Category: Robots

Introduction

In the digital age, artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly relevant in all areas of life. Smart technologies emerge in various industries, providing new opportunities for development, academic research, and the creation of more convenient and efficient devices. In general, AI refers to “intelligent computer programs” that can be used to enhance the productivity of machines and electric appliances (“Artificial intelligence,” 2020). For instance, experts utilize AI programs to implement speech recognition, smart navigation, and automated processes in devices (“Artificial intelligence,” 2020). In these cases, AI is necessary because machines need to adapt to unique environments to execute these features. For speech recognition, the device must differentiate between various sounds and match them to the user’s input (“Artificial intelligence,” 2020). For smart navigation, the machine needs to examine the layout of the building, develop a map, and adjust its processes accordingly (“Artificial intelligence,” 2020). Ultimately, artificial intelligence is the most appropriate method to implement innovative features and make flexible devices that can make decisions based on the user’s input.

AI in Home Appliances

The market of home appliances is one of many areas where AI can be particularly beneficial. At present, smart home systems, robot vacuum cleaners, AI television, automated cooking, and other features are accessible to people globally (Berry, 2021). These innovations are generally more efficient and convenient than their traditional alternatives. For instance, AI-powered television can assess the user’s preferences, provide additional features, such as voice control, and improve the overall experience for customers (Berry, 2021). These features are available due to extensive academic research and efforts of manufacturing companies. Cioffi et al. (2020) predict that AI and machine learning (ML) will become even more relevant in the near future as the technology becomes more accessible to more customers. Companies continue to expand the pricing ranges of products, meeting the needs of various demographic groups (Cioffi et al., 2020). As a result, even industries such as home appliances see a gradual increase in the number of customers due to the availability of AI technologies.

Robot Vacuum Cleaners Overview

Robot vacuum cleaners are automated electric devices used for dry and wet cleaning. Their most notable advantages compared to traditional models are smart navigation and full automation (Skinner, 2021). They benefit significantly from AI-related features, which makes them an attractive choice for people who do not have sufficient time for cleaning (Skinner, 2021). Most people prefer to spend less time on cooking, cleaning, and other home duties. Hence, it is not surprising that robot vacuum cleaners are receiving more attention recently, particularly in developed countries among families with middle/high income (“Robotic vacuum cleaner market,” 2022). The market share of the innovation is expected to increase by approximately 20% each year in the 2020s (“Robotic vacuum cleaner market,” 2022). In summary, robot vacuum cleaners might substitute traditional models in most households in the near future.

Considering the functions, robot vacuums are generally designed for dry cleaning, with hybrid models being an innovative exception. This feature will be discussed in greater detail in the subsequent chapters on the example of the EUFY G20 Hybrid. Additional functions include a quiet mode, various levels of suction power, anti-scratch to minimize damage to surfaces, and sensors to avoid falls and obstacles (Smith, 2022). The prices range from approximately $100 to thousands of dollars for advanced models (Smith, 2022). For instance, ECOVACS DEEBOT OZMO T8 AIVI costs approximately $500 and has the functions of a hybrid robot vacuum, enabling wet cleaning (“ECOVACS,” 2022). Moreover, it captures the cleaning process on video, has an innovative laser mapping AI feature, and has high suction power for dry cleaning (“ECOVACS,” 2022). However, it is an example of a higher-range robot vacuum, while the lower-range products are relatively affordable, making them an attractive choice for many households.

EUFY G20 Hybrid Overview

The current report primarily focuses on the high-tech product – EUFY Smart Hybrid Robot Vacuum Cleaner G20 (2 in 1) – to explain the specificities of robot vacuum cleaners and hybrid models. This innovative technology comprises the benefits of sweeping and mopping, resulting in effective cleaning procedures. The EUFY series of hybrid vacuum cleaners is one of the most popular choices in the market, and the company offers products in various pricing ranges (Smith, 2022). This variety allowed EUFY to become one of the most notable manufacturers of this innovative hybrid technology.

In particular, EUFY G20 Hybrid (see Figure 1) is a relatively cheap option (SAR899 ~ $240) within the series that possesses all the primary functions and advantages of a hybrid vacuum cleaner.

The essential elements of the high-tech product include a digital broom (dry cleaning), a mop (wet cleaning), specialized software, and a charging base (“EUFY smart,” 2022). It has a large number of additional features, such as a quiet mode, smart dynamic navigation, and BoostIQ technology to differentiate between surfaces (“EUFY smart,” 2022). One significant disadvantage of the vast majority of hybrid vacuum cleaners is that they function only on a hard surface (similar to traditional mops), resulting in poor effectiveness if the user has many rugs and other textile products on the floor (“EUFY smart,” 2022). Ultimately, EUFY G20 Hybrid is an appropriate choice for a hybrid vacuum cleaner within the average pricing range.

Technology Uncertainties

The current chapter describes the primary challenges of introducing innovative products to the market. The three major types of obstacles are market, technology, and competitive uncertainties. The problems emerge because customers are reluctant to buy new products that have yet to prove their effectiveness, popularity, ergonomics, and other crucial parameters of innovations. In this context, market uncertainty generally implies users’ concerns about the unpredictability of innovations and whether new products will become widespread (Algotsson & Öhlander, 2020). The technology uncertainty primarily reflects customers’ fears about the practicality and functionality of the high-tech product (Algotsson & Öhlander, 2020). Lastly, competitive uncertainty or volatility emerges because companies have not had sufficient time to test various marketing strategies and innovation variations. These issues create notable challenges for competitors that must implement intelligent product differentiation plans and additional technological developments.

Market Uncertainty

In the context of hybrid robot vacuum cleaners, market uncertainty is a critical obstacle for manufacturers. Most reviewers note that customers have a vague understanding of the difference between autonomous vacuum cleaners, robot mops, and hybrid models (Moscaritolo, 2022; Smith, 2022). This uncertainty in the products’ primary objectives and lack of established standards is particularly notable for hybrids. For instance, a recent report shows that the robot vacuum cleaning industry is developing rapidly and is predicted to achieve a $15.4 billion revenue by 2028 (“Robotic vacuum cleaner market,” 2022). However, the popularity distribution between the different types is unbalanced, with more established robot vacuum cleaners for dry cleaning being the most dominant choice. As a result, the primary source of market uncertainty for EUFY G20 is that it is a hybrid model with the benefits of both dry and wet cleaning, and this innovation is still not widely accepted by customers.

Relative Effectiveness of Hybrids

Consequently, since it is the newest type of autonomous robot cleaner, there is little evidence concerning the effectiveness of the hybrid model. For instance, EUFY offers the 2-in-1 version G20 Hybrid for $299 and the regular G20 (only dry cleaning) for $279 (“EUFY: Robovac,” 2022). The difference in price is negligible, and both types have relatively good reviews in the range of 4 to 5 stars (“EUFY: Robovac,” 2022). However, as the independent research shows, the mopping function of hybrid models is significantly less efficient compared to steam mops and traditional cleaning (Redmile & Forte, 2022). As a result, the negligible difference in pricing and a lack of proven functionality compared to alternatives create critical market uncertainty.

Pace of Adoption

The pace of adoption is another essential factor that might enforce the customers’ perception of the product. There is an insignificant amount of research about the speed of adoption, but this parameter is seemingly positive for hybrid models. For instance, in the top ten of robot vacuum cleaner best sellers on Amazon, there are five hybrid models on #3, #5, and #8-#10 ranks respectively (“Best sellers in commercial indoor robotic vacuums,” 2022). EUFY is one of the innovators in the industry, so it is expected that loyal customers are eager to try new products (“EUFY: Robovac,” 2022). Nevertheless, it is a positive trend for technology overall, and it slightly mitigates market uncertainty.

Technology Uncertainty

Consequently, it is essential to discuss the primary technology uncertainty that arises from customers’ concerns about the practicality and functionality of the product. As mentioned before, one of the problems is that the wet cleaning option of hybrid models is relatively inefficient compared to specialized steam mops and traditional manual methods (Redmile & Forte, 2022). Hence, demanding customers might perceive this feature as a significant disadvantage and choose tested robot vacuum cleaners for dry cleaning and use other devices for mopping.

Obsolescence Concerns

The second crucial concern that is relevant for hybrid vacuum cleaners is uncertainty over obsolescence. This factor generally refers to the customers’ worries that the present state of technology will become outdated in a short time (“Introduction to the world of high-technology marketing,” 2022, personal communication). It is a relevant issue for EUFY G20 for several reasons. First, this hybrid model was one of the first in the G series, with newer options, such as G30 Hybrid, being more suitable to the needs of most customers (“EUFY: Robovac,” 2022). Secondly, the technology of wet cleaning is not yet perfected – customers criticize the necessity of manually changing the mop cloth (Redmile & Forte, 2022). It is possible that manufacturers will continue to experiment with the material of the cloth, automated cleaning methods, and other innovative features to mitigate this issue. As a result, the state of hybrid vacuum cleaners will continually improve, while the present models, including G20 Hybrid, might become outdated.

Competitive Uncertainty

Lastly, competitive uncertainty/volatility is a critical issue for most manufacturers in the industry. However, this issue is less relevant for EUFY since the company has a notable global influence and a good reputation for its high-quality robotic products (Redmile & Forte, 2022). In the list of Amazon best sellers in this category, EUFY takes the leading position with an automated Robovac 11S (“Best sellers in commercial indoor robotic vacuums,” 2022). As a result, competitive uncertainty is not a critical problem for EUFY.

Competitive Uncertainty in Hybrids

At the same time, EUFY is an innovator in the industry, and its new series of hybrid models has been relatively popular. EUFY’s hybrids have appeared in the ranking of Amazon Best Sellers, implying that customers are gradually accepting the new technology (“Best sellers in commercial indoor robotic vacuums,” 2022). Ultimately, there are several relevant competitors in the industry, but EUFY is in an overall favorable position, and customers are confident in the products of this company.

Adoption and Diffusion of the Technology

Adoption and diffusion of innovations is a method that analyzes the primary determinants of customers’ buying decisions and predicts the profitability, spread speed, and viability of the examined product. In this context, understanding the mentality and purchasing process of high-tech customers is crucial to succeeding in the innovations market. Hence, the current chapter thoroughly examines customer adoption decisions and the present adoption-and-diffusion stage of hybrid vacuum cleaners and EUFY G20 Hybrid.

Customer Adoption Decisions

First, it is crucial to evaluate the main drivers of customers’ buying decisions. There are six primary determinants of customer adoption – relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, benefits communication, and observability (“Understanding high-tech customers,” 2022, personal communication). Relative advantage designates the pricing difference between the functions of the high-tech products and a separate device. In the context of hybrid vacuums, this factor concerns wet cleaning or mopping. As mentioned briefly before, the relative effectiveness of 2-in-1 models is lower compared to steam mops and traditional cleaning (Redmile & Forte, 2022). However, the difference in price between EUFY G20 ($279) and EUFY G20 ($299) Hybrid is a mere $20 (“EUFY: Robovac,” 2022). Hence, the relative advantage is one of the primary strengths of hybrid models since they provide additional functions at a low surcharge.

Moreover, the product’s relative advantage directly relates to high observability and benefits communication. Namely, it is easy for knowledgeable customers to understand that hybrid models are basically equal to more traditional robot vacuums, but they have several additional features. It is essential for the adoption and diffusion of hybrid models because high-tech products generally struggle with communicating the benefits of innovations (“Understanding high-tech customers,” 2022, personal communication). The sales on Amazon prove this hypothesis, showing that G20 Hybrid (911 ratings) is more popular than its counterpart without a wet cleaning function (272 ratings) (“EUFY: Robovac,” 2022). As a result, high relative advantage, observability, and benefits communication are substantial factors that increase customer adoption of hybrid vacuums and EUFY G20 Hybrid.

Neutral and Negative Factors

On the other hand, compatibility, complexity, and trialability are either stagnating or decreasing the speed of customer adoption. First, compatibility is still a relevant problem for robot vacuums globally. Developed countries, including the United States and Saudi Arabia, experience a gradual increase in the popularity of high-tech products (Skinner, 2021). However, even in the US, only 14 million households had robot vacuums in 2018, which is a minority of the whole population (Skinner, 2021). Moreover, most countries, particularly developing regions, still prioritize traditional methods of cleaning, which do not require additional expenses and are more effective, albeit take significantly more time. These trends imply that compatibility is a disadvantage for hybrid robot vacuums since they are not widely accepted and contradict the social norms of house cleaning in many countries.

Complexity and trialability are more neutral factors, and there are several possible perspectives on this topic. Namely, hybrids require more maintenance compared to most robot vacuums. The inconvenience of constantly changing the mopping cloth is an inevitable problem of hybrid models at the current stage of technological progress (Redmile & Forte, 2022). However, using a 2-in-1 model is less complex than purchasing additional equipment for wet cleaning. Hence, it depends on the perception of individual customers and their priorities in time/effort investment for house cleaning. This characteristic directly relates to the consumer’s paradoxical relationship concept. Lastly, trialability is a neutral factor since it is relatively easy to try a hybrid model if customers decide to buy a robot vacuum – they only need to pay an additional $20. However, they still need to purchase the whole product, which might be expensive for the general population.

Adoption-and-Diffusion Stage

Based on the present analysis, it is safe to assume that robot vacuums are gradually becoming more popular, and hybrid models are likely to follow the same pattern. In this sense, the companies in the most developed countries that prioritize high-tech products have entered the mainstream market and focus on the early majority (“Understanding high-tech customers,” 2022, personal communication). The statistical data and the rapid growth of the robot vacuum share in the market support this notion (“Robotic vacuum cleaner market,” 2022; Skinner, 2021). However, most developing countries are still in the early market. For instance, the report by Zhang (2022) estimates that while approximately 5% of households have an interest in robot vacuums in China, sales will drastically increase in the future. According to the forecast, growing GDP per capita and the disappearance of social gender norms in house cleaning will result in the rapid popularity increase of robot vacuums (Zhang, 2022). Ultimately, based on the data, it is safe to assume that even some developing countries will enter the mainstream market of robot and hybrid vacuums in the 2020s, according to the adoption-and-diffusion stage concept.

Whole Product Solution

Lastly, it is crucial to discuss the whole product solution. This concept generally implies that high-tech products should provide end-to-end services to customers (“Understanding high-tech customers,” 2022, personal communication). The primary problem of hybrid vacuums and EUFY G20 Hybrid is the necessity to purchase and substitute mopping cloths. This drawback interrupts the customer seamless experience and, as a large number of real-life reviews show, is one of the primary sources of discontent among consumers (“EUFY: Robovac,” 2022). Hence, compared to most robot vacuums, hybrid models lack some elements of the whole product solution since they require additional purchases (when the mopping cloth becomes unusable) and more regular maintenance.

Conclusion

The current report has thoroughly examined the market of hybrid robot vacuum cleaners and the details concerning the EUFY G20 Hybrid, in particular. As seen from the analysis, the primary problems of the model include market and technology uncertainties that emerge from inevitable issues of hybrid devices. Namely, the two weaknesses are the necessity of additional maintenance and the relative ineffectiveness of wet cleaning compared to traditional cleaning methods. Moreover, three factors of customer adoption – compatibility, complexity, and trialability – are still relevant problems for most consumers. Despite the drawbacks, most forecasting reports indicate that robot vacuums and hybrid models will experience rapid popularity growth in the 2020s and might become a relevant cleaning option even in developing countries.

References

Algotsson, S., & Öhlander, J. (2020). Uncertainties in the innovation process: The impact of external uncertainties[Bachelor’s Thesis]. Web.

Artificial intelligence. (2020). Web.

Best sellers in commercial indoor robotic vacuums. (2022). Web.

Berry, I. (2021). 10 ways AI can be used in homes. Web.

Cioffi, R., Travaglioni, M., Piscitelli, G., Petrillo, A., & De Felice, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in smart production: Progress, trends, and directions. Sustainability, 12(2), 492.

ECOVACS Deebot T8 AIVI robot vacuum cleaner, vacumming and mopping in one-go, laser mapping, smart AI bbject recognition, on-demand live video, custom clean, 3+ hours of runtime. (2022). Web.

EUFY smart hybrid robot vacuum cleaner G20 2500pa suction power mop & vacuum cleaner 2 in 1 for hard floors and density carpets. (2022). Web.

EUFY: Robovac. (2022). Web.

Moscaritolo, A. The best robot mops for 2022. Web.

Redmile, L., & Forte, C. 8 best robot mops of 2022. Web.

Robotic vacuum cleaner market by type, distribution channel, operation price range application – global forecast to 2028. (2022). Web.

Skinner, C. (2021). Can a robot vacuum replace your existing vacuum cleaner?Web.

Smith, A. The best robot mops in 2022.Web.

Zhang, S. (2022). The development prospect of cleaning robot in Chinese market in the next ten years. In 2022 7th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic Development (ICFIED 2022) (pp. 1068-1073). Harbin, China: Atlantis Press.

If a robot could ‘feel’ (by design or evolution) should it have rights?

Robotic technology is a field that has advanced rapidly within the past two decades. Robots and artificial intelligence continue to play major roles in different societies. There are self-driving automobiles capable of transporting people from one place to another (Darling, 2012). Although such robots might be unable to make their personal choices, the greatest question is how to deal with them whenever they harm a person. This is also the same case when such semi-autonomous machines damage property. Many futurists believe strongly that new laws will be needed to tame the behaviors and actions of robots.

Many analysts argue that a robot that can feel should have rights. Experts believe that future technologies will make it easier for programmers and software engineers to create robots capable of forming relationships (Darling, 2012). These relationships will be guided by the feelings and views of such robots. This development is possible because “many robots are capable of working as intelligent agents” (Howlader, 2011, p. 3). This means that they can act on algorithms to execute their activities and goals. A robot that can feel either by evolution or design should have legal rights similar to the ones possessed by human beings.

Advanced human technologies will make it easier for robots to acquire new skills and habits. They will also be able to learn new competencies from their activities. Any form of damage to a robot capable of feeling will make it less effective. The robot can be a valuable asset to an individual or a given organization (Lichocki, Kahn, & Billard, 2014). The robot should, therefore, be protected from malicious damage or theft. These notions show clearly that the concept of equal rights might be applied to robots shortly. Robots capable of performing complex or dangerous tasks will also require legal protection.

Many researchers have argued that such laws will create the best environment for positive coexistence between human beings and robots. Human beings will ensure their robots are protected from malicious damage. As well, such robots will minimize traffic-related accidents and eventually save more lives (Howlader, 2011). The outstanding actuality is that such rights will promote the continued production of superior robots capable of performing complex tasks.

Factors that can change the above answer

The above answer shows conclusively that robots capable of feeling and making decisions should have rights. These rights will ensure the robots are protected from damage and eventually deliver the most desirable goals. Robots used to maximize production in a given corporation will require relevant protection. However, some factors will have to be considered before providing rights to such autonomous robots. In the film “2001: A Space Odyssey”, Frank Pole and David Bowman are forced to deactivate HAL 900’s circuits. This event happens in an attempt to control HAL’s super-intellectual tasks. The film shows how “HAL 900 severs Poole’s oxygen hose and even sets him adrift” (2001: a space odyssey 1968). The computer goes further to disconnect every life-support function of the crewmembers. HAL 900 also states that the crewmen want to jeopardize the space mission by deactivating him.

This sci-fi movie offers powerful insights regarding the future capabilities of robotics. Although many specialists argue strongly that robots capable of feeling and making decisions should have rights, it is agreeable that such machines can destroy people’s lives and eventually result in extinction. If such rights are granted, more superior robots will be engineered in an attempt to maximize human activity (2001: a space odyssey 1968).

By the end of the day, it should be acknowledged that robots do not have minds or bodies. They only have software programs and hardware segments (Lichocki et al., 2014). That being the case, autonomous robots might take advantage of their rights to control human beings. As new technologies continue to emerge, future robots will perform complex tasks and affect how human beings operate. With various rights in place, owners of such robots might decide to take advantage of the situation to retrench workers and pursue unethical goals.

From an ethical perspective, robots are not human beings. They are unable to make rational decisions or execute reasonable actions. That being the case, providing such rights might be erroneous because the feelings and capabilities of a robot are contained in its memory chip. The best thing is to ensure the programmers and software engineers producing this technology know the limits. Autonomous robots might be beneficial to many human beings and societies (2001: a space odyssey 1968). However, such robots might decide to control human beings and eventually affect their lifestyles on the earth.

Although this subject is inevitable, future lawmakers and programmers should consider the best ways to ensure robotics are not granted some rights. There should be limits to safeguard the future of mankind. However, different analysts will always present diverse views regarding the provision of robot rights (Lichocki et al., 2014). This fact explains why the debate might not end any time soon (Lichocki et al., 2014).

What this issue reveals about our human society

The issue of human rights has dictated the survival of many societies for centuries. The law has been used by many societies to protect people from their neighbors, politicians, and criminals (Darling, 2012). This is the case because every human society faces numerous problems and obstacles. Wars have been witnessed in different countries thereby claiming the lives of many innocent persons. Societies have been working hard to identify new ways that can make it easier for their people to coexist and work together. This fact explains why ethical and moral laws are critical aspects of every human society.

The use of robots appears to redefine the nature of human existence in the universe. Some skeptics have argued that future robots will be able to make intrinsic decisions that can have both harmful and useful benefits to human beings. Although useful benefits might be essential for human welfare, the harmful ones might threaten the future of the planet (Wallach, 2010). To tame these issues, global society has been focusing on the best strategies that can support the coexistence between robots and human beings.

Some scientists have been advocating for ethically responsible robots. This means that new robots should be able to act ethically and uphold various social norms (Lichocki et al., 2014). Some scholars have gone further to explain why people should not fear robots. This is the case because robots “will never be responsible for themselves” (Wallach, 2010, p. 4). Robots belong to the people who manufacture or use them. They know how to operate and guide such robots. Individuals and corporations operating robots should, therefore, be responsible for their actions (Darling, 2012).

However, modern societies are facing numerous ethical problems than ever before. Many societies have found it hard to tackle some of the challenges affecting humanity such as lawlessness, terrorism, and crime. Most of the existing laws have been unable to deter rational beings from committing a wide range of felonies (Howlader, 2011). Human societies have been described by many sociologists as incomplete systems characterized by numerous challenges and ethical problems. The use of robots is therefore something that might present more societal problems.

It is agreeable that new generations have to deal with different problems. This fact explains why new laws are enacted every day to tame human actions. The provision of rights to robots is therefore a complex issue that requires maximum consultation. With every society grappling with a wide range of social problems and ethical dilemmas, it will be inappropriate to produce autonomous robots because they will affect human lives forever (Wallach, 2010). New research studies should also be conducted to understand how robots can be used to address various human problems instead of increasing them. This issue, therefore, shows clearly that every human society will be forced to consider various ethical and legal reforms (Darling, 2012). The best thing is for human beings to be aware of the dangers and possibilities posed by this issue. This knowledge will ensure the right ideas and ethical laws are put in place to safeguard the future of the human race.

References

Darling, K. (2012). Extending legal protection to social robots: the effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. SSRN, 1(2), 1-13.

Howlader, D. (2011). Moral and ethical questions for robotics public policy. SYNESIS: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy, 1(1), 1-6.

Kubrick, S. (Executive Producer). (1968). 2001: a space odyssey [DVD]. New York, NY: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Lichocki, P., Kahn, P., & Billard, A. (2014). A survey of the robotics ethical landscape. Web.

Wallach, W. (2010). Robot morals and human ethics: the seminar. Teaching Ethics, 1(3), 1-6.

Introduction

Recently, people have heard more and more news about scientific innovations in artificial intelligence. Some people take this news positively, while others fear the negative impact of new technologies on their lives. The world is moving forward, space and the ocean’s depths, and the peculiarities of the brain’s structure and the human body are being studied. However, some people are worried about the development of technology – if the robot now knows how to lift weights, then a furniture mover is no longer needed. This means that this person will no longer receive a salary, and it is unclear what he will do. People hope to create an unconditional basic income, but simple fear spreads more and causes aggression towards artificial intelligence. Modern computers have learned to solve problems that, as previously thought, can only be done by humans. What people have believed requires knowledge, strategic thinking, and creativity, inherent only in humans, can already be accomplished by artificial intelligence. So what in the future will distinguish a human from a soulless machine?

Thesis and an Outline of Arguments

It seems that in the next hundred decades, people should not expect a complete replacement of humans with robots. The latter will indeed engage in some mechanical work previously performed exclusively by humans. However, not in all professions such a transition will be possible and valuable due to the specifics of labor. In addition, due to the existing measures to support those who lost their jobs, mass unemployment should not be expected. The overall expectation is that the human-robot relationship will simply shift into a new form, and become more complex and interconnected (Popovici 2). In general, the ongoing processes of increasing the role of artificial intelligence in people’s lives should be perceived as facilitating their lives and a way to free up their free time.

Arguments

A lot of existing technologies are aimed at automating most of the processes. At the same time, these scientific developments seriously affect the daily life of people. These technologies include a variety of bots, Internet assistants, and mobile applications. Organizations, realizing the benefits of automation, are also starting to use robots in operating. Instead of people, artificial intelligence-based systems are hired (Carbonero et al. 8); as a result, business efficiency increases and personnel costs decrease. However, it should be admitted that the extinction of professions is a natural process.

Long ago, lamplighters turned on street lights in the morning and turned them off in the evenings. The work was not the easiest one: in the cold and in the heat, people went out very early and returned very late, and their salaries were quite modest. With the advent of electricity, the need for them has disappeared. More recent examples of disappearing professions include typists, several times fewer than seventy years ago. The automation process is most developed in jobs that are too complex or unpleasant for people and harmful to their health (Schwabe and Castellacci 6). Robots cover the need to waste energy on dragging and lifting heavy objects, for example.

The conversation about the robotization of the healthcare industry requires special attention. With the help of new technologies, today, it is possible to detect serious diseases earlier and save a person’s life. Robots can easily replace those who perform purely technical work. Many operations are performed using the latest technology: small cameras allow doctors to view the body and the inside organs to make a more accurate incision. Robots in medicine are changing the approach to surgical operations, optimizing the supply and disinfection of consumables (Khan et al. 3). In addition, the need to use artificial intelligence has increased during the coronavirus pandemic. A robot can deliver food to patients in infectious diseases departments of hospitals instead of a nurse, who can get infected by such a patient. However, one should not expect complete robotization in this area since medical knowledge is scattered. Therefore, it will be too difficult and unreasonable to train artificial intelligence to process such data.

Indeed, there is a high percentage of those at risk of doing mechanical work. Drivers, accountants, or telephone operators could be replaced by artificial intelligence in the next 20 years. However, due to this, people will have the opportunity to prove themselves in intellectual professions – robots are still far from humans. The quickness of mind is needed in the work of a lawyer, teacher, screenwriter, graphic designer, and engineer. At the same time, it may be necessary to interact with a robot and new technologies in each profession. It has been said that machines will take jobs away from people for two hundred years, but technology only contributes to creating new ones (Dahlin 3). With the advent of new technologies, indeed, fewer and fewer workers are required. On the other hand, more qualified employees who will manage these technologies are becoming in demand.

The essence of the existence of new technologies is to improve the process. Writers do not need to rewrite the entire sheet by hand if a mistake is made, and they do not need to hire a stenographer either; they just need to press a few clicks on the keyboard. Scientists do not have to waste time walking around the territory and recording the area’s features- a robot dog will inspect the space for them. This is how the perfect interaction between robots and humans is born. Therefore, robots will not take over existing professions but will serve as assistants to people, performing labor-intensive tasks for them.

The aspect associated with introducing robots into people’s lives should also be discussed since this process is both expensive and troublesome. For some tasks, it makes no economic sense to implement them; using human labor can be easier and cheaper. Thus, robots are applicable where it is necessary to perform the same standard operation many times. For example, place a part in a machine, weld, paint, or stack boxes on a pallet. Robots are widely used in automotive and electronics manufacturing, where everything is subject to algorithms and focuses on mass production (Smys and Ranganathan 180). Since they are not equally important and necessary everywhere, one should not expect a complete replacement of humans with artificial intelligence.

Implementing robots in small and medium-scale production is difficult since the reprogramming process is very labor-intensive and lengthy. Accordingly, some employees will no longer be required in large industries since artificial intelligence will work for them. Production where only robots will operate, and a person will be able to control them even from home or office, may become possible only in a few decades. For now, people are needed because, initially, they are the ones who have to come up with the project. In addition, it is humans who decide how to use robots and then implement them and test their work.

People are much better than robots in a considerable number of areas and, one might say, even irreplaceable. These are not always areas associated with highly intellectual activity. Instead, it is working with unpredictable physical labor – for example, gardeners, plumbers, and locksmiths. Most non-creative professions that require strict adherence to algorithms have the potential to be fully automated. However, it is essential to understand that almost any business is communication, which cannot be handled without people and soft skills.

The modern economy, where the service sector dominates production, has created so many low-skilled professions that even now, millions of people can be painlessly and usefully replaced by robots. The reason for this is simple: the distribution and sale of goods/services, which has become the meaning of the consumer economy, are primitive processes, so more or less advanced algorithms can easily cope with them. It is not necessary to increase the number of people employed, but the quality of their life. The new economy needs a person to be a more solvent consumer. The more people with money, the more they shop and use services, and the better the country develops. As noted before, robots are needed since it is necessary to facilitate the performance of various mechanical and generally complex processes by people.

The most slippery and frightening point in the discussion of robotization is the problem of unemployment. True, this problem will not simply exist with an integrated, global approach. The point is this: those specialists who are now doing the work of robots can be divided into two parts. For some, routine activities take an insane amount of time that could be spent on creating something fundamentally new and unique. There are no questions here; robots will take off a heavy load from them and, by the way, will complete tasks many times faster. There are no tragic negative consequences here, as people’s lives will only get better.

A fundamentally different picture emerges if people pay attention to how the work of bureaucratic organizations is arranged. Usually, employees have a lot of paperwork to do, and the inefficiency of work reigns. In this case, the robot becomes an ideal replacement: it will always perform work at a high level, and it becomes possible to manage it remotely. Although employees of such organizations will indeed lose their jobs, unemployment in the usual sense will not happen. With the massive replacement of people with robots, such citizens will be able to receive unemployment benefits at least for a while. Moreover, a well-developed system of professional retraining can help such individuals master a new, more exciting, and highly paid job.

Conclusion

Today, people are witnessing the so-called digital revolution; automation frees up labor, increasing productivity, making people, companies, and countries more competitive. Thus, people should not expect the complete replacement of humans with robots in the near future. Although it significantly simplifies people’s lives, artificial intelligence is still not capable of doing, for example, solely creative or managerial work. Moreover, there are such professions in which robotization is impossible or unreasonable. These include, to some extent, the work of a doctor or nurse. People should think of robots as almost always impeccably operating helpers made to free up time for humans.

Works Cited

Carbonero, Francesco, et al. “Robots Worldwide: The Impact of Automation on Employment and Trade.” International Labour Office, 2018, 1-24.

Dahlin, Eric. “Are Robots Stealing Our Jobs?” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, vol 5, 2019, pp. 1-14,

Khan, Zeashan Hameed, et al. “Robotics Utilization for Healthcare Digitization in Global COVID-19 Management.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, 2020, 1-21.

Popovici, Gheorghe. “Robots Shall Not Replace Humans, Robots Shall Make Humans Human.” Robotica & Management, vol. 22, 2018, pp. 1-4.

Schwabe Henrik, and Castellacci Fulvio “Automation, Workers’ Skills and Job Satisfaction.” PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 11, 2020, 1-26.

Smys, S., and Ranganathan, G. “Robot-Assisted Sensing, Control and Manufacture in Automobile Industry.” Journal of ISMAC, vol. 1, no. 3, 2019, 180-187.

Executive Summary

This article first explains the connection between science and technology. Here we refer to a very simple example of the recently created robotic fish by Professor Hu, a Japanese scientist. This is just to understand the difference between them both. Next, we go through the introduction of technology on a narrower concept. This is where social control comes into picture. The following paragraphs would further discuss social control’s effects and consequences.

This is discussing on a more detailed aspect of social control concerning issues of personal freedom etc and its effect on future generations. There are also concerns about fear and how it is related to social control. In the following paragraph, there are the six control strategies discussed. This is six ideas are taken from the author, Gary T Marx and from his article titled, Technology and Social Control: The Search for the Illusive Silver Bullet in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2001. In the following paragraphs, the six control strategies which are the target removal strategy, target evaluation, offender incapacitation, offender exclusion and identification of offenders and offenses.

Each point is further elaborated in the paragraphs. Furthermore, we discuss the other effects of science in technology and some of the recent technological developments in the rest of the world. Finally, we end with a conclusion of this article on the last page. This also provides a short summary of all the discussed points in the entire article. Apart from that, there are some personal opinions and hopes for the future in science and technology as well as the hope for a more positive end result, especially for future generations.

Main text

Science and technology have always had a positive outcome when put together rather than when they are separated. Science is a study of an attribute or element, even a study of humans to understand why certain things behave in a certain way.

As we learn about something in particular, we start to see the flaws, or more ways of improving something. For example, there has been a recent invention by a Japanese inventor, Professor Huoseng Hu of Essex University, who has been studying fish for about 3 years. He studies it with a great amount of detail right to the extent of how the fish moves, how many times it moves in a day and so on. He keeps a record and studies it. Finally he learns a fish moving pattern for a certain type of fish. He thinks he can create an aquarium based on robotic fishes, so what is the next step?

This is when technology comes in. The word technology comes from the root word “technique”, meaning finding a solution to solve or improve something. In this case, the Japanese scientist starts working on building the robotic fishes using technology or techniques.

This is where he identifies the type of technology suitable to be used, or creates a new technique to create a robotic fish. Then, upon completion of the model fish, he then inserts some wired movements so that the fish moves exactly the same as a live fish and the public won’t really know the difference because it is almost 100% similar to a normal fish. Thus, the Japanese scientist had created a new invention and gains recognition for his hard work. This is how science and technology work hand in hand, thus, almost inseparable.

There is of great importance to discuss the issues of social control using technology. In today’s transformation of the world to a much more modern society, people are taking technology to greater heights without thinking of its consequences. Technology has been widespread in almost all industries out there, and it has even come to the extent of controlling the human behavior. More and more measures such as surveillance, drug testing, DNA analysis and many more are being used to control the human behavior to a certain extent which may get even more controlling in future.

Why is this social controlling issue a concern to us? We humans have been very much fascinated with the idea of science fiction stories of being spies and being watched, or watching others etc. With the latest development of war technology, the world is becoming a more dangerous place. Thus, people believe that by having various forms of social control like the surveillance cameras etc, that we are being technologically advanced and that we will be much safer. Most studies on social control issues have shown that this social behavior is not necessarily a healthy one as it may have a negative consequence on us and the future generations in the years to come.

For one, people become more conscious that they are being watched. Thus they start behaving in a more robotic manner, losing their real identities. Apart from that, as we are going more into the future, most countries are applying the chip-based national identification cards whereby each individual’s details are monitored consistently. Thus, people lose their freedom as they are consistently watched. If this keeps going on, the future generation may never know what is freedom, and what is it like to be free.

In today’s world, everyone wants everything to happen fast and perfectly. Thus, people do not take the time to sit and discuss issues, personal problems or even social problems. People just take to much time working, and working without thinking about what is important in life. One of the main reasons social control is happening is because people are afraid. Terrorism attacks, especially after the 9/11 have caused some major panic attacks and security concerns worldwide.

Thus, this issue has brought to people wanting to be safe and ensure that their loved ones are secure. Now, there is definitely nothing wrong with that thought, except people are not taking sufficient time to think about it, talk about it and so on. They just opt to take the easy way out of putting expensive high technology cameras in their homes and so on. Unfortunately, this has more negative effects than positive ones. One needs to eliminate fear instead of depending on security cameras to keep them secure. What happens if the camera breaks down one day? This is something to be thought about.

Another important issue is that since most information is given out to the government etc, there is a tendency to misuse this information. Technology always has two sides of the coin, the good and bad sides. Thus, if someone’s personal information is used in a wrong way, for example thru identity theft, it is quite hard for one to prove themselves and this could be quite scary as well. Technology is usually dominated by the ones who are really good at it especially young teenagers, computer experts etc, so what happens to the ones that are not really good in computers or technologically advanced things? This would result in them being left out and just being the follower.

To prevent this from happening, there are six social control strategies as suggested by Gary Marx in his article, Technology and Social Control: The Search for the Illusive Silver Bullet in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2001 which will be discussed here. The first strategy is thru target removal. This basically highlights the prevention point whereby if we do not have something to loose, then we will be safe. This is for example, having graffiti-resistant walls so that the walls can’t be sprayed on. One of the ideas the author suggests is to have a cashless society whereby if everyone is cashless, and using only credit and debit cards, then it would be much harder for stealing to take place; which highlights the point, prevention is better than cure.

The next point the author highlights is the target devaluation. This is whereby one tries to eliminate or reduce the potential target to anyone but only limited to its authorized users. When a thief or a predator finds it very time-consuming or impossible to break a code etc, he would then give up and find for the next easier thing.

Thus, with this strategy, it is just trying to keep your most valuable thing in a much more secure way to make it seem useless to predators but it’s actually very much valuable and accessible to you and your other authorized users. This for example, could be such as using the biometric identifier, whereby one registers their retinal scan, or fingerprint etc and the computer registers it. The user can only access it using those scans or finger prints. If the finger print or the retinal scan is not registered, the security alarm would immediately go off, thus cautioning the user that there has been a security breach etc.

The third strategy is thru target insulation whereby one tries to create a double protection for one’s valuables. In the past, people have used fencing and guards etc to help guard their property from predators. However, these days, people have been using technology advancement to create more reliable security systems such as house alarms, video surveillance and so on. One can also double guard their valuable by having safety locks or safety boxes installed somewhere inside their walls as seen in some recent movies etc. This ensures that the valuable item is only known to the owner and their authorized users. Apart from that, people have also created under ground rooms etc to safeguard themselves in the case of an emergency, whereby they would have a place to run and hide.

The fourth strategy is the offender incapacitation. This is to disable something that is used when an offence is committed. This method is currently being used in Islamic countries such as in Arab Saudi and its surroundings. If a thief is caught, the sentence is to chop off the hand that was used to steal. Even though this may sound really a cruel punishment, it actually works and helps to induce fear in other thieves as they would not want to be caught and loose their hands. This has made Arab Saudi one of the world’s safest places where most houses are left unlocked at night and ladies walk freely on the streets late at night and early in the morning. Thus, the author suggests this strategy and with a technological idea that is being worked on.

This is for example, to encourage the anti-drunk driving; cars require a breath analyzer test connected to the automobile ignition system before one starts the car.

The 5th strategy would be inclusion. In the more recent past, potential offenders, for example a recently released drug addict would be kept away from any potential drug stores, or an area where most drug addicts are to allow him to be away from the same crime again. Similarly, the author has suggested a latest technologically advanced method whereby a criminal or any other anti-social behavior’s DNA is kept in record. This way, the criminal would have to check with a government body before deciding to have a kid so that the genetic experts could check and see if the 2 DNA’s match and its good enough to avoid another criminal are being born. This gives them a sense of exclusion from the rest of the society which would hopefully discourage them from being a criminal.

The 6th strategy is thru identifying the potential target, offense and offenders. This could be done thru the recent advancement in architectural designs which emphasize on visibility when building a structure. This is to enable one to identify the potential offenders and keep a record of them, so that in case there is a future offense committed, the operators of that place would at least have a record of a list of suspects to show to the authorities.

This would also help them keep the exact time and date of the offense and the potential suspect thru a video camera. This would be an immediate proof to the court as it would be clearly visible and its 100% proof, just sufficient to proceed with the punishment. Citizens are also being given hotline numbers etc to report to the authorities immediately when they see potential break-ins and so on.

Apart from the above social control of technology, it has also been vastly used in many areas of scientific research, one for example for the agricultural industry. As we know, in most parts of the world, agriculture has been the main focus of a population growth as well as bringing up newer inventions. There is agriculture research center’s that have been set up to encourage innovators to present their ideas on developing new inventions which would help in that field. These centers also help to produce the materials and equipment that you may need to complete your innovation. Upon completion of your equipment or idea, the researchers in these centers will then evaluate the usage of your idea and the practicability of using it, the consequences and so on. Thus, technology is progressing in this field.

There are also other technology areas such as Information Technology, better known as the IT industry. India has been one of the vast progressing countries in the IT field. More and more graduates are coming out with an IT degree and they are spreading their IT expertise worldwide. This technological advancement has been really great for the Indian economy. Since 1991, Indian economy has been moving steadily over 50% at a very consistent pace.

The Indian government is also taking more measures to make this industry a more profitable one to ensure that it helps their economy in a more positive way. They are concentrating on a more new approach using the Research and Development approach to identify new theories/methods in the IT field. McKinley’s report has predicted that India would be looking at USD 87billion for next year alone in the IT industry.

Apart from all of the above, other industries such as the medical field are also gaining positively from technological advancement. More and more new medicines to cure diseases that were considered to be risky before are becoming more and more common and less risky with latest medical development. More doctors have been able to develop new methods and new ways of making operations easier, less painful and so on with the help of technology. As we can see in our daily lives, the birth of Siamese twins is becoming a more common thing than before. Couples that were not able to conceive are also able to have their own kids through medical advancement. Of course, with the advancement in medicines, there are also setbacks such as consequences in the long run which doctors are trying to fix thru technology.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, the world is moving fast towards technological advancement in various areas of development and in a range of industries. There are technological advancement in the areas of medicine, information technology, social security, agriculture, and so many other industries. There are more and more unknown areas of science developing and this will definitely come out with the latest technology improvement. Newer ideas are being created and newer things being innovated.

Surely, technology advancement have been so popular due to the positive consequence at present, there will be negative results in the future if it is not properly controlled as researched by some famous scientists. There are always to sides to a coin, whereby the positive and negative sides. Let us hope that the future of this technological advancement brings a more positive approach for our future generations to come.

Bibliography

1. Mulder, Henry. “Progress in Science”. Science and You. 2007. Web.
2. Jha, Alok. “What is the point of a robotic fish?” The Guardian. 2005. Web.
3. “Agriculture Technology Center”. Agriculture and Food. Alberta Government. 2007. Web.
4. “The NASSCOM – McKinsey report on India’s IT industry”. Indian Embassy. Web.
5. Marx, Gary. (2001). “Technology and Social Control: The Search for the Illusive Silver Bullet”. The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Web.
6. Berger, Dan. “What is the link between science and technology?” MadSci Network. Web.

Technology has come to occupy a very important place in our lives today. This can be found in many aspects of daily life. Driving to work involves the use of evolving technology as every car made today includes varying degrees of computerized information systems that inform the vehicle of important information – everything from the need for an oil change to sophisticated mapping systems and instant notification of emergency services in the event of a crash. Work life typically revolves around the use of computers whether it is the auto mechanic evaluating the performance of the vehicle or the designer attempting to create a safer, more economical and fuel efficient car. Technology is also highly used in the operating room as patients’ histories are entered into computers and checked against drug interactions, tracked for needed procedures and monitored for life signs and medication treatment. Technology has entered into so many phases of our lives that we tend to simply take it for granted. This is the central message in both Isaac Asimov’s short story “Robot Dreams” and Alex Proyas’ film I, Robot. In exploring these issues, both stories question whether this involvement is justified and what can be done to improve it.

Asimov’s story presents a single chapter in the story depicted in Proya’s film yet both manage to convey the same sense of technological involvement in the everyday lives of its human characters. In Asimov’s story, a robot, ELV-1 called Elvex, has been created that is evidently capable of independent thought approaching the level of human sentience and perhaps having fully achieved such. This character is duplicated in the film version in the form of Sonny. Both stories use the human character of Susan Calvin to reveal a robot’s wish to be free of its human restraints and convey the possibility for robots to reach human intelligence and capacity for thought. This humanity is illustrated in the robot’s ability to have dreams, in which he stands at the head of a multitude of robots to lead them to a better existence. However, while Asimov’s story remains set within the strict confines of the research lab with only two female researchers aware of its existence, Proya’s character is allowed to develop far beyond this limited scope as it is first accused of killing its creator and then leads a suspicious detective to the detection of the master computer’s plot to take all of humanity captive. Thus, both stories involve the evolution of the robot mind to something approaching or perhaps equaling sentience and both include the element of danger as the robot mind envisions freedom. However, while Asimov’s story leaves no question that the developing robot mind is dangerous, Proya’s story opens room for discussion allowing Sonny to survive to fulfill his dream leading retired robots to more productive futures while the dangerous computer mind of VIKI is destroyed.

As a result, both stories indicate there is a significant potential for danger inherent in the integration of technology and society as well as significant potential for benefit. According to Dinello (2005), sci-fi literature provides a means of imagining the potential problems and consequences of new technological advancements and the various questions they raise. In both of these stories, the question of the benefits of technology is strongly questioned as they each demonstrate the degree to which machines have integrated into daily life. This is most evident in I, Robot as robots are seen in every aspect of life – from personal servants in the home to emergency workers and maintenance crews. However, it is also brought forward in Asimov’s story as Elvex tells Dr. Calvin, “I see some mining in the depths of the earth, and some laboring in heat and radiation. I see some in factories and some undersea” (Asimov, 1986). Elvex’s account of his dream to Dr. Calvin demonstrates an elimination of the basic laws of robotics. These include first, that they must protect human life, second that they must obey orders given by humans except when this conflicts with the first law and third that they must do what they must to protect themselves except when this comes into conflict with the first two laws. In indicating that the first two laws had been eliminated and the third law had been modified to remove reference to the first two laws, the short story makes it clear that sentient robots are a menace to human life. This danger is also reflected in I, Robot both in the coup attempt by VIKI as well as in the less dangerous response of the rescue robot that opts to save the adult cop rather than the child in the accident that cost Det. Spooner his arm. This type of decision-making process is consistent with modern-day technology as evidenced by Stone et al (2006) in their outline of how robots can be programmed to cope with uncertain situations, yet the technology remains insufficient to fully replace the innate human process.

The film’s significant difference from the short story lies in Sonny’s survival and subsequent fulfillment of the dream as compared to the destruction of Elvex in Asimov’s tale. This is largely because the film functions to demonstrate that the machine can learn and transcend the potential dangers by ‘growing up’ gentle and good, as Sonny has done. Because the story is told from the point of view of the suspicious detective rather than from the detached third-person point of view offered in Asimov’s story, the director is able to take the viewer from a point of complete mistrust to one of grudging possibility as it is recognized that Sonny is perhaps just as ‘human’ as humans. This is an important shift in the ideology presented to the public as “Change to our society and ourselves will be happening faster than ever soon. Even though we know something about future technologies now, we can never be fully prepared for them. This coming high technology can’t be suppressed for long, and that would be ill-advised in any case. It is as inevitable as change itself” (Graves, 1990). In determining what to depict about the future potentials of machine technology, Proya has opted to provide viewers with both positive and negative predictions and possibilities, warning the public about the dangers while also introducing the possibilities for the advantages. “Culture and cultural images mediate the way in which technology and its effects are perceived” (Smits, 2006), introducing and contributing to the public dialogue regarding such ideas.

In attempting to illustrate the problems of technology in the modern society, or the potential problems, both Asimov and Proya investigate the potential harm that sentient robots represent to human society. While the short story is limited in its length, the film is limited in its ability to depict deep philosophical ideas while still remaining active enough for a modern audience. In evaluating the role of technology in today’s society in view of the messages of these stories, it remains a difficult question to answer. It is obvious that technology can have significant benefits for human society in that robots would be able to perform dangerous work with less risk to human welfare and may be less apt to make dangerous mistakes, such as in the operating room. Their greater strength and faster processing speed coupled with their ability to work without need for rest are all positive elements of the increased use of technology. However, before these robots can truly take over those activities they are expected to do, such as stopping a car before it collides with another object, it is often necessary for the robot to have a greater ability to make decisions based on uncertain information. This sentience may make it possible for the machines to override their programmed restrictions against harming humans. From a personal point of view, it seems unlikely that progress will be halted simply because of a few fears regarding the coming of age of the machine, no matter how well-founded, but perhaps texts such as these will help fuel discussions into proper safeguards and usage that will encourage robots to work in concert with humans even after sentience is achieved.

References

Asimov, Isaac. (1986). “Robot Dreams.” Robot Dreams. FictionWise.

Dinello, Daniel. (2005). Technophobia: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Graves, James. (1990). “Technology and its Effect on Society.” Western Intellectual Tradition. Web.

I, Robot. (2004). Dir. Alex Proyas. Perf. Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Alan Tudyk, James Cromwell & Bruce Greenwood. Twentieth Century Fox.

Smits, Martijntje. (2006). “Science Fiction: A Credible Resource for Critical Knowledge?” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. Vol. 26, N. 6.

Stone, Peter; Mohan Sridharan; Daniel Stronger; Gregory Kuhlmann; Nate Kohl; Peggy Fidelman; & Nicholas K. Jong. (2006). Robotics and Autonomous Systems. Vol. 54, I. 11.

What is Robotics? Imagine an operating room with many machines and television monitors and no human surgeon. It would feel like an ET movie wherein robots operate on humans. But such a situation has become reality and is getting popular in many parts of the world. The word Robotics was coined by Isaac Asimov in 1938, in fiction. Later on, in 1958 Robots were made in real and since then they have been used for various purposes from deep-sea exploration to space travel. The first Robotic Surgery was performed in 1985. In 1992 the first Robodoc was introduced to be used in hip replacement surgery. The surgery performed by the Robodoc proved to be more precise than a conventional doctor (Faust 2006 p.8). As with a computer, precision and minimal possible errors are the highlights of using robotics in surgery. Robotic surgery is performed by a four-armed robot that permits surgeons to control the micro-actions of minute surgical gadgets through the smallest apertures in the body of the patient. Surgeons control the robot’s arms and hand from a control board away from the operating table. The robots have a jointed flexible wrist design that allows their hands to twist and bend with more dexterity than human hands, allowing the doctor to create key-hole size slits and position fine stitches accurately. Conventional open surgeries need 8-10 inch opening and can result in considerable blood loss, prolonged and painful healing, and other complications.

The da Vinci surgical system is the first and one of the famous Robotics surgical systems used in the operating room. The smaller slits and superior accuracy that are achievable with the Da Vinci Surgical System decrease the risk of complications. The robotic hands hold surgical instruments and a camera with high magnification that enhances the surgeon’s visibility and presents three-dimensional scrutiny of the area where surgery is performed. Patients benefit the most due to such accuracy in robotic surgery. They do not have to endure pre and post-surgery trauma and pain since the incision is very small and has less blood loss compared to open surgery. Technology as such has developed the entire process that can be recorded and allows doctors to further analyze the patients’ response to treatment and understand the methods and procedures that are most successful. Many establishments use robots to make virtual rounds, observing the patients from their workplace and residence through telemedicine and tools that convey wellbeing at a distance. Patients can anticipate exceptional precision and a much faster recuperation with this radical technology (Ropp, 2001).

Tele-robotic Surgery and Tele-mentoring – Yulan Wang, with the funding from DARPA (Defensive Advanced Research Projects Agency), developed the first computer-assisted camera which was triggered by voice for laparoscopic surgery that substituted a surgical assistant called AESOP short for Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning. The concept was further developed by various other doctors in the following years. In 2001, the first transatlantic telerobotic surgery was performed. The doctors were seated in New York City and were controlling the robots over a high bandwidth fiber optic to minimize the transmission delay to the operating room in Strasbourg, France. This surgery was successful and the world realized the significance of Tele-Robotics and Tele-mentoring. Robotics technology is being used successfully in Urologic Surgery, Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic surgery, Paediatric General and thoracic surgery, Advanced Gynecologic surgery, Head and Neck Surgery, Surgery of Upper Airways, and Transoral robotic surgery.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Robotic Surgery

The best advantage of Robotic surgery / telerobotic surgery is its accuracy and minimal incision. Patients suffer fewer traumas before and after the surgery due to very less blood loss and smaller cuts to heal. The patients take less time to recuperate. The easily movable wrists of robots make certain types of surgeries, which need the smallest and accurate movements, possible without much risk. Since the entire process is recorded and displayed magnified on a screen, monitoring and controlling such surgeries by experts even from distant areas is possible. This is a big advantage to military and remote areas without specialized doctors, hospitals, and facilities. The risk of tremors by a human surgeon can be completely avoided by robotic surgery. When compared to laparoscopic surgery also robotic surgery is advantageous due to the smaller size of equipment used to make minute movements required for many types of complicated surgeries. Since the entire body is under scan during the surgery, any unexpected changes can also be promptly monitored, and if required open surgery can be done. Robotics can be used for laparoscopic as well as open surgeries. Human limitations to reach certain areas of the body and the difficulty to position the patient such that the surgeon can operate on the patient with ease make certain types of surgeries complex, risky, and almost impossible. Robotics can overcome such issues and can operate from any position and in minute detail. Another major advantage is that the learning and experiments are done through virtual reality. So while learning no harm is done to any human or animal. If anything goes wrong it can be easily monitored and open surgery can be done without delay. Recording robotics surgery makes sure that the entire process is available for reference and the progress can also be monitored with the help of the computer. As far as the doctor is concerned, the best possible image of the area operated upon is obtained and the doctor is saved from the physical fatigue involved in long hours of surgery.

The major disadvantages are that the robotic equipment requires a lot of space and is not easy to transport to another place. This space constraint limits the surgeon’s physical presence in the operating room in case any intervention is required. As mentioned earlier, the surgery is monitored, recorded, and controlled by the surgeons in a distant space that may or may not be near the operating room. Another problem of robotics is that it requires technical expertise and machinery both of which are expensive. Therefore limited surgeons will be available who can operate, monitor and control such machines. Further, the number of hospitals that can afford the technology is few. The control signals’ transmission can be another problem in remote areas. A time delay in transmission is very risky for the patient. Another major issue is whether or not a computer/robot can be fully relied upon to operate on a human. Robotics is an upcoming technology and it is still in the process of evolution. Hence its reliability is relative to a particular area in which robotics has been successful thus far. Being computer robotics will have to be frequently upgraded which is a problem for the institutions using it. Finally, as with any emerging technology, an element of unknown risk is involved currently with robotic surgery which makes many patients and even doctors turn skeptical towards the technology (Faust 2006 p.8-11).

The future

Cutting down the equipment size and expense on the technology is the major challenge of future robotic surgery. Since robotic surgery is in its formative years, issues such as training requirements, licensing, legal responsibility upon malpractice, and interstate permits for tele-surgeons are yet to be explored. Research is going on for transmitting touch sensation from robotic gadgets back to the surgeon, stitch-less anastomoses, and programmed surgery rather than the currently prevailing controlled surgery. The potential for expansion and enhancement is limited only by cost and imagination (The Future of Robotic Surgery 2004).

Conclusion

Robotics in surgery offers great advantages to the patients as well as the doctors. Accuracy, ability to reach deep organs, flexible wrists, process recording, and being able to operate across distances all make the future of robotics promising. Areas that will benefit the most from robotics include remote areas without expert doctors. Time will prove that robotics is the future of surgery.

References

1. Faust, R.A. 2006. Robotics in Surgery: History, Current and Future Applications. New York: Nova Publishers
2. Ropp, K.L. 2001 Robots in the Operating Room.
3. The Future of Robotic Surgery 2004. Web.

Executive Summary

In the modern world, stroke is considered as one of the most common causes of disability in adults, affecting over twenty million people every year. Being caused by abnormalities in blood flow, the condition has a variety of complications that are detrimental to the quality of life. Hemiparesis, one of its most frequent consequences that affect up to eighty percent of stroke survivors, presents an incomplete paralysis of only one side of the body.

This condition manifests itself in numerous symptoms, ranging from muscle weakness to the presence of abnormal synergy causing problems with motor control and the successful completion of everyday tasks. Patients with hemiparesis have issues with both upper and lower extremities, but upper limb rehabilitation can require more effort since fine motor skills are needed almost for any task.

Considering the amount of time to be paid to an individual during rehabilitation training sessions and the shortage of physiotherapists, post-stroke treatment can be quite costly. Understanding this problem, researchers and robot programmers all over the world are tasked with the development of new options facilitating the work of rehabilitation specialists. Since the middle of the 1990s, numerous types of robotic rehabilitation devices based on the use of exoskeletons and end effectors have been presented.

Modern robots for upper limb training differ in terms of the degrees of freedom, the type of feedback, and the available modes of training. Numerous studies included in the annotated bibliography report or cite some positive outcomes of robot-assisted interventions used to facilitate arm rehabilitation of stroke survivors with hemiparesis. The use of robotic devices in rehabilitation training is also beneficial to task distribution and performance tracking since it reduces the workload of physiotherapists and measures patient performance accurately. Based on the evidence from the studies, robot-assisted interventions in arm rehabilitation of hemiparesis post-stroke patients cause improvements in sensorimotor function measured with the help of the Fugl-Meyer scale and increase limb mobility.

The latter, however, does not always lead to complete recovery and the ability to handle objects of any size and shape. Considering the subjective outcomes of robot-assisted training, the patient-reported effectiveness of such interventions varies depending on the type of robot, being high for some used devices such as HandMentor and indefinite for pilot projects and custom devices.

In the end, although the use of rehabilitation robots is generally associated with positive changes in motor planning scores and limb mobility, there is a lack of evidence proving its advantages over non-robotic training sessions with therapists. Instead, it has been demonstrated that a combination of robotic and non-robotic methods of rehabilitation is more effective in reducing arm impairment in sub-acute and acute stages of post-stroke recovery compared to only non-robotic interventions.

Overall, given the heterogeneity of the reviewed studies in terms of quality and sample size, it cannot be recommended to use robot-assisted interventions in any patient with hemiparesis. More studies comparing different types of robots in terms of effectiveness should be done to provide more detailed recommendations concerning their use. At this stage, healthcare providers are advised to avoid using robotic interventions in patients with arm fractures and uncontrolled spasticity and decide on the intensity and length of training sessions based on the stage of recovery.

Introduction

Stroke is widely recognized as one of the most dangerous medical conditions due to mortality rates and a large number of complications that prevent stroke survivors from living a full-fledged life. In the United States, it causes about seven million cases of disability annually (Cherry et al., 2017).

Nowadays, hemiparesis or the incomplete paralysis of one side of the body is considered to be among the most common effects of the condition in question, affecting from one to two-thirds of stroke survivors (Caimmi et al., 2016). Considering the negative effects of arm weakness on the quality of life, modern researchers are concerned with the development of new and effective rehabilitation options adjusted to post-stroke patients’ unique health needs.

Discussing the motor rehabilitation of the upper limbs, it is pivotal to pay attention to the avenues of research that are recognized as promising. For instance, the emergence of robotic technology has caught the interest of specialists in physical rehabilitation and paved the way for the development of rehabilitation robotics. Nowadays, robotic rehabilitation systems are used in different countries to treat both chronic and subacute stroke patients and to encourage motor function improvement (Caimmi et al., 2016).

In general, the implementation of repetitive interventions based on the use of rehabilitation robots is associated with increases in both upper and lower limb mobility, but the underlying mechanisms of such effects are associated with many research gaps (Dierick et al., 2017; Roy, Forrester, Macko, & Krebs, 2013).

In comparison to traditional therapies, robot-aided interventions sometimes demonstrate better effects in post-stroke patients with motor impairments, but there are also studies showing no significant differences between their effects (Caimmi et al., 2016; Nathan, Johnson, & McGuire, 2009). This review is aimed at studying the potential of different robot-aided interventions for upper extremity rehabilitation and identifying any research gaps to improve practical recommendations concerning post-stroke limb training.

Rehabilitation Robots, Robot-Assisted Interventions, and Associated Benefits

Considering the devastating effects of stroke on individuals’ motor performance, the successful post-stroke physical rehabilitation is a process that requires the concerted efforts of healthcare professionals, and the use of high-quality rehabilitation equipment with known effectiveness. Due to the development of computer systems that can control robots and enable them to perceive and process sensory information, many types of robotic devices have appeared during the recent decades (Hagiu, 2016; Hughes et al., 2011).

As for the principles of classification of tools for robotic rehabilitation, some researchers such as Hagiu (2016) emphasize the importance of the affected extremities and distinguish between the devices aimed at lower or upper limb rehabilitation. Apart from helping to increase stroke survivors’ self-service abilities, medical robots can be used in other conditions, including motor impairments after accidents (Hagiu, 2016). However, post-stroke patients present the largest category of people using medical robots for rehabilitation (Hughes et al., 2011; Hagiu, 2016).

One of the first rehabilitation robots, Mit-Manus, was presented in the middle of the 1990s, and it was aimed at facilitating horizontal movements in post-stroke patients with upper extremity paresis (Hagiu, 2016). After these early successes, more devices for upper limb rehabilitation were invented, including those focusing on vertical movements and involving multiple groups of muscles (Hagiu, 2016). In some instances, the rehabilitation of post-stroke patients can be facilitated with the help of industrial robots. For example, the study by Caimmi et al. (2016) describes the applications of industrial robots supplied with end effectors in post-stroke rehabilitation.

Grasp-assistive devices are among the trends in robot-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limbs. As an example, according to Nathan et al. (2009), devices for functional electric stimulation are being replaced by robots that allow facilitating the restoration of fine manipulation tasks such as snatching objects that are tiny or ball-shaped. With that in mind, new robots’ ability to properly measure patients’ finger movements presents an important avenue of research in the field.

Ten years ago, as is clear from the study by Nathan et al. (2009), the development of cost-effective solutions uniting the benefits of grasp-assistive devices and functional electrical stimulation was one of the most promising ideas peculiar to robot-aided rehabilitation after a stroke. In particular, the integration of similar devices with commonly used robots such as ADLER attracted different researchers’ attention.

The robot-assisted rehabilitation of the extremities is facilitated with the help of different approaches to exercise control. As for this review, arm rehabilitation, post-stroke patients with upper limb issues can use robotic systems programmed in five different ways depending on the desired effect of the exercise. To begin with, modern robots for upper extremity training allow creating a passive motion helping to prevent the stiffness of muscles that is common during the first phases of recovery (Poli, Morone, Rosati, & Masiero, 2013).

In such exercises, the device based on robotic technologies helps to move the patient’s affected arm and facilitates the mobilization of the individual’s joints (Poli et al., 2013). The next programming option such as the active exercising mode with no assistance from robotic devices can be used in the end stages of post-stroke recovery when patients are capable of performing exercises on their own and no longer need active help (Poli et al., 2013).

The process of post-stroke recovery usually involves numerous unsuccessful attempts to execute exercises. Therefore, modern rehabilitation robots have the mode that involves active assistance; it is used when patients try to make arm movements and still need help to prevent improper positions and traumas (Poli et al., 2013). As for the next option that is available to post-stroke patients with paretic arms, the so-called resistive mode allows executing exercises against the robot’s force, which helps to overcome physical weakness and strengthen the affected muscles in a non-traumatic way (Poli et al., 2013).

Finally, the exercising modes in upper extremity rehabilitation robots allow implementing both unimanual and bimanual exercises (Poli et al., 2013). The necessity of the latter is explained concerning the number of everyday tasks that require the symmetry of arm movements, but the ideas concerning the increased effectiveness of bimanual exercises do not find extensive support.

Robotic rehabilitation devices available today greatly vary when it comes to the number of functions, exercising modes, and the opportunities for patient-robot communication. In their review, Poli et al. (2013) single out eight types of robots that are different in terms of the degrees of freedom (the degree of flexibility), the focus of rehabilitation exercises, mechanical peculiarities, the presence of additional devices such as visual displays, and the release of feedback.

Being among the functions of new-generation rehabilitation robots, the provision of the so-called extrinsic or objective feedback allows reporting the results of exercises, thus increasing the levels of patient involvement and improving motor learning (Poli et al., 2013).

Feedback is often listed among the key factors that explain the growing popularity of robot-assisted interventions and their effectiveness for patients’ ability to care about themselves daily. According to Liu, Li, and Lamontagne (2018), the presence of feedback has a significant influence on the acquisition and restoration of patients’ motor skills since it informs the users of rehabilitation robots about movement quality in terms of easiness and freedom or the degree to which their attempts to perform exercises are successful. With that in mind, the opportunities to improve the quality of the released feedback interest modern developers of rehabilitation robots.

Continuing on the role of feedback in rehabilitation robotics, it is important to review two popular approaches to its use in exercises aimed at the restoration of limb function. Using the first one known as the error reduction approach to limb rehabilitation, developers emphasize the role of the optimal movement patterns defined based on the motor performance of patients’ non-affected arms or, in some cases, therapists’ observations (Liu et al., 2018).

The paradigm implies that frequent demonstration of the preferred line of movement helps the users of robotic devices to imitate it and reduce the incidence of deviations from it (Liu et al., 2018). Taking it into account, in the paradigm being discussed, extrinsic feedback is used to set limitations and inform users if they make mistakes when performing exercises. In contrast, the approach that emphasizes the role of resistance and error augmentation in rehabilitation is based on the idea that all mistakes related to the trajectory of movement can be beneficial in terms of the speed of learning and motor adaptation (Liu et al., 2018).

Researchers supporting this paradigm believe that instead of preventing any errors, it is possible to use artificially created barriers to mobilize the musculoskeletal system and encourage users to find ways to help them to move their limbs properly and adapt to physical difficulties.

Stroke-Related Hemiparesis and Rehabilitation Needs

As has been mentioned earlier, stroke belongs to the most common causes of physical disability in adults since it involves blood flow abnormalities resulting in the death of healthy brain cells. Being one of the most well-known physical effects of stroke, hemiparesis is a cause of movement deficits in the side of the body contralateral to the damage center in the brain (Poli et al., 2013). In contrast to other conditions such as hemiplegia, hemiparesis does not involve a complete paralysis of the upper or lower extremities and therefore, patients with paretic limbs have more treatment options helping them to improve movement impairments (Poli et al., 2013).

In addition to being a common consequence of stroke, hemiparesis can be congenital or result from traumatic brain injuries or even brain tumors (Poli et al., 2013). In the cases of hemiparesis, the most effective approaches to treatment should be chosen based on the cause of the condition and patients’ specific needs. Some authors whose works are included in the literature review touch upon the unique rehabilitation needs of stroke survivors with paretic limbs.

The stroke-related weakness of one side of the body manifests itself in a range of symptoms. As for the key signs of the condition in question, they are presented by muscular weakness peculiar to specific muscles, abnormalities in muscle tone responsible for the inability to maintain posture, and several similar consequences (Poli et al., 2013).

Due to problems with lower limb motor units that are common after strokes, patients with hemiparesis experience significant issues when trying to maintain equilibrium and perform some basic daily tasks that require balance. In terms of the most visible manifestations of the condition, stroke survivors with hemiparetic extremities demonstrate such symptoms as the lack of arm or leg mobility and the presence of pathological synergistic movements (Poli et al., 2013).

Typically, the latter tend to occur during the early stages of post-stroke rehabilitation. They involve a series of involuntary movements after the attempts to make a specific movement involving extremities of the affected side of the body (Poli et al., 2013). The abnormal patterns of synergistic movement cause numerous inconveniences since they prevent stroke survivors from completing the majority of everyday tasks such as dressing, brushing the teeth, or holding cutlery.

Being associated with persistent movement impairments, hemiparesis significantly affects stroke survivors’ quality of life. Despite that, hemiparesis patients have certain chances to recover from this condition. The situation with motor and functional recovery is much worse for individuals with more severe complications after strokes. For instance, according to the systematic literature review, when it comes to the prognosis for initial paralysis, less than fifteen percent of patients with this issue completely recover the limbs’ motor function (Hughes et al., 2011).

In hemiparesis, the rehabilitation of the upper extremities presents a pivotal task due to the likeliness of limitations related to self-care and independence. For example, it is known that the success of daily routine tasks involving different parts of the upper limbs greatly depends on the quality of fine motor skills (Liu et al., 2018).

Despite the significance of rehabilitation needs related to the function of the human arms, a few studies conducted in the 1980s suggest that the percent of people with stroke-related conditions who manage to achieve the functional level of upper limb activity ranges from 35 to 70 (Liu et al., 2018). Therefore, as is clear from the existing literature, the estimates concerning stroke-related hemiparesis recovery rates may vary.

The rehabilitation needs of patients with hemiparesis resulting from a stroke primarily refer to the prevention of further declines in self-care functions. Recognizing the pivotal role of self-care in successful disease recovery, modern healthcare specialists facilitate these patients’ reintegration into work and social life by providing focused care and rehabilitation exercises of high intensity (Poli et al., 2013).

Taking into consideration the high costs of individual training sessions with physiotherapists and limited budgetary resources, the development of new treatment options for hemiparesis patients is widely supported (Poli et al., 2013). Thus, the most recent advances in rehabilitation robotics are related to both effectiveness and financial considerations.

The traditionally used rehabilitation interventions for the treatment of post-stroke hemiparesis include exercises helping to increase the range of motion that are classified into three categories according to the type of movement. ROM exercises for upper limb hemiparesis are active in the movement is initiated by patients, passive if they do not control arm movement, or active-passive when patients’ and therapists’ concerted efforts take place (Liu et al., 2018; Poli et al., 2013).

Continuing on the key rehabilitation tasks, it needs to be noted that hemiparesis patients’ needs related to the restoration of coordination and spatial recognition skills require the use of stretching exercises that can be helpful in individuals with non-severe mobility issues. Considering the nature of the problem in question, approaches to the rehabilitation of stroke survivors with hemiparetic limbs should involve exercises chosen based on patients’ specific situation, the severity of hemiparesis, general health, and other factors such as the presence of traumas or long-term musculoskeletal conditions.

In the end, hemiparesis belongs to the number of conditions that significantly affect patients’ ability to care for themselves and live independently due to many symptoms related to movement coordination, synergy, the accuracy of movements, and the range of motion. Despite these symptoms’ impact on the ability to perform daily tasks, hemiparesis does not involve a full paralysis of upper and lower limbs, which increases these patients’ chances of recovery. Considering the symptoms of the condition, the associated rehabilitation needs include increasing the range of motion and motor control and eliminating abnormalities related to muscle synergy.

Robot-Assisted Interventions in Paretic Arm Rehabilitation and Their Effectiveness

As is clear from modern researchers’ findings, the use of robotic rehabilitation systems is associated with numerous advantages referring to improvements in both patients’ locomotor activity and care coordination. For instance, according to Zollo et al. (2011), medical robots contribute to the quality of training that improves cognitive and physical functions, thus helping to optimize the structure of rehabilitation strategies.

Moreover, the use of robotic devices improves the quality of rehabilitation interventions due to its effects on task distribution. When machines become responsible for the tasks that involve physical exertion or unpleasant physical manipulations, operators are enabled to focus on the exercises and performance (Zollo et al., 2011). About the latter, rehabilitation devices provide new opportunities for tracking individuals’ progress due to the accuracy of performance measurements (Zollo et al., 2011).

Various exoskeleton-based rehabilitation devices are extremely good at controlling patients’ arm joints and bones. Nevertheless, due to the peculiarities of their construction, they are not easy to attach and their use may require substantial adaptation efforts (Bertomeu-Motos et al., 2018).

More than that, in some cases, the use of exoskeletons for rehabilitation exercises does not guarantee success due to the threat of traumas stemming from the risk of misalignment between the device and the limbs (Bertomeu-Motos et al., 2018). When it comes to the use of end-effector robots in arm rehabilitation, it is associated with higher levels of user-friendliness because of a small number of the upper limb parts involved in exercises. Due to these robots’ construction, they can be adapted to different conditions and therefore, be helpful not only in the cases of arm function impairments after a stroke but also in the treatment of traumatic injuries (Bertomeu-Motos et al., 2018).

At the same time, however, the joint configuration of these robots allows them to provide data related only to the trajectory of the robot’s end-effector device and the interaction of the device and the limb (Bertomeu-Motos et al., 2018). In this situation, the opportunities to improve rehabilitation interventions based on the arm joints data are limited.

In the context of rehabilitation robotics, it is pivotal to discuss modern authors’ opinions concerning the role of robot-assisted training sessions concerning conventional rehabilitation techniques. According to the review article by Poli et al. (2013), modern rehabilitation robots are generally considered as a successful supplement to conventional therapies using non-robotic approaches to the recovery of limb functions. Apart from being regarded as a method that makes rehabilitation therapy more intensive and facilitates its frequent use, robot-aided rehabilitation presents a means of stimulating movement in a well-organized and controlled way (Poli et al., 2013).

Robotic devices are believed to demonstrate a high potential when it comes to rehabilitation – in many instances, they can be used under the care of a therapist to improve the results of non-robotic approaches by increasing training intensity (Poli et al., 2013).

According to the conclusions made by Poli et al. (2013) in their review article, robotic devices for limb rehabilitation add to the effectiveness of other post-stroke treatment methods since they allow increasing the length of separate training sessions at no cost in quality. In addition to that, robots are regarded as extremely helpful when rehabilitation interventions are expected to save therapists’ time and provide treatment flexibility by using several functional modes.

Along with similar questions, the effectiveness of different types of feedback in the promotion of motor learning was one of the key topics that interested researchers in the field of rehabilitation robotics in the 2000s (Poli et al., 2013; Hagiu, 2016). Thus, the great role of visual, kinematic, and verbal feedback in motor learning abilities of healthy test subjects was demonstrated by Van Vliet and Wulf in 2006 and involved some implications to post-stroke robot-assisted rehabilitation (Poli et al., 2013).

Three years later, the study conducted by a group of Italian researchers including Casadio, Giannon, Morasso, and Sanguineti proved the effectiveness of both visual and proprioceptive feedback in improving the upper and lower limb motor control in post-stroke hemiparesis patients (Hagiu, 2016).

In addition to visual feedback released with the help of special displays, modern devices widely use haptic communication to provide users with assistance during training sessions. For instance, the assistive glove to be integrated into different robotic systems such as ADLER designed by Nathan et al. (2009) utilizes a peculiar fingertip construction to make use of haptic feedback. Therefore, the importance of extrinsic feedback belongs to the key themes linked to the outcomes of robot-assisted interventions, and its quality can be potentially related to rehabilitation results in post-stroke populations.

In their qualitative work, Cherry et al. (2017) study a sample of post-stroke veterans with hemiparesis using robotic devices for home-based upper or lower limb training and generalize on the patient-perceived pros and cons of robotic rehabilitation. HandMentor, a robotic device providing active assistance in rehabilitation, was used for upper limb training two hours a day for three months. To promote progress, the participants were required to raise the bar regularly and proceed from the easiest exercises to the most difficult ones.

The thematic analysis of interviews conducted by Cherry et al. (2017) demonstrates the following themes associated with the use of HandMentor: increases in the mobility of impaired arms observed by the test subjects or their caregivers/healthcare providers, the improved patient-perceived unity of the mind and the body, flexibility in treatment organization, and reduced anxiety levels. Despite the presence of barriers related to the proper use of robotic devices, the positive impact of rehabilitation robots on the mobility of the impaired extremities was among the most represented themes, indicating the success of active assistance exercises in arm rehabilitation.

Similar to Cherry et al. (2017), Hughes et al. (2011) analyze the perceived effectiveness of robot-assisted interventions used to treat stroke survivors with severe hemiparesis. In the experiment conducted by Hughes et al. (2011), five patients with chronic hemiparesis received eighteen hours of robot-assisted training with the help of a device using a robotic arm and the repetitive method of system control (ILC) mediated by electric stimulation.

The intervention involved a series of robot-assisted tracking tasks performed using almost thirty different movement trajectories (Hughes et al., 2011). The differences between the pre- and post-intervention isometric force and Fugl-Meyer motor scores were significant (the p-value of 0.02), as distinct from the results of the action research arm test (Hughes et al., 2011). Concerning the study’s qualitative component, the thematic analysis of structured/half-structured 30-minute interviews helped retrieve the following themes: the usability of the robotic system, the participants’ divided opinions concerning the short-term effectiveness of the system, and all patients’ willingness to recommend the intervention to other stroke survivors (Hughes et al., 2011).

Despite the absence of changes in ARAT pre- and post-intervention scores that would be clinically relevant, some participants observed positive changes related to the degree of impairment and limb function (Hughes et al., 2011). Thus, the patient-reported effectiveness of the intervention varied from person to person.

Some statements found in the existing literature prove that the success of robot-assisted interventions for upper limb rehabilitation is inextricably connected to the stage of post-stroke recovery and parts of the arm involved in exercises. An example of such conclusions is present in the article by Hagiu (2016) containing references to the systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted by Norouzi-Gheidari, Archambault, and Fung in 2012. According to the review of twelve RCTs published between 1997 and 2009, robot-assisted interventions aimed at paretic arm rehabilitation do not excel conventional therapies in terms of effectiveness (Hagiu, 2016).

However, in the acute and subacute stages of post-stroke recovery, the combination of conventional and robot-assisted interventions is more effective for increasing the mobility of paretic elbows and shoulders compared to conventional therapies (Hagiu, 2016). Therefore, robot-assisted rehabilitation interventions are not more effective for arm rehabilitation in hemiparesis than non-robotic training sessions with therapists.

To define the degree to which robots are effective for upper limb rehabilitation, attention should also be paid to the characteristics of patients with hemiparesis. The study by Colombo, Sterpi, Mazzone, Delconte, and Pisano (2013) reviews the hypothesis developed by Kwakkel et al. in 2006. According to it, stroke patients are different in terms of their capacity to recover, and progress in rehabilitation may depend on the intensity and length of training sessions, exercise environment, and similar factors instead of being predetermined only by the reduction of neurological impairments (Colombo et al., 2013).

Based on this suggestion, the outcomes of rehabilitation therapy may need to be analyzed concerning patients’ initial conditions and other factors. In their literature review section, Colombo et al. (2013) also mention the study conducted in 2008 by a group of researchers led by Volpe. According to its results, intensive movement therapies delivered by robots (InMotion2) and therapists are effective for arm motor performance in hemiparesis patients, but robot-assisted training sessions do not cause more significant improvements compared to conventional training (Colombo et al., 2013). Thus, despite robots’ overall effectiveness for upper extremity rehabilitation, their advantages over non-robotic training sessions with therapists remain a doubtful idea.

Among the chosen articles, some works are focusing on the effectiveness of end-effector rehabilitation robots in the restoration of arm function. As an example, the study by Zollo et al. (2011) is devoted to the outcomes of robot-assisted interventions based on the use of InMotion 2 and InMotion3 to improve chronic stroke patients’ ability to control the affected arm. After six weeks of robot-aided therapy for wrists and both elbows and shoulders involving three types of games, statistically, significant reductions in the levels of impairment were found (Zollo et al., 2011).

Discussing the results, the researchers report an increase of Fugl-Meyer scores by almost 10% and a 7.4% increase in motor planning scores (Zollo et al., 2011). These results, the researchers believe, align with the findings reported by Brewer and her colleagues in 2007, according to which robot-aided therapies that are goal-directed are extremely effective for arm rehabilitation in post-stroke hemiparesis in terms of functional improvement and the involved muscles’ strength (Zollo et al., 2011). These findings support the hypothesis concerning the effectiveness of robot-assisted interventions for arm rehabilitation in hemiparesis.

To contribute to the field, Colombo et al. (2013) have studied a sample of forty stroke patients (both subacute and chronic) with unilateral brain lesions resulting in limb impairments. All patients had at least three weeks of upper extremity training (5 hours every week) using MEMOS – elbow-shoulder manipulators with two degrees of freedom and a robotic workstation based on haptic technology (Colombo et al., 2013).

Training sessions consisted of the phases of unassisted movement and robot-assisted exercises. Based on the analysis of patients’ Fugl-Meyer arm motor scores and muscle plasticity before and after the experiment, both sub-acute and chronic patients managed to improve their impairments (F = 44.25, p < 0.001) (Colombo et al., 2013). However, about the FM scale, sub-acute test subjects’ improvement (12.05±9.61) was more obvious than that of chronic stroke patients (3.00±2.61) (Colombo et al., 2013).

The results justify conclusions that in patients in the sub-acute phase of recovery, longer rehabilitation programs are needed to achieve maximum positive results (Colombo et al., 2013). Also, they demonstrate that robot-assisted interventions positively impact the motor recovery of the impaired arm in post-stroke patients.

The use of robots for rehabilitation is generally associated with positive outcomes both for patients and operators. In general, speaking about the benefits of robot-assisted interventions for stroke patients, modern researchers claim that this approach to rehabilitation allows increasing training intensity, focusing on the role of patients in exercises, and using repetition to achieve positive results (Zollo et al., 2011). These conclusions are supported by Nathan et al. (2009) who regard motivation and repetition as the essentials of successful rehabilitation after a stroke. Therefore, many researchers support the opinion that robot-assisted rehabilitation is effective in setting priorities and attracting more attention to patients, their limb functioning, and exercise performance.

The development of rehabilitation options aimed at improving the functions of different parts of the upper extremities presents an important task in rehabilitation robotics. Nathan et al. (2009) believe that in the majority of cases, robotic interventions for upper limb recovery emphasize the importance of reaching tasks, whereas tasks that involve fingers remain underestimated. The attempts to broaden the range of exercises available in robot-assisted rehabilitation resulted in the creation of new multi-purpose robots such as ADLER (Nathan et al., 2009). In comparison to robots that facilitate only arm movement, ADLER uses assistive devices to improve patients’ ability to grasp objects, thus focusing on fine movements (Nathan et al., 2009).

Because of the chosen research question, it is pivotal to characterize the state of knowledge concerning the types of devices specifically aimed at upper limb functional improvement. Robotic devices facilitating the rehabilitation of the upper extremities can vary depending on the way that they are attached to the impaired limb. According to Bertomeu-Motos et al. (2018), the motor function of the upper extremities can be improved with the help of exoskeleton-based devices that align robot axes with the axes of extremity segments controlling specific joints.

The second well-known type of device used in arm rehabilitation is presented by end-effector robots that focus on the distal segments of the limbs (Bertomeu-Motos et al., 2018). Judging from the differences related to their operation, the two classes of rehabilitation robots are dissimilar in terms of benefits for patients who have difficulties with arm movement.

Discussion

The effectiveness of robot-assisted interventions in the rehabilitation of the upper extremities in post-stroke subjects with hemiparesis presents an important question, and modern researchers try to approach it in different ways. For instance, in addition to measuring the objective changes in arm movement characteristics, there have been some attempts to study these interventions’ outcomes in terms of subjective experiences.

As is demonstrated in the previous section, the studies focusing on patient-perceived effectiveness of rehabilitation robots are not widely represented in the chosen literature. Some of the reviewed studies demonstrate that patients’ perceptions of the effectiveness of robot-assisted interventions vary, but many of the research subjects are still willing to recommend robotic rehabilitation to friends and acquaintances with stroke-related arm impairments.

Apart from the importance of patient-reported benefits of robotic rehabilitation, many studies discuss the outcomes of robot-assisted arm training concerning conventional approaches. Although many researchers observe arm motor improvements in their test subjects, which point at the effectiveness of robots for rehabilitation, some statements regarding robotic devices and their ability to replace other methods of post-stroke rehabilitation may seem too bold.

For instance, although robotic rehabilitation has benefits related to performance analysis and the costs of treatment, there is no solid evidence that it can replace physiotherapy. However, it is accepted that a combination of the two approaches can be more effective for upper limb rehabilitation in post-stroke populations than conventional therapies.

Conclusion/Recommendations

In the end, rehabilitation robots are widely used to facilitate recovery from different conditions such as stroke or car accident-related traumas. Concerning their effectiveness for arm rehabilitation in hemiparesis patients, it is demonstrated in the reviewed literature concerning some types of robots such as HandMentor, InMotion2, InMotion3, and the MEMOS robotic system. However, despite their benefits for upper limb functioning and mobility, robotic-assisted interventions alone are not enough for arm rehabilitation. Based on the literature review and the existing research gaps, the following recommendations can be provided:

1. More studies are required to comparatively analyze different types of robots for arm rehabilitation with attention to practical outcomes;
2. In acute and sub-acute stages of stroke recovery, the use of both robot-assisted interventions and conventional therapies maximizes positive outcomes;
3. Compared to chronic stroke patients, individuals in the sub-acute phase need longer training sessions to improve arm use;
4. Robot-assisted interventions should not be used in stroke patients who have arm fractures and severe upper limb spasticity.

References

Bertomeu-Motos, A., Blanco, A., Badesa, F. J., Barios, J. A., Zollo, L., & Garcia-Aracil, N. (2018). Human arm joints reconstruction algorithm in rehabilitation therapies assisted by end-effector robotic devices. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 15(1), 1-11.

Caimmi, M., Visani, E., Digiacomo, F., Scano, A., Chiavenna, A., Gramigna, C.,… Panzica, F. (2016). Predicting functional recovery in chronic stroke rehabilitation using event-related desynchronization-synchronization during robot-assisted movement. BioMed Research International, 2016, 1-11.

Cherry, C. O. B., Chumbler, N. R., Richards, K., Huff, A., Wu, D., Tilghman, L. M., & Butler, A. (2017). Expanding stroke telerehabilitation services to rural veterans: A qualitative study on patient experiences using the robotic stroke therapy delivery and monitoring system program. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(1), 21-27.

Colombo, R., Sterpi, I., Mazzone, A., Delconte, C., & Pisano, F. (2013). Robot-aided neurorehabilitation in sub-acute and chronic stroke: Does spontaneous recovery have a limited impact on outcome? NeuroRehabilitation, 33(4), 621-629.

Dierick, F., Dehas, M., Isambert, J. L., Injeyan, S., Bouché, A. F., Bleyenheuft, Y., & Portnoy, S. (2017). Hemorrhagic versus ischemic stroke: Who can best benefit from blended conventional physiotherapy with robotic-assisted gait therapy? PloS One, 12(6), e0178636.

Hagiu, B. A. (2016). The physiotherapist will be replaced by robot? Sport & Society/Sport si Societate, 16, 53-57.

Hughes, A. M., Burridge, J., Freeman, C. T., Donnovan-Hall, M., Chappell, P. H., Lewin, P. L.,… Dibb, B. (2011). Stroke participants’ perceptions of robotic and electrical stimulation therapy: A new approach. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(2), 130-138.

Liu, L. Y., Li, Y., & Lamontagne, A. (2018). The effects of error-augmentation versus error-reduction paradigms in robotic therapy to enhance upper extremity performance and recovery post-stroke: A systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 15, 1-25.

Nathan, D. E., Johnson, M. J., & McGuire, J. R. (2009). Design and validation of low-cost assistive glove for hand assessment and therapy during activity of daily living-focused robotic stroke therapy. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 46(5), 587-602.

Poli, P., Morone, G., Rosati, G., & Masiero, S. (2013). Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: New tools for stroke patients’ therapy. BioMed Research International, 2013, 1-8.

Roy, A., Forrester, L. W., Macko, R. F., & Krebs, H. I. (2013). Changes in passive ankle stiffness and its effects on gait function in people with chronic stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 50(4), 555-572.

Zollo, L., Rossini, L., Bravi, M., Magrone, G., Sterzi, S., & Guglielmelli, E. (2011). Quantitative evaluation of upper-limb motor control in robot-aided rehabilitation. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 49(10), 1131-1144.

The paper is aimed at summarizing the article titled “Predicting functional recovery in chronic stroke rehabilitation using event-related desynchronization-synchronization during robot-assisted movement”. The work was published in 2016, but the period when the study took place is not specified. However, judging from the date of receipt and the researchers’ affiliated institutions, the study had commenced in Italy before 2015 (Caimmi et al., 2016). The article presents the results of a preliminary prospective study that focuses on potential cortical activity changes following robot-assisted rehabilitation interventions.

In the article being analyzed, there is no information pointing at the presence of blinded experiments since it was a preliminary study with an unequal number of healthy and post-stroke patients. The information about the groups of participants was available to clinicians and study personnel since the only post-stroke individual in the sample needed special procedures to participate. Therefore, ethical issues related to blinded experiments were absent.

There were more than four data collection points and follow-up assessments were conducted one year after the experiment. However, the number of participants was the same during all research steps, and all nine subjects were able to attend all assessments.

The researchers did not use the principles of random sampling in the study, so the assignment of patients was not randomized. Instead, sampling was selective since the experimentation included or excluded participants based on their health status. At the same time, it can be supposed that the researchers relied on one more characteristic of individuals to include or exclude new participants – handedness (Caimmi et al., 2016).

In general, the article does not present a thorough discussion of practices for the recruitment of participants or an extensive list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. To some extent, it can be related to its being a preliminary study to be replicated in the future with larger samples and stricter methodological principles. The presence of non-compliant participants is not mentioned because all robotic-assisted exercises were performed under medical surveillance. Also, the potential impact of lifestyle-related factors on follow-up assessment results was not discussed, which can be a potential problem.

The study does not seem to be biased since both groups received treatment based on the presence or absence of specific rehabilitation needs. The group that consisted of participants with no disorders had no special needs, and the exercises and evaluation sessions were structured accordingly. As for the only patient with rehabilitation needs after stroke, before the actual experiment, she needed to perform some exercises using her unaffected limb, and the data were used to ensure the effectiveness of the exercises. Therefore, the treatment that the groups received was different in detail, but such dissimilarities were fair and based on objective information related to medical conditions. Importantly, no participants were required to spend financial resources to use expensive devices for rehabilitation.

In the end, the results of the study do not seem to apply to my professional practice with clients who have rehabilitation needs. The first factor that limits the ability to implement the findings into practice is the prevalence of healthy subjects in the sample, which causes some concerns related to the clinical validity of findings. The results are research-based, but it is clear from the formulation of the research question that the study focused on the effects of fully robotic assistance on healthy individuals’ cortical activity.

At the same time, people with actual neurorehabilitation needs are underrepresented in the sample, and one woman with hemiparesis was included only for comparison. Due to the focus of the study and the sample’s characteristics, the results are unlikely to impact the working practices that I use with post-stroke clients.

Reference

Caimmi, M., Visani, E., Digiacomo, F., Scano, A., Chiavenna, A., Gramigna, C.,… Panzica, F. (2016). Predicting functional recovery in chronic stroke rehabilitation using event-related desynchronization-synchronization during robot-assisted movement. BioMed Research International, 2016, 1‑11. Web.

Introduction

Many countries are increasingly facing challenges of an ageing population which include the provision of care for the elderly persons with deteriorating health, and diminishing mental and physical capabilities. This is coupled with the challenge of declining workforce and deficiencies of healthcare practitioners. Technological advances can offer surged remote monitoring as well as management of elderly patient with chronic diseases.

Robots’ utilization in this field is receiving growing attention in study. Robotic technologies applications encompass medication, surgery, dispensing, and stroke suffers’ rehabilitation. Trivial pet-like robotic technology can offer companionship where elderly chronic patients can no longer offer care for an actual animal. Nonetheless, the adoption and uptake of robotic technologies in nursing is yet to meet original forecasts for the care provision. Certain robots introduced to age-care facilities have never been utilized by residents and have since dropped out of commercial production (Eimontaite et al., 2019).

The reason for the lack of desired uptake might be that robotic technology designers have never sufficiently investigated the desires and the needs of nursing staff and aged-care facilities’ residents. Researchers have demonstrated that the elderly are specifically willing and ready to accept robotic technologies whenever they speak to a perceived need and they see that they are able to provide surged autonomy.

Designers might further have failed to acknowledge the seniors have distinguished attitudes towards these robotic technologies than the young population. The seniors have shown greater levels of technological mistrust and always find them increasingly sophisticated to utilize. They are further more probably to give up when face with challenges instead of seeking for help. Despite of this emerging development in nursing, robotics in Saudi Arabia is still unexplored in the area of geriatric nursing. The main objective of this study is to investigate the attitudes and knowledge of Saudi nurse managers towards the adoption of robotics for remote monitoring and management of elderly patient with chronic illness in an aged-care facility.

Background

There remains a scarcity of research probing the acceptance of robotic/assistive technologies with elderly patients and their respective caregiver and nurse managers. Previous studies have showcased that impediments to the utilization of assistive or robotic technologies encompass feeling of discomfiture amongst the elderly patients with chronic illness alongside lack of knowledge and negative attitudes amongst the nurse managers whereas enabling factors/drivers include comfort and ease of use, positive attitude, a feeling of surged personal security and safety, as well as gratification whenever goals are accomplished (Ivaldi et al., 2017).

Abilities and attitudes remain significant variables in the utilization of these robotic technologies by the senior population. Ethnographic researchers probing how seniors utilize available assistive technologies have buttressed the significance of the ability of robots to help independence and uphold the users’ dignity.

This study seeks to generate recommendations that robotic technology designers need to take into account how robot shall fit within user accommodation, work to come up with an easy interface for the seniors, and make sure that robotic assistive technologies can interact effectively with elderly persons with diverse abilities (Kangasniemi, Karki, Colley & Voutilainen, 2019). This study will emphasize on the significance of matching the ability of robots to the needs of the users (Chen, King, Thomaz & Kemp, 2014).

While robots are able to take different forms, based on their specific tasks, the degree to which they seem human is believe to dictate their acceptance, with a plunge in acceptance in case they appear uncannily human-like. Research has demonstrated that people favor less human-looking robotic technologies and other studies have suggested that the seniors would prefer robots to appear serious and view them as being there for task performance, whereas the younger individuals favor increasingly human-like as well as lively robots (Pochwatk et al. 2015).

Aim of the Study

The study aims to prove that the designer of robotic technology is crucial for their use especially among the older patients and those with various forms of disabilities.

Objectives of the Study

The study has three objectives.

1. The primary objective of the study is to investigate the attitudes and knowledge of nurse managers towards the adoption of robotics for remote monitoring and management of elderly patient with chronic illness in an aged-care facility.
2. To develop recommendations that robotic technology designers need to take into account when developing the technologies particularly in regards to user interface.
3. To prove that there is a direct relationship between the usage and acceptance of robotic technology among elderly and disabled patients and the user interface of the technology involved.
4. To highlight some of the things that are considered crucial for usage of robotic technology among both nursing staff and elderly patients.

Research Question

What are the crucial elements robotic technology designers need to take into account on how their technologies fit within user accommodation, have an easy interface for senior patients, and ensure elderly persons with diverse abilities can interact effectively with their technologies?

Hypothesis

If the robotic technology developers consider user accommodation, an easy interface for senior patients, and ensure elderly persons with diverse abilities can interact effectively with their technologies then there will be more buy-in from nurse managers on the adoption of these technologies.

Study Significance

The current study offers an initial desirable guide for the appearance and tasks suitable for a robotic assistive technology to provide help/assistance for the elderly patients with chronic illness in the aged-care facilities and outline the pertinent concerns. The study intends to identify and suggest the best guide for designers of robots and age-care facilities seeking to utilize novel technologies (Ito et al., 2015).

It will help nurse managers in caring for the elderly by using appropriate robots for effective falls detection, monitoring elderly persons’ locations, in both rest homes and independent living as well as recommend robotic use in dementia care. This is because the study seeks to identify various task of robots like a social robot and chore robot where the former might provide companionship in dementia care, rest homes, hospital, and independent living while latter might assist in heavy items’ lifting, delivering drinks, cleaning, putting electronics on or off and helping with mobility (Çelik. Hikmet & İhsaniye, 2017).

The study will be importance since it will understand why the saudi nurse managers have negative or positive attitudes and knowledge towards the robots yet these are effective assistive technologies that can relieve nurses from many redundancy of works.

Definition of Terms

There are several key terms that have been used in the report. This section gives definition of the core terms.

1. Robotic technology – the design and management of robots for purposes of replicating human actions.
2. User interface – the space or platform where humans interact with computers
3. Age-care facilities – homes for the elderly that take care of both their health and general wellness.
4. Geriatric nursing – aspect in nursing that involves taking care of the elderly and the aging.
5. Chronic illness – a disease or health condition that persists more than three months. These conditions or diseases cannot be prevented by vaccines or treated (Chien et al., 2019).
6. NARS – Refers to the Negative Attitudes Towards Robots Scale, which in turn highlights the different undesirable opinions people have regarding the use of robotic technology.
7. HRI – human-robot interaction.

Literature Review and Framework

There are various studies that have already been conducted on the negative attitudes towards robot scales. Ivaldi et al. (2017) argue that there has been significant bias in the measurement of the impact of robot technology on patients. The issue of measurement of impact is debatably relevant to the designers only. This has been made so due to the profitability margin. Ivaldi et al. (2017) reveal that technology has indeed advanced not only geriatric nursing, but nursing in general. Korn (2019) notes that in Saudi Arabia, whereas there are currently no nurses who have specialized or adopted robotic technology, there is significant interest in the same. However, the challenge recorded is the low understanding of the importance of using robots in nursing.

Due to the fact that there is no active push for more knowledge on the impact of robots on nursing industry, it is arguable that the attitudes towards the same are negative. Korn (2019) argues that one of the reasons nursing managers in Saudi Arabia have a negative attitude towards robots is the fact that there have been myths on human-robot interactions within the society. The scholar explains that one of the common myths regarding human-robot interactions is the fact that robots will take over human jobs, rending the nurses jobless. Whereas there are cases where robots have been used to replace humans, this is not the case in nursing (Tuisku, Pekkarinen, Hennala & Melkas, 2019).

It is important to note that communication barriers are also highly associated with the negative attitudes nurse managers have towards robots. Chen et al. (2014) argue that communication barriers not only affects the older patients but also the nurses themselves as some are more comfortable speaking Arabic. Chien et al. (2019) argue that a significant percentage of elderly people will have differences in speech patterns compared to the average or younger age generations. Additionally, robotic technology that requires speech has to consider the fact that elderly and gaining patients might also suffer from speech disabilities. Therefore, one of NARS main complaints is that robots that use speech recognition do not work due to the fact that they are programmed to understand a specific type of voice.

It is important to note that nursing managers in Saudi Arabia are also assumed to have a negative perception of robotics technology due to the fact that they have not adopted the technology in the field yet. This, coupled with the fact that the society is largely conservative, makes it difficult for the industry to move forward in regards to embracing robotic technologies. It is arguable that a significant majority of the elderly and aging population, who are the core patients in gentry nursing, also speak Arabic, which is the main language in the region. Thus, robotic technologies developers have to consider translation for people in non-English speaking countries when manufacturing their technologies as it will make adherence easier.

Theoretical Framework

Ivaldi et al. (2017) argue that human-robot interaction is characterised by heterogeneity. The theory suggests that the interaction between humans and robots is diverse and is often affected by various elements. For example, as mentioned in the literature review, language and the fact that there is little knowledge on the positive impact robotics technology have in nursing have made it difficult for the industry to effectively implement the same.

Thus, it is arguable, that to some extent, the NARS scores in Saudi Arabia will be high. The human-robot interaction theory also suggests that the only way to alter people’s attitudes towards robots is through proper understanding of the workings of the robot, and a friendly user interface. Ivaldi et al. (2017) explain that these two factors will ensure that both the nurse managers and the gaining and elderly patients appreciate the impact and importance of robotic technology in geriatric nursing.

Methods

Research Design

The study will use a descriptive research design. This design was selected due to the fact that it allows the researcher to collect the characteristics of the population, thus, feeding directly into the aim and research objectives. It is also important to mention that the research study will use constructivism research philosophy. The choice on the research philosophy is based on the fact that different people are expected to have different experienced with the robotic technologies. Additionally, it is assumed that even though the participants might have experienced the use of the same technology, their experiences will be different. It is also important to note that the research philosophy is also based on the fact that the participants will be from the same community, thus, have the same cultural bias, yet it is expected that they will offer differing opinions.

Sample of the Study

The participants will be drawn from the nursing departments of several age-care facilities. The sample will be made up of nurse managers and middle nurse managers.

Sampling Design

The study will use both random sampling and stratified sampling design and methodology. The random sampling will be used to select the larger group from the facilities. However, it is not possible to select equal numbers of participants who have had an experience with robotic technologies. Thus, the stratified sampling methodology will be used to make this comparison.

Sample Size

The study will involve a total of 150 participants drawn across various age-care facilities. The number per facility will depend on the overall number of the available staff.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Only nurses who are in middle or senior management will be included in the study. This is due to the fact that the study will focus on opinions and thoughts on robotic technology adoption in the industry.

Research Instruments

Questionnaire will include demographic info, list of robot task for subjects to rate on five-point scale from “not at all useful (one) to extremely useful (5) alongside negative attitude toward robots scale (NARS) on which participants will rate how they are seeing robots on fourteen items rated. The NARS items scores will be summed hence creating a total score; and NARS will have high internal consistency alongside a low score indicating an increasingly positive attitude (Chien et al., 2019). The research instrument selected, questionnaire, is ideal as it complements the research design selected as well. Additionally, it offers a viable way of collecting primary data.

To measure the negative attitudes, the Negative Attitude Towards Robots Scale is used. Korn (2019) explains that NARS was developed using responses from various participants regarding their personal experiences and beliefs regarding robotic technology. The development of NARS combined the participant’s responses to 14 research questions. It is arguable that the 14 questions are very comprehensive. Additionally, these questions only sought to analyze personal opinion but did not, in a comprehensive way, show a reliable system of measurement of the impacts. There have been various attempts to validate the tool and make sure that it also measures impact effectively. Korn (2019) argues that this is one of the most criticized element of NARS.

Korn (2019) argues that one of the limitations of NARS is that the original version only considered a specific sample. The scholar notes that there are various disadvantages associated with the use of a longitudinal research approach in different cultural scenarios. Ideally, such a tool, that was meant to be tested and used in various settings should have used a cross-sectional research design. It is arguable that the validity and reliability of NARS is affected by the use of the longitudinal approach that did not consider how the tool will be implemented across different samples. Currently, as Korn (2019) confirms, different samples have had to translate and re-invent the same tool in order for it to be reliable and valid in their set-up. This has further ensured that both nurse managers, nursing staff, aging, and the elderly patients have a negative attitude towards robotics technology.

Validity and reliability

The research instrument selected is both valid and reliable. To ensure its validity and reliability, the research conducted a pre-testing after the development of the tool. The testing sample was collected from a facility that was not identified as one of the sample facilities. Thus, the researcher applied the content validity approach. This ensured that no participant who was involved in the testing was also involved in the actual study. It is important to mention that through this, the researcher also used the over-time, test-retest reliability approach.

Data Collection

Data will be collected through two methods, namely secondary and primary data collection methods. The secondary data collection methods acquired information from desktop research and previous studies done on the same topic. A bit of the data collected through the secondary approach has been presented in the literature review. On the other hand, the researcher will use a questionnaire to collect the primary data. Both types of data will be used to write the final report.

Data Analysis

The study will use a combination of qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods. The researcher will use the grounded theory of qualitative design and descriptive statistics for the quantitative design.

Ethical Consideration

There are several ethical considerations that the researcher has to consider when conducting the research. The first is how the study affects the cultural norms of the participants. This is important due to the fact that in Saudi Arabia, there are several cultural norms that have to be adhered to at all times. For example, it would be unethical for the researcher to use male research assistants to interact with female nurse managers without their guardians. However, the involvement of guardians might hinder the responses. Due to this, it is important for the researcher to have both female and male research assistants to ensure that the cultural norm is observed.

Secondly, an ethical issue that might come up with the safety of the data collected. This concern goes hand in hand with the safety of any personal information that might be collected during the study. To curb this concern, the researcher will not collect any personal information that might lead to the identification of the participants. Additionally, the participants will be assured that the data collected is only for academic purposes. The researcher will take the participants through the proper way of disposing of the raw data once the research is concluded. It is also important that the researcher assures the participants that their participation is voluntary and they are free to pull out of the study at any point and for whatever reason they feel like.

Additionally, it is important that the researcher gets permission and buy in from the age-care facilities before conducting the study. This will ensure that the research runs smoothly with the support of the management. Additionally, this will make it easier for the targeted nursing managers to participate in the study.

Limitation of the Study

One of the limitations of the study is the amount of time and cost needed to do the study. Since this is an academic study, the time line provided for the collection of both secondary and primary data, and the analysis of the collected data is short. A longer period would allow the researcher to delve deep into the study and find more complex relations between the design of the robotic technology and its usage among the aging and elderly patients of the different age-care facilities. Additionally, the researcher has to personally fund the project and this limits the scope. This is due to the fact that research studies can be significantly expensive.

The researcher will have to move from one facility to the other in order to conduct the study effectively. The logistic costs are high plus the additional fact that the researcher will have to get at least two research assistants in order to get the data collected on time.

References

Çelik, Ş., Hikmet, N., & İhsaniye, Ü. (2017). Health Information Technology in Nursing: Views and Attitudes of Nurse Managers. Hacettepe Journal of Health Administration, 20(4), 409-427.

Chen, T. L., King, C. H. A., Thomaz, A. L., & Kemp, C. C. (2014). An investigation of responses to robot-initiated touch in a nursing context. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 141-161.

Chien, S. E., Chu, L., Lee, H. H., Yang, C. C., Lin, F. H., Yang, P. L.,… & Yeh, S. L. (2019). Age Difference in Perceived Ease of Use, Curiosity, and Implicit Negative Attitude toward Robots. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 8(2), 9.

Eimontaite, I., Gwilt, I., Cameron, D., Aitken, J. M., Rolph, J., Mokaram, S., & Law, J. (2019). Dynamic Graphical Signage Improves Response Time and Decreases Negative Attitudes Towards Robots in Human-Robot Co-working. In Human Friendly Robotics (pp. 139-149). Springer, Cham.

Ito, H., Miyagawa, M., Kuwamura, Y., Yasuhara, Y., Tanioka, T., & Locsin, R. (2015). Professional nurses’ attitudes towards the introduction of humanoid nursing robots (HNRs) in health care settings. Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences, 9, 73-81.

Ivaldi, S., Lefort, S., Peters, J., Chetouani, M., Provasi, J., & Zibetti, E. (2017). Towards engagement models that consider individual factors in HRI: On the relation of extroversion and negative attitude towards robots to gaze and speech during a human–robot assembly task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(1), 63-86.

Kangasniemi, M., Karki, S., Colley, N., & Voutilainen, A. (2019). The use of robots and other automated devices in nurses’ work: An integrative review. International journal of nursing practice, e12739.

Korn, O. (2019). Social robots: Technological, societal and ethical aspects of human-robot interaction. Cham: Springer.

Pochwatko, G., Giger, J. C., Różańska-Walczuk, M., Świdrak, J., Kukiełka, K., Możaryn, J., & Piçarra, N. (2015). Polish version of the negative attitude toward robots scale (NARS-PL). Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 9.

Tuisku, O., Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., & Melkas, H. (2019). “Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”: The publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Information Technology & People, 32(1), 47-67.

In the areas of healthcare where the lack of qualifications is the strongest, new technologies are very much appreciated, and social assistance is one of these areas. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology studied the use of robotic technology in this field and concluded that it could not be said for sure whether robots could play a leading role in healthcare. Many robots are still at the design stage, but the question of whether they can integrate into the existing technologies and existing social environment or even replace them is already actively discussed. One of the most interesting and successful projects in this area is GrowMeUp, which is sponsored by the EU and has developed a robot called GrowMu. It can adapt to changes in the environment, grow with the patient and develop an understanding of a person’s routine and the ways it may be improved.

GrowMu has a cloud-based platform with access to a great amount of data and a social assistance network. Their major advantage is that these robots are also suitable for older people who are very happy to accept them as assistants, although afraid to give them too much control. Of course, it will take time before the robots appear in nursing homes and begin to care for the elderly, but now developers are moving in this direction because this will lead to significant money savings. Moreover, such technologies will be able to free human personnel so that they can perform other tasks they are better at. However, there is a fear that robots will not be staff assistants but their replacement, which will lead to higher unemployment and a decrease in medical care. Many new technologies must first overcome several obstacles in order to become a part of the service environment, and robots are no exception. Nevertheless, people can safely assume that in the near future, robots will actively begin to become assistants to health workers.