expressions. Proc. 4th Design and Emotion
Conf. [Online]. Available: http://bartneck.de/publications/2004/
inYourFaceRobot/bartneckDE2004.pdf
[7] G. Hoffman, "Dumb robots, smart phones: A case study of music
listening companionship," in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Robot and
Human Interactive Communication, 2012, pp. 358-363.

March 2017

*

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

*

93
http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2004/
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2017
