Transcript included.

In this episode, Ron Vanderkley speaks with Dr. Lei Cui from Curtin University about his team’s work on 3D printable hand orthosis for rehabilitation, a  task-oriented 4-DOF robotic device for upper-limb rehabilitation and a 3-DOF platform providing multi-directional perturbations for research into balance rehabilitation. They also discuss a high-speed untethered robotic fish for river monitoring and an amphibious robot for monitoring the Swan-Canning River System.

A 3D Printable Parametric Hand Exoskeleton for Finger Rehabilitation

ComBot: a Compact Robot for Upper-Limb Rehabilitation

A 3-DOF Robotic Platform for Research into Multi-Directional Stance Perturbations

Curtin Robotic Fish

AmBot: A Bio-Inspired Amphibious Robot for Monitoring the Swan-Canning Estuary System

Lei Cui

Dr. Lei Cui completed his PhD degree in Mechanical Engineering in July 2010 from the Centre for Robotics Research, King’s College London (UK). He continued his employment as Postdoctoral Research Associate after graduation. In February 2011 he moved to the Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University(US) and worked as Postdoctoral Fellow until July 2012. He joined the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University (AU) and was appointed Lecturer in Mechatronics, which he currently holds.

Links:

• Download mp3 (11.0 MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS

Transcript

Ron Vanderkley: Dr. Lei, we can start by asking you to introduce yourself to the listeners.

Dr. Lei Cui:  Sure. My name is Lei Cui, I’m a lecturer in Mechatronics. I’m with the department of Mechanical Engineering at Curtin University. I joined Curtin about two-and-a- half years ago. Before that I got my PhD from King’s College, London, and I did my second Post-Doc at Carnegie Mellon University.

Ron Vanderkley: Let’s talk about the research that you’re doing at Curtin University. I know there are two facets to it. We can start with the first one: robot rehabilitation.

Dr. Lei Cui: I worked on robot rehabilitation when I was doing my PhD. After I joined Curtin, I decided it was a good time to pick this research up again, because the Mechanical Engineering Department is now shifting its research focus to rehabilitation and medical engineering. In the last two and a half years I’ve developed a 3D printable hand exoskeleton for rehabilitation, in collaboration with a colleague. We patented a finger design just three months ago. The unique feature of this hand exoskeleton is that each finger has three active joints, and, so, three active outputs, but with only one actuator – there’s one input. It’s the first design of its kind in the world.

It’s a joint linkage, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the concept of linkage? We applied the same linkage to all five fingers, so each can be operated by one linear actuator, but has three output joints corresponding to the three joints in each finger. Another feature is the whole assembly can be printed out using a 3D printer. No assembly work needs to be done, it’s for mass customization.

Ron Vanderkley: That’s a general 3D printer, printing in any kind of polymer plastic?

Dr. Lei Cui: No, we need a high precision printer. We need high resolution.

Ron Vanderkley: It’s not a hobbyist or …

Dr. Lei Cui: No, it’s not, any low level 3D printer cannot do that.

Ron Vanderkley: You told us that it’s at the point of being patented or patented already, are you collaborating with any other organization?

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes, we’re now working with a company in the US, from MIT. They’re also developing this hand exoskeleton, but our design is much better than theirs so we’ve been talking about how they could buy our design, or we could just print some collaboration frames so we can work with them.

Ron Vanderkley: You also spoke about the second project that you’re currently working on?

Dr. Lei Cui: Another project is an upper limb, for arm rehabilitation. On this project I have been working with Kerry Allison, a professor at Curtin from the Health Science School. Mainly, we’ve concentrated on task-oriented training. When patients do training they don’t focus on each individual joint in terms of rehabilitation. Usually, they focus on the task. For example, they want to move the hand from point A to point B: they normally look at the target first then move the hand from A to B. They don’t focus on each individual joint.

So that’s the idea behind our design. The ideal training would be for the user, or the patient, to look at the target, move to it and it would have false feedback to test the patient’s performance.

Ron Vanderkley: So it’s a variable device?

Dr. Lei Cui: No, it’s not variable, it’s a hand infector type. Not an exoskeleton type.

Ron Vanderkley: The primary use for that is to teach stroke victims?

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes, mainly for stroke patients.

Ron Vanderkley: What stage are you at with that process?

Dr. Lei Cui: We have developed a prototype and, currently, I’ve got one PhD student working on this project, but he’s only at the first stage. Now, we are combining force torque sensing and EMG sensing to do a patient intention estimation, it’s the first step. Previous work has used a predefined trajectory, meaning that the subjects first perform the task and they record the predefined trajectory; so they’ve try to force or assist the patient to follow the same trajectory. Our idea was to do a patient intention estimation first and combine EMG and force sensing. So, we don’t rely on the predefined trajectory, we want to generate it on the fly. This is the first step.

The second step would be to apply adaptive impedance control to assist training, as needed.

Ron Vanderkley: Thirdly, you are working on a three directional platform, is that correct?

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes, a three dimensional platform. That’s also a collaboration between Professor Gary Alison and myself. Basically, it’s his idea; he’s been working on this project for many years. What he wanted was a platform that could be multidirectional for the patients. This platform destabilizes the user. So, the user will be standing on top of the platform, it will move and the user has to move his or her foot to regain stability. That’s the part we need to control well.

Ron Vanderkley: What’s the end goal of it? Why are you creating it?

Dr. Lei Cui: Professor Alison’s research focuses mainly on how to prevent old people from falling. To study human posture and balance, you need to provide a well-controlled multidirectional platform for patients. That’s why it’s pretty large: 600mm in diameter. A person with an average weight of 100kg can stand on top of it comfortably. Also, they can shift a foot and regain their balance; we’ve provided enough space for that, and also enough speed and acceleration.

Ron Vanderkley: The other area of expertise you’re looking at is Biomimicry, could you tell us where you are going with that?

Dr. Lei Cui: Biomimicry is a fascinating research field; it’s also quite a hot topic. If we take the normal approach, using mathematical modeling, it’s very hard to realize some functions, that’s why we take inspiration from nature. Because nature – fish and other animals – has evolved over millions and millions of years. I’m focusing on applying Biomimicry design to monitoring.

The first project I worked on was called Amphibious Robot. We took inspiration from amphibious centipedes because they have multiple feet. These feet provide buoyancy and actuation, our design was decided with this in mind. It’s a track driven vehicle, but at each point of the two tracks, we’ve fixed ballpoint blocks so that, when the robot is in water, they provide buoyancy and actuation. When it’s on land, it can also effectively drive the robot.

Ron Vanderkley: At what stage are you at with that?

Dr. Lei Cui: We have finished the first stage, that’s the mechanical design and the empirical study; the paper’s been accepted by the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design. Now, some of my students are designing autonomous navigation systems, using an android form that also provides sensors, an accelerometer, gyros and a video camera.

Another project is the Robotic Fish.

Ron Vanderkley: Yes, we’ve heard a lot about the fish.

Dr. Lei Cui: In fact, this robotic fish is quite fast. It’s the fastest robotic fish in the world in terms of body length, per second and we’ve achieved three body lengths per second. A review paper in 2012 held the previous record: 1.6 body lengths per second.

Ron Vanderkley: So, it’s a first here in Western Australia?

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes, definitely, we just haven’t published anything yet. We want to wait until we collect enough data and it’s accepted by a good journal.

Ron Vanderkley: The propulsion of the fish…Biomimicry, is that using actuators?

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes. In fact, those kind of fish are in [the local] Swan Canning River, they’re called Bream. It’s quite a popular fish in this river. We effectively morphed this fish. If you put our robotic fish in the river, it would be very difficult to discern which is the real fish. The appearance is the same and the size.

Ron Vanderkley: Is there a plan to monitor the schools of fish?

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes. Our idea is that our fish could mix with biological fish seamlessly, because they could be made to look real. We hope, in the future, to use it to monitor the fish population in the Swan Canning River, for example.

Ron Vanderkley: Would you be able to mount sensors on them to take salinity tests, for example?

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes. Now we’re studying the actuation of the fish; we hope to further improve the speed, that’s the first task. The second task is to develop electrical field sensing technology for the fish, because they are un-tethered, small in size and battery powered. Currently, the batteries last for about 45 minutes but we need to make the fish autonomous. We’ve taken inspiration from some fish using electrical fields to sense their environments. I’ve got one PhD student and several undergrad students developing this form of bio-sensing, using electrical field sensing.

[0:17:53]

Ron Vanderkley: That’s very fascinating and impressive. I haven’t read anything on that for quite a while.

Dr. Lei Cui: Thank you.

Ron Vanderkley: We’d be very interested to find out how that’s developing, once you get going on it.

Now, the question that we ask everybody is this: Where do you think robotics will be, say, in 10 or 20 years from now? What kind of direction do you think we are heading in?

Dr. Lei Cui: I think robotics covers a lot of areas: artificial intelligence, mechanical design, sensing technologies; many of them are a combination of these. In my opinion, currently, sensing technology is holding back development in robotics. I would assume that, in the next 10 or 20 years, more people will be focusing on sensing. In terms of artificial intelligence, IBM has built machines to beat world chess champions. Artificial intelligence to do a single task is, I think, quite mature, but to multitask? Developing robotic animals that behave like the real thing still has a long way to go, it needs 50 -100 years, I’d guess.

Ron Vanderkley: Obviously, we’ve seen lots of examples, but predefined scripts give the audience the idea that some robots are more intelligent than they are?

Dr. Lei Cui: I’ll give just one example. While I was working at CMU, on the DARPA sponsored ARM [Autonomous Robotic Manipulation] project, one of my tasks was on the robot arm to hold a key, insert it into a lock and then unlock the door. If you watch the video, it seems quite intelligent. It appears as if it can feel what it’s doing, but my approach was to use force torque sensing on the wrist of the robot and then to insert the key into the hole. It looks intelligent but, in fact, as you’ve said, it’s defined by algorithms.

Ron Vanderkley: To me, that always confuses people and detracts from the research, that should be the focus. It presents the wrong impression. Similarly, movies like Terminator, also paint the wrong picture.

Dr. Lei Cui: Yes, definitely. I think it would take 200 years, at least, for Terminator to be a threat.

Ron Vanderkley: So, I’ll wrap it up by saying thank you very much for taking the time to do the podcast, and we hope to chat with you again in the future.

Dr. Lei Cui: Sure, thank you.

All audio interviews are transcribed and edited for clarity with great care, however, we cannot assume responsibility for their accuracy.

Image: MIT d’Arbeloff Laboratory

In this episode, Audrow Nash interviews Federico Parietti, a PhD candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, about his research on supernumerary robotic limbs that can be used in manufacturing and for rehabilitative purposes, among other uses.

The videos below demonstrate how supernumerary limbs can be used to assist in tasks. This research was done in the same lab that Federico works in.

Federico Parietti

Federico Parietti is currently a PhD candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where his research focuses on the design and control of wearable robots and man-machine interfaces. Previously, Parietti was a Research Associate and Visiting Scholar at Carnegie Mellon University and an International Student at ETH Zurich, in Switzerland.

Links:

• Download mp3 (10.5 MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS

Transcript

Audrow Nash: Hi, welcome to Robots Podcast. Can you introduce yourself?

Federico Parietti: I work on wearable robots at the Mechanical Engineering Department at MIT. I’m happy to be here with you today.

Audrow Nash: We are too. Can you tell me the goals and motivation behind your research?

Federico Parietti: I work on wearable robots – essentially robots that you can put on. These robots are built to give humans something new with respect to what they have in their natural bodies: they can make you stronger, can make you faster, or can provide you additional information, like for example, the Google Glass. What I’m working on right now is physical augmentation; by wearing my robots, a human can essentially become stronger, or avoid fatigue, or they can acquire skills that were not possible before.

Audrow Nash: Can you tell me what it looks like?

Federico Parietti: Essentially, it’s two additional arms. When you’re wearing the robot, you’re essentially wearing a type of backpack harness and you’re carrying around two additional arms that can help you do tasks, coordinate with your hands. It can also reach for the ground or reach for the environment and support you.

Audrow Nash: And also they’re located at the wearer’s hips?

Federico Parietti: Yes. And since as you point out these two additional arms are essentially springing out of your hips, they can act as legs, but they can also act as arms. They can reach where you can’t reach, even behind you almost like a tail, so there’s really no limit. That’s why we call them additional limbs, because there’s not really a particular definition.

Audrow Nash: So how is this different from exoskeletons, with the extra limbs?

Federico Parietti: That’s a very important point, because these limbs are independent. They can move on their own without having to copy the motion of the human. In an Ironman style exoskeleton, the robot has to follow the human, so that as you move the robot follows you because the robot is built as a suit.

In our case, the robot is wearable, but it’s also independent. So you can move, you can do whatever you want, and the robot is free to coordinate in an independent way. Some people say this is a “Doctor Octopus” kind of robot, because their arms are independent.

Audrow Nash: What kind of sensors and actuators are on the wearable system?

Federico Parietti: Each one of the two robotic limbs has three actuators. We have two rotation motors in the shoulder of the robot and they can pick the direction where the robot moves. And then the legs are telescopic so they stand and retract. This means that the robot can essentially reach any point in space, within a workspace that is essentially a sphere.

On the robot we have four sensors and position sensors so the robot knows where it is and what it’s touching and how strong it’s pushing. And then we also use sensors on the human, which is very important because we have to detect human motion, and sometimes also human muscle activity and brain activity. And we also have some experiments on gaze, so we can detect where the human is looking so the robot coordinate.

Audrow Nash: The arms are attached using a ball-and-socket method. Can you tell me a bit about that and the advantages of it?

Federico Parietti: The arms are attached to the base of the robot through a ball and socket – a joint that is a sphere. And it’s what we have essentially in our shoulder that allows us to rotate our shoulder around in all directions, because it’s like a sphere. The advantage is that whenever the robot is pushing on the ground, the forces go from the ground through the center of that sphere, and this means that you can sit on the robot arms without wasting energy. The robot stays there and you don’t really need the motors to lift you.

Audrow Nash: Can you give me some applications and situations where these supernumerary limbs might be used?

Federico Parietti: Our first scenario of application was aircraft assembly. We visited aircraft assembly factories and realized that for some tasks there were two or three workers collaborating for the same task, but only one of the two or three was doing the important task, for example drilling. The other two were just helping with boring and very tiring tasks like lifting parts or following the first worker with a vacuum cleaner. So we asked, why can’t a robot do that? Why can’t a wearable system do that and help the two workers?

Then we also realized that a lot of workers get tired because they have to work in uncomfortable positions. A robot like this can compensate for the weight of the user and make working much easier and less tiring. And then finally we also realized that there are a lot of people that, either because they’re rehabilitating or because they’re old, they need additional legs or additional arms in order to keep a comfortable lifestyle to avoid the risk of falling down. And so this robot can also help them.

Audrow Nash: So when they’re taking their step one leg is in front of the other and the weak directions are perpendicular or diagonal to the way they’re heading?

Federico Parietti: Yes, this is is a very interesting point. When we walk we are unstable and so we risk falling down, and falling is very dangerous for us because we are bipedal – it’s catastrophic essentially. The curious thing is that even in martial arts, like in judo for example, when you have both feet on the ground, if you push in the direction that is perpendicular to the line that joins your feet, you fall down. So a lot of martial arts techniques block your legs and then push you in a perpendicular direction so that you fall down easily.

That’s the weak point, but how can we use a robot to improve it, to actually remove that weakness? If we put the robot in the weak direction, then you can’t fall anymore because even if you slip in that direction, there is a robotic leg already in the ground there. So the idea is that when we walk, the robotic legs swing where our legs are not and so we’re always very stable.

Audrow Nash: So they swing similar to our arms being opposite to the foot that’s stepping forward?

Federico Parietti: Yes, it’s something similar to that essentially.

Audrow Nash: And they plant themselves on the ground in theory?

Federico Parietti: Actually for the purpose of balance assistance, they don’t even need contact with the ground; they just need to be in the right place close to the ground.

Audrow Nash: How does this research compare to similar work?

Federico Parietti: The fact that our limbs can be both arms and legs makes us both similar and different to a lot of robots, both robotic manipulators that are typically arms, and to exoskeletons that are typically legs.

Let’s talk first about the legs. There are a lot of exoskeletons right now that are used by paralyzed people to walk again so that they don’t have to use a wheelchair. These exoskeletons follow the legs, and they move the legs along a trajectory. They essentially do only one step after the other, but they can’t really keep balance so users still have to use their arms and crutches to balance. Our robot would be complementary with these exoskeletons, so that if you’re paralyzed, you can use a simple exoskeleton to move your legs and these additional “robotic crutches” to avoid falling down.

There are also robotic walkers that have been developed for elderly people, but these are essentially robots with wheels and so you can’t go up and down stairs, and they still require the elderly person to use their hands. In our case you don’t really need to use your hands, the robot just follows you.

Audrow Nash: What are some challenges of this research and what are some lessons learned from these challenges?

Federico Parietti: There are so many challenges. One of them is to make the robot comfortable. People have to wear this robot, so you have to make it as easy to wear and as light as possible. Weight might seem an easy thing to do, but if you need a robot that can lift you, you’re going to need some mass, and some pretty strong actuators. Right now, the goal of having the robot light, but still functional and powerful is really driving us towards exotic materials like carbon fiber or fiberglass. We can’t use metal anymore; it’s too heavy. That was one lesson learned: try to make it as light as possible, because that’s essential for users.

Another challenge is the interaction with the human, because we have independent arms – so just copying what the human is doing is not enough. We need to have some kind of independent source of information from the human. We have to find a way so that the human can control these legs without sacrificing anything. So for example, if we use our arms to control robotic arms, additional robotic arms, that would essentially miss the point, because we’d still be using our two arms, right?

How can we use human actions to extract independent signals so you can drive additional arms without limiting your own? For example, we’ve strapped an accelerometer to a person’s legs so that when they are just walking normally, we are detecting the frequency of the steps. The robot knows when they are stepping without them having to tell the robot, and the robot can just synchronize with their steps autonomously. The idea is that you can still do whatever you want with your arms and you can walk at any speed with your legs, but the robot synchronizes without you telling it how. Of course this is a simple periodic example, but we are interested in how we can we keep this a very intuitive interaction.

Audrow Nash: Once you have an intuitive interaction, do you think you’ll have the arms and legs swapping back and forth? Like being used as both, within the same system?

Federico Parietti: Yes, there’s really no limit. Once you have a good interface, you can do whatever you want. You can use the robot to pass you objects that you need, but if you’re using your hands you can’t really reach for them. You can use it for locomotion, for safety … We actually don’t know how many uses there are for additional arms, because that’s not in our nature; no one has ever had additional arms. I bet that if we provide a reliable human-machine interface people will just come up with new uses.

Audrow Nash: Going forward, what are your plans and goals?

Federico Parietti: It would be good to bring this robot out of the lab and into society, either for manufacturing applications and helping workers, or for rehabilitation, or assisting elderly people.

We already have a lot of patents either filed or about to be filed on these robots. It’s a pretty solid and unique technology because of the independence of the arms, and we think it’s very promising. This is a very good moment for start-ups and ventures, and this could be a good application.

Audrow Nash: What advice do you have for beginning researchers?

Federico Parietti: Do what you like. Refuse to do something that you don’t like, because it’s hard. This is the fourth product I’ve built in the last three years, so it’s a lot of work, it’s a lot of learning, there’s a lot of obstacles and sometimes nothing works. The only way to survive is if you love what you’re doing. So if you love it, there is really no problem, you can do whatever you want. I would say to researchers to pick the field that you really love, stick with that even if people tell you to go elsewhere, because doing what you like is essential to actually doing it well.

Audrow Nash: It’s interesting that you brought up how many iterations you’ve done with this. Can you talk a bit about that? The rapid turn-around time you’ve had?

Federico Parietti: I think it is a little bit extreme in our lab; no single product for me has ever lasted more than six months – and this is not because they break, it’s because we move on to the next thing. We review a product to test a new control idea, or to test a new design idea, and then we see if it works or if it doesn’t, and then we start immediately to build a new product that takes in account those lessons. That’s how we realized the robot that we have now, which is much, much lighter with respect to the first one. We realized, for example, that joint torque is not that important if the robot is heavy. It’s much better to have a slightly weaker robot but also lighter robot IF you use those torques in a smart way, like with the ball and socket joint for example. So right now we are talking about the latest product, but in six months we’ll have a new one.

Audrow Nash: Do you think all these iterations are beneficial?

Federico Parietti: Yes, it’s very beneficial. Sometimes we come up with applications that are new, and if I was stuck using my first product, I wouldn’t be able to use the robot for it because it was designed to do something else. All these iterations allow us to be very active and follow the hottest topic; we can incorporate the feedback that we receive at conferences very quickly.

Audrow Nash: Wrapping up, what do you believe is the future of robotics?

Federico Parietti: I see the future of robotics as divided in two huge areas: there are autonomous robots and there are wearable robots. The goal of autonomous robots is to be as intelligent as possible in order to act as a support or helper to the human, but an independent helper – a kind of robot butler. And then there are wearable robots, and their goal is not really to help as an external agent, but to make the wearer better. It’s essentially human augmentation, and that’s the field I’m working in.

The challenge for us is not really to make the robot smart or to give it artificial intelligence. Our challenge is to figure out how to make the robot as useful as possible to a human. It’s not an easy challenge, because we don’t currently have sensors that tell us what the human is thinking, or what the user wants to do. Our robot must be very smart in understanding what the user wants to do and doing it in the best possible way. Essentially we’re in the process of building extensions to the human body, so we need to understand both the mechanical and the neural part of the process, and that’s the challenge that I think is unique to wearable robots.

Audrow Nash: Thank you.

Federico Parietti: You’re welcome.

All audio interviews are transcribed and edited for clarity with great care, however, we cannot assume responsibility for their accuracy.

Working out the mechanics of walking is a major step towards creating assistive technologies.

When thinking about robots that can be used to care for the elderly, most people imagine humanoid robots that are meant to help with cooking, cleaning and socializing. But what if robots could be used to keep elderly people from needing help in the first place? Walking assistive devices could be just the tool.

A key element of life quality for the ageing population is preservation of mobility. Being able to walk unassisted is essential for independent living and a crucial driver in maintaining quality of life and self-autonomy. In elderly populations, a wide variety of medical issues lead to loss of mobility, from stroke (CVA) to poorly healed fractures and general loss of muscle mass. Loss of mobility is therefore a key driver in the commonly reported issue of loneliness in elderly people – it makes sense that if it is a struggle to leave your house, you will do so less.

The first requirement for free walking is sufficient muscle strength, not just for walking but also for the associated tasks of day to day life, such as sitting-to-standing motions (and visa-versa) and ascending and descending stairs. For various reasons, the elderly population is subject to weakening muscular power and this is a larger driver in the difficulties that this population begins to face with such tasks.

LSRO (EPFL) in association with NCCR Robotics, propose an assistive device targeted for exactly this situation. Based on an exoskeleton, it is being designed to be usable at home, without permanent human assistance. It should allow normal walking without any impediment. It should provide assistive muscular power only when needed and without any specific command action other than natural motion of the legs.

For a first prototype, the focus has been on the hip joint, a key joint for walking assistance, and an assumption has been made that ankles and knees can still perform their normal functions. “Partial devices” such as those proposed by the Swiss team may offer promising solutions to issues faced by the elderly, who may experience excessive weakness in one joint (here, the hips), by providing a lighter weight and less invasive solution to full exoskeletons. Translating these needs into engineering specifications leads to the following requirements: A single motorised degree of freedom (pivoting of the femur in the sagittal plane), preserving the full mobility of the remaining degrees-of-freedom, high power and low weight, “transparency” for normal walking, no specific control action (such as a “joystick” command) of any kind.

The exoskeleton is designed to be easy to wear, without impeding movement.

The kinematic design of our device is such that torque is intrinsically high around the horizontal position of the femur (typical for sitting-to-standing, stair climbing) and is backdrivable in standing or walking posture (high compliance, “transparence”), thus allowing effortless and swift walking motion. The transmission ratio between motor and end-effector is thus intrinsically, by design, continuously adapted at an optimal value.

Our new types of actuators have been developed so as to fit the requirements of common activities of daily life. For instance, a variable reduction using a ball-screw and bar mechanism to assist different activities such as standing up from a sitting position or standard walking has been evaluated. A high torque is required during the sit-to-stand transitions when the flexion angle of the hip is around 70° from vertical. During walking, less torque is required but higher dynamics is needed. A smaller reduction ratio is therefore better adapted when the flexion angle is less important (i.e. in the walking range of motion). In order to create this specific transmission a ball-screw with an excavator-like mechanism was implemented.

The influence on gait of this kind of robotic hip orthoses are now being assembled and tested in a collaboration between LSRO at EPFL, SMS Lab at ETH Zurich and several clinical centres of elderly care. As the users are able to move on their own, it is very important that the exoskeletons do not. Indeed the added limitations imposed by a sub-optimally designed device may overshadow the benefits that it is intended to provide. The influence of different design parameters such as kinematic configuration, overall mass or user interface are therefore evaluated in collaboration with the Sensory-Motor Systems Lab (SMS) at ETH Zurich.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• 3 exoskeleton companies go public
• Exoskeleton with haptic sensors helps paralysed man to kick off World Cup
• Rehab robots, smart prostheses and exoskeletons to reach $1.8 billion by 2020

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Developing robots that are capable of taking care of seniors is the goal of an increasing number of robotics companies. While there are many economic and social factors to encourage this trend, the ethical issues pertaining to the use of robots as caregivers requires careful consideration. Data from our latest poll suggest that readers are optimistic about the role of robots as care assistants for senior members of their families.

In particular, a number of roboethicists have voiced concerns about the possibility that care robots will further isolate the seniors from social contact. Social isolation of seniors is a global issue and a known health risk for seniors. For example, in the UK, 17% of seniors have less than weekly, and 11% have less than monthly, contact with family, friends, or neighbours; in Canada, 20% of seniors do not participate in any weekly or monthly social activities; in the United States, 28% of seniors aged 65 and older lived alone in 2010 — that’s about 11.8 million people —  and the number increases as they age.

Somewhere hidden in these statistics is the fact that the caregivers of these seniors (if they have one) naturally take on the role of providing some level of social interaction with the seniors on a regular basis. If robots are recruited to fill the role of caregivers, would this further isolate seniors?

Some people suggest that a social and interactive care robot could keep seniors company. Others conjecture that care robots will be useful in some ways, but perhaps not enough to provide the type of human social interactions that people need. However, it could provide a mechanism through which seniors can connect with family and friends, a Skype-on-wheels system for example.

According to the results from our poll, the majority of our participants were of the opinion that robots will enable seniors to socialize with other people better, using teleconferencing systems such as Skype/FaceTime. However, they were split on whether a robot itself will be able to keep a senior company. While the majority (53%) said that the robot itself will be successful in keeping seniors company and also enable seniors to socialize with others, 28% said that only the latter will be true. Only 6% of our participants said that, while a robot will be successful in keeping seniors company, it will result in further social isolation.

It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions based on the small number of respondents who participated in this poll. But we did observe an interesting trend. The majority of participants who self-reported as having a background in robotics or related technical field/profession (60%) said that robots will be successful in keeping seniors company and allow social interactions with other people; only 44% of non-roboticists said the same.

Despite the optimism (at least by the robotics community), there remains concern that dependence on robot caregivers could reduce physical human contact, even if it helps facilitate remote social interactions. If forms of socializing fall into a ‘social interaction hierarchy’ of sorts, with in-person interactions being considered the most valuable, will increased remote socialization come to be considered as ‘better than nothing’ even if it becomes an excuse for infrequent in-person interactions? We’ll follow this question up in a future poll, and in the mean time leave that question up to you to discuss with the seniors in your network.

When we asked about our participants’ comfort level in having robots to perform particular daily care activities, we found that 66% of people would be comfortable having a robot entertain and socialize with senior members of their family, echoing the optimism mentioned above.

In general, tasks that people felt comfortable transferring to a robot were those that do not require physical contact with the senior. For example, reminding seniors to take medication (94%), detecting and alerting others when the senior experiences a fall (91%), and cleaning the house (84%) were tasks that received the most number of votes, and coincided with robotic solutions that are actively being explored or exist already.

Meanwhile, more interactive forms of care, such as helping seniors to take a bath (47%), get dressed (50%), or use the toilet (56%) received relatively fewer votes, along with food-related tasks such as cooking for (59%) and feeding (59%) seniors.

The relationship between this trend and safety concerns, users’ sense of personal control, and other factors requires further investigation. The fact that only about half of participants feel comfortable having a robot help seniors take a bath or assist with personal hygiene provides an interesting perspective to the use of robots for the potentially essential care task. From our earlier poll-based discussion on bathing, we found that robot bath assistants have the advantage of providing privacy, while this benefit may need careful balancing with the sense of control it provides to its users. People’s comfort level in using robots for such highly physical and private care tasks may need some convincing trial runs before consumers feel comfortable with them.

Do you have questions or topics you’d like ORi and Robohub to cover in our poll-based discussions? Send us an email (ajung@openroboethics.org). 

The results of the poll presented in this post have been analyzed and written by AJung Moon, Mike Van der Loos, Shalaleh Rismani, Joost Hilte, Julio Vazquez and Elizabeth Croft at the Open Roboethics initiative.

A robot hands a medication bottle to a person. Photo credit: Keith Bujak. Source: Georgia Tech News Center

One of the driving forces of social, interactive robotics is the issue of impending labour shortage, which is projected to be one of the major and inevitable consequences of the ageing population phenomenon.

That includes developing personal robots that seniors can have at home, so that more seniors can enjoy independent living for a longer period of time without needing the assistance of a human nurse. But, for many years, experts have expressed concerns about what type or use of robots is appropriate or should be allowed. Help us voice your opinion on this topic by participating in our short poll below.

Tony Prescott, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience and Director of the Sheffield Center of Robotics believes that the medical industry could be at the forefront of changing the public perception of robotics. Why?  Because this is an industry that already understands how paramount it is, when dealing with the elderly, disabled and ill, to provide a service that is helpful, friendly and nonthreatening.

Speaking this week at RE.WORK – an event that explores the challenges of commercializing robotics – Prescott recalled the fear people had in the 90s about the coming of the Internet. Similarly, he said, reporters often ask him: “When will robots take over the world?” The question has perhaps become a cliché among roboticists, but in his presentation (aptly titled “Robots that know themselves will make better carers”) Prescott suggested that much can be learned from neuroscience and psychology to improve the safety and effectiveness – and by extension the public perception – of human-robot interaction.

The aging population is increasing rapidly, and there are not enough caregivers to satisfy the growing demand. It is projected that by 2060, there will be one dependent person for every working person in the EU. Per visit, caretakers have limited time in which to interact the elderly people in their care, and time must be divided between aiding with personal hygiene tasks, ordering/preparing food, and one-on-one conversation time. As such, seniors must often make difficult decisions to prioritize the services they wish to receive from caregivers.

Prescott said that personal robots could aid seniors with time consuming household tasks such as making a pot of tea, reaching for the salt, opening a jar, or microwaving food – tasks that could be frustrating if you have to wait around for help. Personal hygiene tasks such as showering or using the toilet can create an embarrassing dynamic between the elderly and the caretaker, and so also make ideal tasks for robot care assistants.

Prescott points out that the role of a robot should be to assist the senior and the caregiver, not to take over.  “Robots can help caregivers, not by replacing them, (but by working with them).”  With the aid of personal robots, caretakers could spend more time engaging in one-on-one conversation with the elderly, providing valuable social interaction.

Paro therapeutic robot

And yet we cannot stop people from getting personally attached to the items they own, Prescott explains. People like to glue fur to their Roombas to make them feel more like pets, and robot companions like the Paro have been shown to induce relaxation, reduce stress, and stimulate communication between patients and caregivers. The important distinction to remember, suggested Prescott, is that the companionship people feel toward their robots is more in line with how they feel toward their pets, and the need for human companionship will always remain critical.

If we can learn to design robots that can work as part of a care team, public perception of robots is sure to change.

As people get older, they start losing their ability to drive: they start having trouble seeing in the dark and they stop driving at night; they also make mistakes, causing other people to hit them, and they are more likely to die in these accidents because they are more fragile. Eventually their accident rate surpasses that of reckless teens, and when their keys are taken away (either by a family member, or more occasionally by the state), their kids become a taxi service.

The boomer generation, which took over the suburbs and exurbs, have nice houses but minimal transit options. Without the ability to drive, many seniors fear being shut in, and find themselves forced to leave their homes.

The robocar offers answers to many of these problems: safe transportation for those with disabilities (eventually even mild dementia); inexpensive taxi transportation anywhere, including to and from low-transit suburbs; and a chance to video chat with the grandchildren while on the way.

It’s no surprise that retirement communities have been suggested as early deployment zones for robocars. First, these communities are filled with people losing the ability to drive but whose mobility needs are reasonably limited: if they can get to basic shopping, doctors’ offices, community centers and a few other locations (including transit hubs to travel further), they can do pretty well. Second, the street environment of these communities is relatively controlled, and in many retirement communities NEVs/golf carts have been deployed already.

Seniors do not tend to be early adopters, so the normal instinct would be to expect them to fear a new technology as dramatic as the robocar; just look at the market for simplified cell phones aimed at seniors who can’t imagine why they want a smartphone.

But sometimes necessity overcomes the fear of change and the barrier is broken. Pictures of grandchildren in e-mail brought grandparents online, as did video calls with them. Until the robocar came along, we were all doomed to eventually lose the freedom cars gave us. Now this no longer need happen.

Learn more about why seniors might be early adopters for robocars in my interview with the Wall Street Journal.

A version of this article originally appeared on robocars.com.

My grandmother got run over by a cable car in San Francisco when she was about six and she wore a wooden leg after that. Of course she hated it. In the glamor days of the 1930s, when the miniskirt look was in (and the steampunk look was not), her wooden prosthetic put her into a social category of Blackbeard more than Greta Garbo.

When I was a kid we’d have weird family outings to go get her a new leg. She’d complain about it but it was still enough of a party that I always got an ice cream from the deal. We did our best to take care of her but she always hated that wooden leg.

Later we put Grandma in a nursing home. I felt bad because I couldn’t see her as much, but I was in college, mom was working, and we had other responsibilities. We did, however, get her a pretty nifty electric wheelchair. I later glued on some fancy sequins, which added a glamor factor at the bridge tournaments in the cafeteria. It was classier than her wooden leg, and it edged her a little closer to her Greta Garbo image.

But glittery electric wheelchairs aside, we had neither the time, the family members, nor the money to take care of her as she deserved. We did what we could with the sequined wheelchair and the weekend visits.

A robot would have come in handy. Here’s why.

Over a third of American adults are family caregivers and most of us already have a job. 

By 2050, 16 percent of the global population will be over the age of 65. That’s 1.5 billion people, according to The Population Reference Bureau.

In June, 2013 the Pew Research Center published the report Family Caregivers are Wired for Health. According to the Pew survey 39% of Americans said that they had “provided unpaid care to an adult relative or friend 18 years or older to help them take care of themselves” in the previous year. 70% of the caregivers had other jobs, which means that they’ve got a lot more to do than take care of Grandma. Also, according to a previous Pew study, 47% of American adults say that they expect to be a caregiver for an elderly relative in the future.

Then, about a year later, Pew released another survey – U.S. Views of Technology and the Future – which showed that 65% of those surveyed thought it would be a change for the worse if robots become the primary caregivers for the elderly. And in May of this year The Guardian ran a survey and found that about half of those surveyed thought technology was evolving too quickly and undermining traditional ways of life.

Hence the question is on everyone’s lips …

Should we have robot caregivers?

In academic circles the debate rages. Dudley and Emery wrote “The Value of Caregiver Time” (2014. From MIT’s Lee, Stiehl, Toscano, and Breazeal we have “The Semi-Autonomous Robot Avatar As a Medium for Family Communication and Education” (2009). And from CMU’s Borenstein and Pearson we have “Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all?” (2010). The February 2013 edition of, “GeroPsych: Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychology” published a special issue with a series of interesting articles. Fox, Kleinman, and hundreds of others have researched this problem and come to the same core question: Should we?

Sherry Turkle, of MIT, says Nay.  She’s launched several invectives against the army of healthcare providers she sees coming over the horizon. A clinical psychologist, Turkle has written that “faux relationships detract from human connections…” and “make us less likely to look for other solutions for their care.”

Mainstream media have started pouring gas on the debate as well. Heather Kelly of CNN has asked if robots are “… the future of elder care?”;  Health and Medicine explains why patients tell more secrets to virtual humans, and on July 19th of this year Louise Aronson wrote about the future of robot caregivers, arguing that we need them. A few days later, Turkle replied to Aronson’s article, stating that we are in the process of “outsourcing” our ability to care for one another. She and many others claim that our modern media makes us feel lonely.

Robots: The latest victims of the “Technology Makes Us Lonely” meme

In Turkle’s paper “In Good Company” she argues that healthcare robots are cause for grave concern, especially if we expect to have family members replaced by them. She argues that outsourcing to hospital robots should not be done lest we ruin our families, automate our interactions, and become lonelier as a result.

This “Technology Makes Us Lonely” meme has been going around like a bad case of the sniffles. The Atlantic ran a cover story on it back in May 2012 and Turkle wrote a similar op-ed piece in the NY Times to publicize her book “Alone Together”.  William Deresiewicz, a literary critic, wrote of “the loneliness of our electronic caves … The more people we know, the lonelier we get … We have given our hearts to machines, and now we are turning into machines.” Meanwhile books like “The Lonely American” and articles about how we’ll not end up just lonely, but broke as a result of robots, give the impression that the Cylon uprising will commence this weekend in a nursing home near you.

Reading this stuff is enough to make anyone lonely. But none of this may come to pass at all. Family members aren’t at risk of being replaced by robots any more than conversations were at risk of being replaced by telephones.

We’ve heard these Manichaean arguments before. We’ve heard of the negative effects of video games, the negative effects of movies, or how “Each hour spent viewing television is associated with less social trust and less group membership,” wrote Robert D. Putnam, a government professor at Harvard who researched the ills of television in the 1950s.

Telephones were supposed to make us lonely, too:

Does the telephone make men more active or more lazy? Does [it] break up home life and the old practice of visiting friends?

— Survey conducted by the Knights of Columbus Adult Education Committee, San Francisco Bay Area, 1926

Robots are facing the same firing squads as other media have , and they will become an integrated part of – not a flat replacement for – what we have today. More moderate experts, like Professor Maja Mataric, offer us a nuanced view than Turkle. Mataric points out that care robots aren’t a substitute for human interaction. In an article with the San Jose Mercury News she says, “there just simply aren’t enough people to take care of our very large and growing elderly population … We need to think about the humane and ethical use of technology, because these things are coming.”

Robot caregivers are coming

Let’s set aside nostalgia; we now live in the future. Whether we like it or not, robots are now healthcare providers. Both the horrible and the lovely exist in front of us and these systems will be caring for you and me when our kids don’t have the time, desire, or money to do so themselves.

And this might not be such a bad thing. On the provider side we can already see examples of assistance with surveys, assessments, triage, and assignment. On the patient side we can see great examples of advice, entertainment, mental stimulation, games, and simple companionship that the 80 million people entering the healthcare system this year simply won’t be able to get otherwise. These systems offer increased value that is scalable and cost effective.

Just the companionship use-case is a great one. After all, isn’t it worth offering your grandmother both the crossword puzzle she does today as well as a robot that will offer clues as she does it? Isn’t it better for them to have a helping hand beyond just the crossword puzzle?

And isn’t it the case that having options is what liberates us?

Geppetto Avatars Sophie

I’m biased for many reasons. One of them is because Geppetto Avatars, my own company, builds natural language avatars for healthcare and other applications. We’re proud to partner with IBM Watson, EBSolutions, Tailored Care and other companies so that we now have healthcare knowledge that is more up-to-date, evidence-based, and broader than any single, trained doctor can provide alone. Our avatar Sophie can play bridge as well as the next senior citizen (and chess and other games as well as perform surveys and offer healthcare suggestions), and while she can’t stop a speeding train, she can offer help across a range of subjects.

There are other companies like us that also provide software robots. There’s NextIT‘s project that helps soldiers, students and elderly. There’s both Catalia Health and Intuitive Automata, founded by Dr. Cory Kidd – an expert in building social, affective robots to help people lose weight and generally change behavior. There’s the Cantoche, which allows customers to make their own healthcare avatars, similar to Code Baby, Expect Labs, Arquiware. Other companies in this space are Sense.ly, which offers a virtual nurse, or Engineered Care‘s virtual nurse that’s there to provide daily support; MedWhat is a simple Q&A interface that’s partnering with avatar builders. These companies all provide the hearts and minds of robots, displaying, like the humans they care for, a wide range of emotional intelligence.

Meanwhile, in the American eldercare space, some 50 million people need help.  And on average, a patient visits with their doctor for average of about ten minutes, and is interrupted by their doctor in the first 17 seconds of the conversation. There just aren’t enough doctors to go around.

There just aren’t enough doctors to go around

Luckily there’s another species of healthcare robot that allows a doctor and a robot work in collaboration as a hybrid: the telepresence robot.

Systems such as MantaroBot,  VGo, Suitable Tech’s “Beam,” or AnyBot’s “QB” are four excellent examples. These robots are a physical prosthetic of a remote user. These telepresence robots help us get places we couldn’t be. If Turkle &co were to wave a flag and say that these robots prevented us from visiting our families, she would be missing the very essence of what these technologies do, which is to share time when we can’t share space. Telephones didn’t stop us from having conversations; they allowed us to break the barriers of space to facilitate more of them.

Whether they’re software or hardware based, these robots don’t render family members obsolete; like telephones, they extend our reach. They’re prosthetics that help family members do a better job. And they can play bridge with Grandma now, too.

Healthcare robots are like any other healthcare tools – think of them like a splint, an x-ray machine, a wheelchair, or medication.

We need to be aware of how to use robots. We need to encourage users to be aware of the potential side-effects, detriments, benefits, pleasures, sicknesses, doses, withdrawals, and addictions. If we can approach technology (be it radio, television, telephone, Internet or video games) like a prescription drug then these conversations get a bit less dopey. Edward Snowden pointed out one of the side effects of social media (“Surveillance!”), the NSA has pointed out another (“Terrorism!”).

We need to weigh costs, risks, side effects and benefits. Yes, some people will become heavy addicts just as others will practice righteous abstinence. But we need a moderate dialogue to avoid extremes.

To claim that we all should – or should not  – do something to address the dialogue around robots in such extreme terms is to incite a “War on Robots”. And this (like the “War on Drugs”) could leave people currently in hospitals in prisons instead (by footnote there are over eight million elderly Americans currently incarcerated. In August of 2014, the Urban Institute released a report that noted the increasing financial healthcare burden, suggesting that these inmates could use robots as well as my own grandmother).

Like drugs, robots will be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on how people design and use them. Our imagination is what will guide the technology.

Giraffe Plus

My Grandmother wasn’t in prison, but it was close. Some nursing homes and eldercare centers have horrible records of abuse, neglect, and cutting financial corners that have even lead to death. But connected systems like Paro or GiraffPlus could be used to help make sure that Grandma’s health is where it should be, and that she is active, alert, and engaged.

• Surveillance: Robots can not only help with some of the above direct benefits to payers and providers, but they can assure family members that the elder person is receiving the care that is their due, and that the nursing home is taking appropriate steps to look out for their health. This surveillance, as well as input of user data via camera and microphone, is able to measure emotion, mood, sentiment and affect.
• Privacy: Just like a diary or a confessional booth can provide conversational privacy, people seem to prefer talking with avatars, especially about their health. Multiple studies (1, 2, 3) have shown that people are generally more comfortable talking with an avatar, especially in a healthcare setting. Robots can also help with very simple private tasks, such as helping someone go to the bathroom, change a bedpan, or other privacy-related tasks that you and I would not want a person to help us with.
• Social status: Just as people consider the iPhone or a fancy car as a sign of wealth, a robot that answers the door can be a sign of social status (like my Grandmother’s sequin-covered electric wheelchair). Technology is cultural: those who own and control a technology define a social class.
• Companionship: Robots – especially software robots like the ones we make at Geppetto – also offer companionship, mental exercises, conversation, guidance, and advice on health-related issues from pharmaceutical to dietary information. This companionship also includes to-do lists for bathing, laundry, cleaning, cooking, feeding, food shopping, pharmacy visits, etc. This companion can keep track of certain health data like blood test results and blood pressure, weight, height, temperature, etc. Integration with peripherals like Apple and Samsung offer an easy step for such open APIs. And then there’s the custom data, non-normative data, and personalization and customization that these systems can learn.

Call them slaves or companions, but robots are there to give help when people can’t.

Robots can amplify what healthcare providers already do well

Robots aren’t replacing us. They’re complementing us.

None of the above-mentioned aspects of surveillance, privacy, or social status threaten the jobs of healthcare providers. Robots, like personal computers, amplify what we can do. We can look to factories to see the future of healthcare. Human-robot collaboration will allow us to increase not just our knowledge management, but also our efficiency. Just look at how BMW and VW are exploring the ways in which robots can work alongside humans improve the quality of our work.

That electric wheelchair we got for my Grandmother was the 1990s equivalent of a robot: it was a modern, electric prosthetic that helped both her and us. It helped her get around and it helped us help her to be independent. We did not overturn our relationship with her because we were no longer physically carrying her. In fact, we helped her to be prouder, more independent, happier, and more competitive at games of bridge. She was proud to have this icon of social status, her Greta Garbo image, she was proud to show that her family supported her, and she was able to be more herself with the help of this electrical prosthetic, covered as it was in sequins.

For now, we’ll have to see how the designers, payers, providers, and nursing centers apply this technology, and hope that the dialogue is able to take a more moderate tone. At least until the ChildCare robots are introduced – then we’ll really see the flame wars. Maybe the robots themselves will contribute to the dialogue by then.

Korean-based Yujin Robot continues to release thoughtful new products. They just announced a meal-transport robot designed to operate in eldercare and other hospitality and health care facilities.

Yujin’s new GoCart robot is a joint venture between Yujin and ScanBox, a designer and manufacturer of food transport systems for hospitality and institutional faciliities around the world. GoCart maps its environment and uses an array of sensors and cameras to autonomously carry its cargo without interfering with people or other objects along its path. It also has an Internet-of-Things interface so that it can connect with existing IT systems and works with smartphones, tablets and PCs.

A third partner in the new GoCart venture is the Horst Construction company, a property management and senior care facility builder, insurer and property manager.

Field tests of the new GoCart will begin this October in two locations: the US and Sweden.

In 2011 Yujin produced the iRobiQ robot, an English teaching robot for kindergarten classes throughout South Korea.

Thereafter they released a complete line of robotic vacuum cleaners for the Asian market as well as a research mobility device predicated on their Kobuki mobility platform and called Turtle-bots.

EU invests in new technology to support silver generation
At 94, Grandma Lea could not live alone anymore, but she wanted to stay at home. She still does thanks to the EU-funded GiraffPlus (@giraffplus) system, which uses a combination of wearable devices, sensors throughout the home and a mobile robot to assist older people in their homes, and to connect them to family, friends and healthcare professionals who need to keep an eye on the person’s health and activities. The system should be in commercial production by the end of 2015. The EU market for robots and devices assisting elderly people is estimated to reach €13 billion by 2016.

“People ask why I don’t just live with my daughter, but she has grandchildren of her own and many new responsibilities. With this valuable assistant that I call ‘Mr Robin’ I’m more relaxed about the years ahead, and so are my children and grandchildren”, explains 94-year-old Lea Mina Ralli, also known as Grandma – ‘nonna’ in Italian – Lea. She has been using the GiraffPlus system for 5 months and often writes about ‘Mr Robin’ on her blog (in Italian). In our ageing society, many elderly people are in the same situation, and robotics can offer a safe and affordable solution.

€3 million of EU funding was invested in GiraffPlus to test how robots and other devices could help older people live safer, more independent lives. The sensors are designed to detect activities like cooking, sleeping or watching television and monitor health – blood pressure or sugar levels for example. They also allow the person’s caregivers to monitor their wellbeing remotely and to check for falls. A robot moves around the home and allows family, friends and carers to virtually visit the person.

Silver generation and economy

Vice-President of the European Commission @NeelieKroesEU, responsible for the Digital Agenda, says: “None of us is getting any younger. But we all want to know that we will not lose our dignity, respect and independence as we age. The EU is investing in new technology that can support the silver generation – adding not just years to our life, but also life to our years!”

Europe’s over-65s have a disposable income of over €3,000 billion and much of this will be ploughed back into the caring economy. According to Stephen Von Rump, CEO of Giraff Technologies AB, the EU market for robots and other devices assisting our elderly will reach €13 billion by 2016.

“GiraffPlus will be in 15 homes by the end of 2014”, says Amy Loutfi, the project coordinator based at Örebro University, Sweden. “So far we have had six homes in Europe – two homes each in Spain, Sweden and Italy – that have lived with the GiraffPlus system. We currently are in the middle of the evaluations, but we see that various aspects of the system are appreciated differently by the different users. This goes to show that a one-size fits all approach to technology at home is not necessarily the best, and technology should be both adaptable and tailored to user’s needs”.

Current plans are to put the system into commercial production next year, based on an upfront fee and monthly subscriptions that would make it competitive when set alongside increasingly expensive full-time care.

The GiraffPlus consortium includes public and private partners from Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and UK.

Background

The European Commission strongly supports independent living through the use of new technologies – including robotics – as part of the Digital Agenda strategy @DigitalAgendaEU. On top of the new research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 #H2020, two important initiatives are dedicated to taking new technologies to the market and homes and to embedding them in our systems for health and social care.

The Active Assisted Living Joint Programme (@AAL_JP) is an initiative driven by the EU’s member states for applied research on ICT products and services for ageing well. Over a hundred projects have been funded since 2008 and it should be continued under H2020: €25 million of EU funding is foreseen in 2014 and the same amount again in 2015.

The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (@EIP_AHA) is a multi-stakeholder partnership to implement innovative ICT-driven technologies for active and healthy ageing at European scale, and to remove barriers that prevent their deployment. One of its six Action Groups focuses on independent living, while others deal with related topics like the prevention and early detection of falls and age-friendly communities and environments.

Read more about Standards for caring robots and The ethics of robotics.

Funding available under Horizon 2020

Through Horizon 2020 #H2020, many more projects on independent living, including robotics, will be funded. One of the focus areas of Societal Challenge 1 – Health, demographic change and wellbeing is “personalising health and care” (PHC). It notably supports citizen empowerment through self-management of health and disease, health promotion and disease prevention.

The PHC calls have a total budget of €549.3 million for 2014 and €537 million for 2015. Two specific challenges are specifically devoted to robotics (PHC 10-2014 and PHC 19-2014) and two other are dedicated to ICT solutions for independent living (PHC 20-2014 – PHC 21-2015).

Read more about EU support to ageing well with ICT.

Read more about EU support to robotics – @RoboticsEU and find information on the public-private partnership in robotics between the European Commission and the robotics academia and industry to boost research and innovation in this strategic field and on the funding opportunities for 2014-2015 (ICT-23-2014 and ICT-24-2015 to be published on 15 October 2014 TBC).

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• 5 areas in robotics that will transform society and their economic impact
• Medical robotic systems market to reach $13.6 billion by 2018
• Robot and Frank film review
• What should a robot do? Designing robots that know right from wrong

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.