Post on 18-Dec-2014
description
Interactive Technologies And Games Conference. 16-17th October 2014
Remote operation of robots via mobile devices to help people with intellectual disabilities
María José Gálvez Trigo
School of Computer Engineering
University of Castilla-la Mancha
David J. Brown Computing and Technology Team
Nottingham Trent University
Contents
❖ INTRODUCTION
❖ Intellectual disabilities and assistive technologies
❖ Humanoid robot NAO
❖ Problem and justification
❖ GOALS
❖ THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
❖ EVOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
❖ RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK
❖ CONCLUSIONS
2
INTRODUCTION
3
Intellectual disabilities and assistive technologies
❖ Intellectual disability Learning disability:
❖ Impaired social functioning
❖ Reduced ability to
understand new information
❖ Assistive technology:
Product or service used to increase, maintain, or improve
the functional capabilities of a person with a disability
4
❖ Before adulthood
❖ Lasting effect on
development
º
5
❖ Mobile devices:
❖ Can be carried everywhere
❖ Can be used in multiple contexts
❖ Mainstream technology - Social acceptance
❖ Robotics:
❖ Increases engagement (Standen et. al 2014, Roscoe
2014)
❖ Predictable and reliable - Minimally threatening
❖ Holds interest more than some traditional methods
Humanoid robot NAO
❖ Manufactured by Aldebaran
Robotics
❖ 57 cm tall
❖ 25 Degrees of Freedom (DOF)
❖ Multiple tactile sensors
❖ Several microphones and
speakers
❖ Two cameras
❖ Fully programmable
❖ Toy-like appearance
6
Problem and justification
❖ Robotics and mobile devices need to be adapted for their
use within special education
❖ Use of robotics - Requires specific skills and knowledge
that educators do not possess
❖ Two possible solutions:
1. Specific training for educators
2. Development of tools that allow educators to use
robotics without specific training
7
Problem and justification
❖ Robotics and mobile devices need to be adapted for their
use within special education
❖ Use of robotics - Requires specific skills and knowledge
that educators do not possess
❖ Two possible solutions:
1. Specific training for educators
2. Development of tools that allow educators to use
robotics without specific training
8
GOALS
9
Two main goals
❖Develop an application for mobile devices that enables
the use of robotics by children with Special Educational
Needs (SEN) and their educators
❖Demonstrate how the application works by means of the
use of the humanoid robot NAO
❖ Development of specific modules and behaviours for the
robot
10
THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
11
The system
12
Main functionalities - On the robot
❖ Tethering mode
❖Wi-Fi - Touching front
sensor on NAO’s head
❖Bluetooth - Touching rear
sensor on NAO’s head
❖Stop the robot - Pressing
bumper on NAO’s right foot
13
14
Tethering mode and stop the robot
❖ Remote control
❖ Walk
15
Main functionalities - On the application
❖ Talk
❖ Change Posture
16
❖ Dance and music
❖ The robot performs a dance with music
❖ The robot teaches movements of a dance
17
❖ Simon says - Well-known game in which the robot tells the children
to do something
❖ Cause and effect - Two or three buttons to check the understanding
of the ‘cause and effect’ concept
18
❖ Questions and answers
❖ The educator sets a question and three possible answers
❖ Can be used with speech recognition
19
❖ Give orders to NAO
❖ React to voice commands
❖ React to a sound
❖ React to buttons
❖Settings
❖ IP address of the robot
❖Volume of the robot
❖Send to rest
❖Children mode
❖Security distance
❖Angle to turn and
distance to walk
20
❖Settings
❖Choose reward
❖Speech recognition
❖Sensibility of the sound
recognition system
❖Confidence of the
speech recognition
system
21
22
❖ Help - Shows help depending on the screen in which the
user is at that moment
23
Examples of screens using ‘children mode’
EVOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
24
25
❖ Co-design and testing by the developer (M. J. G. Trigo)
and the target group of users (children with SEN and
their educators)
❖ Meetings with educators from the Oak Field School and
Sports College in Nottingham to define the
requirements of the system
❖ Prototypes tested and improved taking into account the
feedback from the users in a process of iterative
prototyping
❖ Final version tested at the Oak Field School and Sports
College in Nottingham
RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK
26
Results
❖ Think-Aloud protocol
❖ A questionnaire was given to 7 educators:
❖ They had to give a value from 0 to 5 to aspects such
as the design, the implemented behaviours, the ease
of use, the tolerance to errors, etc.
❖ Mean over 4 in all questions - High degree of
satisfaction
❖ Low standard deviation - High degree of agreement
27
28
❖ The main goals have been accomplished
❖ Overall the system:
❖ Facilitates the integration of robotics in the
classroom of special education schools, being useful
for children with SEN
❖ Is consistent, clear, and easy to use and learn
❖ Offers an adequate and of good quality range of
behaviours and activities that the robot can perform
❖ Is robust and tolerant to errors, and giving
appropriate and relevant feedback when they occur
Future work
❖ RoboMobID will be used within the context of the
EDUROB project.
❖ EDUROB aims to explore the use of robotics in education
for people with learning disabilities and offer a solution for
its integration in the education of children with SEN.
29
The EDUROB project (543577-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-KA3-KA3MP) has been funded with support from the European
Commission.
Future improvements
❖ More dances and animations
❖ Activities using ‘Makaton‘ symbols for illiterate students
❖ User profiles for each child
❖ Translation to several languages
❖ Robot mimicking daily activities
❖ Support for creation of new animations within the
application
❖ Use along with physical input devices like micro-switches
❖ Support for more platforms (OS and robots)
30
CONCLUSIONS
31
32
❖ The use of mainstream technologies in the classrooms of
schools for students with SEN is of great help
❖ This is an emerging field with some promising early
studies to show that engagement in students is higher
using the NAO vs. some traditional methods (Standen et.
al 2014, Roscoe 2014)
❖ It is very important to help teachers to integrate new
technologies in the classroom
Thank you for your attention
Do you have any
questions?
33