ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
23. Moosaei, M., Gonzales, M.J., and Riek L.D. Naturalistic
pain synthesis for virtual patients. International
Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, 2014.
24. Mukai, T., Hirano, S., Nakashima, H., Kato, Y., Sakaida,
Y., et al. Development of a nursing-care assistant
robot RIBA that can lift a human in its arms. IEEE
Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2010.
25. Nelson, B.J., Kaliakatsos, I.K., and Abbott, J.J.
Microrobots for minimally invasive medicine. Annual
Rreview of Biomedical Engineering 12 (2010), 55–85.
26. Okamura, A.M., Mataric, M.J., and Christensen, H.I.
Medical and health-care robotics. Robotics and
Automation 17, 3 (2010), 26–27.
27. Parette, P. and Scherer, M. Assistive technology use
and stigma. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 2004, 217–226.
28. Riek, L.D. The social co-robotics problem space: Six
key challenges. Robotics challenges and vision. In
Proceedings of the Workshop at Robotics: Science and
29. Riek, L.D. Robotics technology in mental health care.
Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health
Care. D. Luxton, (ed). Academic Press, 2015.
30. Riek, L.D, Hartzog, W., Howard, D.A., Moon, A., and
Calo, R. The emerging policy and ethics of human
robot interaction. HRI (Extended Abstracts), 2015.
31. Riek, L.D and Howard, D. A code of ethics for the
human-robot interaction profession. In Proceedings of
We Robot, 2014.
32. Riek, L. D and Robinson, P. Using robots to help people
habituate to visible disabilities. In IEEE International
Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2011.
33. Shi, L. and Singh, D. A. Delivering health care in
America. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2014.
34. Shinohara, K. A new approach for the design of
assistive technologies: Design for social acceptance.
ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 2012.
35. Shinohara, K. and Wobbrock, J.O. In the shadow
of misperception: Assistive technology use and
social interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
36. Simshaw, D., Terry, N., Hauser, K., and Cummings,
M. Regulating healthcare robots: Maximizing
opportunities while minimizing risks. Richmond J. of
Law & Tech, 2016.
37. Trivedi, D., Rahn C.D., Kier, W. M., and Walker, I.D. Soft
robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and
future research. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics,
38. Tsui, K.M., Kim, D.J., Behal, A., Kontal, D., and Yanco,
H. A. ‘I want that:’ Human-in-the-loop control of a
wheelchair-mounted robotic arm. Applied Bionics and
Biomechanics 8, 1 (2011), 127–147.
39. Tucker, M.R. et al. Control strategies for active lower
extremity prosthetics and orthotics: a review. J. of
Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 2015.
40. Ulrich R.S. et al. A review of the research literature
on evidence-based healthcare design. Health
Environments Research & Design J., 2008.
41. Webster R. J., Okamura, A.M., and Cowan, N.J. Toward
active cannulas: Miniature snake-like surgical robots.
IEEE/RSJ Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE,
42. Wellman, J., Jeffries, H., and Hagan, P. Leading the
Lean Healthcare Journey: Driving Culture Change to
Increase Value. CRC Press, 2016.
Laurel D. Riek ( email@example.com) is an associate professor
of computer science and engineering at the University of
California, San Diego. She directs the Healthcare Robotics
lab and builds autonomous robots that can sense,
understand, and learn from real people in the real world.
© 2017 ACM 0001-0782/17/11 $15.00
conducting CER with robots, particularly in cognitive support settings, it
is not sufficient to simply test robot
vs.no-robot, as the morphology can
affect outcomes, but to instead to test
actuated vs. non-actuated.
Healthcare robotics is an exciting,
emerging area that can benefit all
stakeholders across a range of settings. There have been a number of
exciting advances in robotics in recent
years, which point to a fruitful future.
How these robots ultimately will be integrated into the lives of primary beneficiaries remains unknown, but there
is no doubt that robots will be a major
enabler (and disruptor) to health.
It is critical that both the research
and industrial communities work together to establish a strong evidence-base for healthcare robotics. As we
have learned from the large-scale deployment of EHRs, technology development and deployment cannot happen in a vacuum, or it is likely to cause
grave harm to DRUs, overwhelming
stress to clinicians, and astronomical
unseen costs. It is wise for all stakeholders to proceed cautiously and deliberately, and consider the full context of care as much as possible.
It is also critical that direct robot
users remain directly involved in the
research, development, and deployment of future robots in health and
wellness across the entire lifecycle of
a project, as ultimately they are the
ones who will be using these robots.
As discussed earlier, ignoring DRU
input leads to unusable, unsuitable,
and abandoned robots, which benefits no one. Secondary and Tertiary
stakeholders should look to the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)g as a highly successful
model for how-to engage with primary
stakeholders in clinical research and
Finally, it is important that ro-
bot makers work with DRUs to help
bridge technology literacy gaps and
appropriately set expectations. Most
people’s experience with robotics
comes from movies or media, which
rarely reflects the true state of af-
fairs. Robots are quite fallible in the
real world, and will remain so for the
foreseeable future; however, they still
have the potential to be a remarkable
game changer in health.
Some research reported in this article is based upon work supported by
the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. IIS-1253935 and SES-
1457307, and the Luce Foundation.
1. A roadmap for US robotics: From Internet to robotics
(Nov. 2016); http:// jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/
contextualrobotics/docs/rm3-final-rs.pdf, November 2016.
2. Balasubramanian, S., Klein, J., and Burdet, E. Robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function. Curr Opin
3. Bastawrous, M. Caregiver burden-a critical discussion.
Int’l J of Nursing Studies 50, 3 (2013), 431–441.
4. Begum, M., Serna, R. W., and Yanco, H.A. Are robots
ready to deliver autism interventions? A comprehensive
review. International J. Social Robotics 8, 2 (2016).
5. Brose, S. W., Weber, D.J., Salatin, B.A., Grindle, G.G.,
Wang, H., et al. The role of assistive robotics in the
lives of persons with disability. Am J Phys Med, 2010.
6. Carlson, T. and Demiris, Y. Collaborative control for
a robotic wheelchair: evaluation of performance,
attention, and workload. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 42, 3 (2012), 876–888.
7. Chen, T.L. et al. Robots for humanity: using assistive
robotics to empower people with disabilities. IEEE
Robotics & Automation 20, 1 (2013), 30–39.
8. Christensen, H.I., Okamura, A., Mataric, M., Kumar,
V., Hager, G., and Choset, H. Next generation robotics
(2016); arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.09205.
9. Dawe, M. Desperately seeking simplicity: how young
adults with cognitive disabilities and their families
adopt assistive technologies. In Proceedings of
the Conference on Human Factors in Computing
10. Forlizzi, J. and Zimmerman, J. Promoting service
design as a core practice in interaction design. In
Proceedings of the 5th IASDR World Conference on
Design Research, 2013.
11. Gilbert, H. B., Rucker, D. C., and Webster III, R.J.
Concentric tube robots: The state of the art and
future directions. Robotics Research. Springer, 2016,
12. Gonzales, M.J., Cheung, V. C., and Riek, L.D. Designing
collaborative healthcare technology for the acute care
workflow. In Proceedings of the 9th Int’l Conference on
Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, 2015.
13. Gonzales, M. J., Henry, J. M., Calhoun, A. W., and Riek,
L.D. Visual task: A collaborative cognitive aid for acute
care resuscitation. In Proceedings of the 10th Int’l
Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for
14. Graf, C. The Lawton instrumental activities of daily
living scale. The American J. Nursing 108, 4 (2008).
15. Hartzog, W. Unfair and deceptive robots. Maryland
Law Review 74, 785 (2015).
16. Jones, S.S et. al. Guide to reducing unintended
consequences of electronic health records. Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, 2011.
17. Kraft, K. and Smart, W.D. Seeing is comforting: effects
of teleoperator visibility in robot-mediated health care.
The Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human Robot Interaction, 2016, 11–18.
18. Lahijanian, M., Maly, M. R., Fried, D., Kavraki L.E., Kress-Gazit, H., and Vardi, M. Y. Iterative temporal planning
in uncertain environments with partial satisfaction
guarantees. IEEE Trans. Robotics, 2016.
19. Lluch, M. Healthcare professionals’ organizational
barriers to health information technologies—A literature
review. International J. Medical Informatics, 2011.
20. Lu, E.C. et al. Development of a robotic device for
upper limb stroke rehabilitation: A user-centered
design approach. Paladyn 2, 4 (2011), 176–184.
21. Milligan, C. There’s no place like home: Place and care
in an ageing society. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2012.
22. Moosaei, M., Das, S.K., Popa, D.O., and Riek, L.D.
Using facially expressive robots to calibrate
clinical pain perception. In Proceedings of the 2017
Watch the author discuss
her work in this exclusive