International Journal of Applied Science - Research and Review Open Access

Keywords

Assistive technology; Healthcare; Education; Human behaviour

Introduction

Humanoid Robots have been helping human beings in various capacities. Humanoid robots have been broadly used in the field of Healthcare, Education, and Entertainment; Moreover, Humanoid robots have been playing diverse roles in the human environment such as interacting socially and helping people as a friend, teacher, assistant, and remote healthcare provider.

This paper performs a systematic literature review of humanoid robots to study its applications, benefits, and limitations in various fields.

Specifics

This paper classifies humanoid robots based on their application. In the following section, the paper state the research questions that need to be addressed and conducts a literature review to study the same and describes the findings. In the discussion and conclusion, this paper highlights factors influencing human-robot interaction and lists some of the key takeaways at the end.

Humanoid Robots

Definition

A humanoid robot is a robot that not only resembles human's physical attributes especially one head, a torso, and two arms but also should have the capability to communicate with humans and other robots, interpret information, and perform limited activities according to the user’s input. Humanoid robots are equipped with sensors and actuators. These robots are typically pre-programmed for determined specific activities.

Based on typical applications, humanoid robots can be categorized into Healthcare, Educational and Social humanoid robot. Healthcare humanoid robots are used by patients at home or healthcare centers to treat and improve their medical conditions. These robots either require a human controller or are fully preprogrammed to assist patients. Educational humanoid robots are for students and are used in education centers or home to improve education quality and increase involvement in studies. These robots are typically manually controlled robots. Social humanoid robots are used by individuals or organizations to help and assist people in their daily life activities. These robots are commonly preprogrammed to perform mundane tasks and are also known as assistive robots.

Research questions

There have been many instances where robots have been used to reduce human error. Manufacturing, healthcare, hospitality, education, and many other fields use robots in some form; Moreover, the application of robots in the military, manufacturing, and research is well-established. A humanoid robot is a specific robot that is in its developing phase. Humanoid robots can perform several human-like physical activities; however, its effectiveness, especially in the field of healthcare, education and social, is a concern. In this study we are focusing on the following questions:

What is the effect of human age and gender on the application of a humanoid robot?

When do people accept and trust a humanoid robot?

This paper conducts a literature review and based on published literature, addresses the stated questions.

Literature Review

This paper conducts a systemic literature review of a humanoid robot and summarizes all the research and studies conducted in the last ten years. The search for this review was limited to ACM Digital Library, ASME Digital Collection, BIOSIS Citation Index, CINDAS Microelectronics Packaging Material Database, Cite Seer, Computer Database, Emerald Library, Energy & Power Source, Engineering Village, IEEE Xplore, MEDLINE, OSA Publishing, PubMed, Safari Books Online, Science Direct, Sci Finder, SPIE Digital Library and Springer Database. The search was conducted using "Humanoid Robot," and all papers containing the phrase anywhere in the content were considered for further analysis. This keyword "Humanoid Robot" gave 12,261 results that included books, articles, conference proceedings, newspaper articles, dissertations, retracted papers, technical reports, audiovisuals, government documents, statistical data sets, and images.

Selection/ Exclusion criteria

As mentioned above, our focus was restricted to papers published between 2008 and 2018. Further constraints such as material type and language were set. Papers published in the English language was listed, this left us with 3,392 papers to investigate. Once the primary basic search was done, we shortlisted the paper based on their title and then on their abstract.

Title based selection

The first scan of these papers was done by reading the title only. Any papers consisting of a technical report and robot manufacturing were rejected. All the article that discussed usage, application, open source software for humanoid robots and or literature review of humanoid robots were selected. Any paper that only talked about android or computer application was also not selected. We selected 368 papers.

Abstract & finding based final selection

The selected papers were again scanned to make a final list of papers. This was done by reading the abstract of each paper. We preferred any paper that has any connection with education, healthcare, and social. Fifty-eight papers were shortlisted for this study.

Results

Application of humanoid robots has been significantly used in healthcare and education domain. Majority of the study involved minors and senior citizens; moreover, economic feasibility was not tested in any study involved in this paper.

The following section briefly discusses the influence of age, gender, and other experimental setups on the behavior of humans towards humanoid robots and their application in various domains.

Healthcare humanoid robot

Users and healthcare practitioner have appreciated the advantage of advanced surgical robots. However, our study highlights the application of humanoid robots and their roles in healthcare today. In addition to surgical robots, healthcare humanoid robots have been successfully helping people in disease management, pain relief, pediatric healthcare assistant, and physical therapy. The role of healthcare robots can be broadly classified into the clinical and non-clinical application.

In Clinical setting, humanoid robots have been used to assist patients who have cerebral palsy [1], and pediatric cancer [2]. To study the influence of human-robot interaction on user attention two children of age 9 and 13 who have cerebral palsy were exposed to NAO robot under four different interactive situations. The experiment aimed at improving patient coordination, truncal balance and motor function [1]. The first interaction was general introduction round where children and robot verbally communicated with each other. In this situation, the subject had a tough time understanding the robot and required the help of a therapist; thus, it increased positive interaction between the subject, robot, and the therapist. This was aimed to enhance a child’s social adaptability [1]. The second, third, and fourth interaction session was an imitation round which aimed at improving a child's lower leg balance and function. In this setup, the children had to imitate movement, lift one leg movement and kick a ball movement of the robot [1]. No improvement was observed during this setup; however, the children developed a positive interaction with the humanoid robot [1].

The crucial responsibilities of the robot in clinical healthcare domain are distress minimization [3], remote monitoring [4], and interacting with the patients [1-3,5]. To measure the effect of a humanoid robot in pain and distress minimization, "Face Pain Scale-Revised" [3] approach was taken during vaccination of children in a clinical setup. The pain level of the children during the injection shot was measured through their facial expression and behavior such as crying or muscle tension. Children felt more pain during vaccination in the absence of a robot in the clinic [3].

Moreover, a study on the effect of a humanoid robot on anger, anxiety, and depression level has also been significant. To study the effect of a robot on anger and anxiety and difference between "social robot-assisted therapy" [2] and psychotherapy children who have cancer were given therapy session using a robot and a human psychotherapist. The group assisted by the robot had eight sessions in which the robot played different roles such as a doctor, chemotherapist, nurse, cook, ill kid and other. In these sessions, the robot interacted with the children and explained to them the role of each character in a story form to reduce their anger, depression, and anxiety. Post the experiment a questionnaire was used to assess anger, anxiety, and depression level of the children. It was observed that the robot-assisted group had lower anxiety, depression, and anger than that of the controlled group. Humanoid robots were successful in minimizing anger, anxiety, and depression [2] among cancer patients. Humanoid robots also enhanced joint attention between the patient and the therapist [6].

The patients treated using humanoid robots were mostly children around the age of 85 years [4]; 5 to 6 year [3]; 7 to 12 years [2]; 5 to 14 years (Malik, Yussof, Hanapiah, Rahman, & Basri 2015); 9 & 13 years [1]; Moreover, a supervisor or controller was always present to monitor and control the humanoid robot.

Non-Clinical healthcare have significantly contributed to Autism Management followed by Diabetes Management [7] by performing activities such as playing games [8,9] greeting, singing, dancing, hand movement, blinking, interacting with the patients [2,3,9-12]. Robots also measured blood pressure [13- 15], and asked questions, played quiz with the patients and [7,16] monitored and helped patients with medical assistance [4].

Effect of using robots in autism management and treatment has been highly effective and appreciated. Humanoid robots can be developed to facilitate social skills for autistic children [17], thus, can improve patient’s autistic behaviour [12,18-20].

Most of the research conducted on autistic patients using humanoid robots aimed at enhancing their social skills. Gaze is a crucial medium that enables social communication. It also affects acceptance, preference, and obedience among human beings [18]; However, excessive gaze might impose a threat, superiority, and anger [18]. To study the effect of task difficulty and gaze on user’s trust on robots fifty-two university students were selected for the experiment in which they had to engage in the “shell game” [18] with the robot. The game was conducted in three different levels of difficulty. A mixed 3 × 3 design was employed to study the behaviour of the subjects at Averted gaze, constant gaze and situational gaze [18] for the easy, medium and hard difficulty level of the game. Here, the independent variable was the three levels of gaze and game difficulty level. Averted gaze in which the robot never looked at the participant, constant gaze during which the robot continuously looked at the participant and situational gaze when the robot looked at the participant only when he/she gave a wrong answer. It was observed that with an increase in difficulty participant's trust increased.

Use of humanoid robot have significant influence on communication, social behavior and joint attention of autistic patients [21,22] but did not influence any collaborative behavior among patients [9]; However, playing with human adult enhanced collaboration among patients [23].

To study the effect on joint attention a therapy session was conducted in a school playroom setting. Students in this experiment used a humanoid robot, and the interaction was recorded. In, this study the robot directed students to perform physical activities such as touching head or look towards the window. The study measured the number of times the participants responded correctly to the robots. The experiment was run under two condition, with prompting and without prompting. Improvement in joint attention initiation and response were noticed; however, the relevance and contribution of prompting were unclear.

Humanoid robots helped patients to learn more about autism management [24]. The ability of the humanoid robot to evoke human-human interaction along with its impact on learning was analyzed in a study conducted by Cost in 2015. The experiment was classifieds into four sections: "familiarization, pre-test, practice, and post-test phase". In this experiment, the participants had to identify their different body parts as per asked and directed by the robot. In this study, it was observed that the participant's response increased in the "post-test phase" and; thus, the learning ability of the participant were increased after therapy using a robot. The study, thus, showed the effectiveness of a humanoid robot in the domain of child education and healthcare, Humanoid robots have also enhanced diabetes and diabetes management [7]. The benefactors of the humanoid robots in autism and diabetes management were mostly children [4,25] of age 6-7 years [22], 6-9 years [24], 8-12 years [7], 5-10 years [26], 6-8 years [23], 7-12 years, 5-13 years [9] and 7-13 years [12].

Education humanoid robot

Use of computer and e-learning in the field of education have been performing well and have successfully increased the access to education worldwide. However, the recent trend in education domain is towards the application of humanoid robots. Humanoid robots are now becoming an essential component of education domain as these robots have the capability to reason and analyze situations logically to support human learning and are also better than computer agent [27] and more engaging than the virtual agent [28]. Comparison between a projected robot, a collocated robot, and an on-screen agent has been a relevant concern in the domain of education and e-learning. To study the impact of a computer agent, on-screen projection, onscreen projection of a robot and a physical robot on the social behavior such as engagement, disclosure, influence, memory, attitude etc. were measured to find that collocated/physical presence of robotenhanced participant's engagement [27] with the subject; however, it had no effect on social behavior; Moreover, there was no significant difference found between onscreen robot, and a collocated robot. Unlike other studies, this showed that learning ability was minimum using a collocated robot. Humanoid robots have been known for teaching language [16,29] hands-on engineering [30], nutrition [31], mathematics [9], general science [32] as well as helps students in spelling learning, storytelling [33] and participate in memory games. Robots have been performing the role of a teaching assistant and games partner of children [16,34-37].

In most of the studies, humanoid robots were used along with a human teacher or a controller. The educational humanoid robots have been used for various sections of education and have addressed wide range of students such as preschool kids [37,38] primary school kids [3,16,36-39] junior high school students [34] and undergraduate engineering students [40]. Students responded positively to the robots. Positive effect on learning [38] was observed along with higher classed participation [32]. Increase in a student’s creativity [41], curiosity, and knowledge recall rate [42] was observed.

Socially assistive robot

Social robots or socially assistive robots (SAR) are known as assistive robots, and their application is burgeoning especially among elderly people and hospitality industries. Social robot assists human beings in their daily life and replaces human activities at hospitality industries. At the domestic level, social robots have been doing well. Retired older adults or autistic patients mostly use the robots. These assistive robots act as a companion [43,44] for both children and elderly individuals. Among children, social robots have been known for their ability to entertain [23] and play games [45]. Importantly, autistic children prefer to spend more time with a robot [12] since robots are more predictive and less intimidating than human beings [46].

In this domain, most of the study emphasized the effect of age, gender and appearance of the robot on acceptance, social behavior of the user, and trust towards the humanoid robot. Children and elderly users have a diverse opinion about the appearance of a robot. Some preferred humanoid whereas, some liked machine-like appearance [10]. Since humanoid robots look like a human, they are more relatable and a better fit for companionship [10,47]. According to a literature review, people relate male humanoid robots as more intelligent in decision making whereas; female robots were perceived to be good at nursing and caring activities [10].

Humanoid robots can also evoke the feeling of care and enhance awareness of social behavior [45]. Consecutively, according to a survey and interview conducted by Broadbent in 2009 older people opted for robot staff to help them in daily life activities such as making a phone call, control appliances, remind medications and appointments. In the study by Broadbent in 2009, several pictures of different types of robots were shown to the workers and residents of a nursing home. Most individuals preferred a humanoid robot with all human-like physical features. Even the size of the robot impacted their perception. Elderly users opted for a medium sized robot with light, bright color; However, there was no influence of the robot's gender on the users [47]. The ability of a social robot to detect fall and serious medical condition of the user was highly appreciated; Moreover, assistive robots also play an important role in elderly care; they remotely observe the user and communicate with their care providers, thus, further reducing nurse workload [48]. Table 1 below summarizes the main findings from the literature review.

Table 1: The main findings from the literature review.

The Table 2 following lists the typical application and features of commonly used humanoid robots.

Table 2: List of typical application and features of commonly used humanoid robots.

Discussion

The application of humanoid robots specially NAO [49].

Use of humanoid robot has been significant in several domains [50]. It has been successfully implemented in the field of healthcare, education, and social. Figure 1 below shows the application of humanoid robots in three broad domains.

Figure 1: Application of Humanoid Robot.

Majority of the research is focused on healthcare. Figure 2 below shows that humanoid robots were used mostly to treat autism (65%) followed by diabetes (15%), cancer (10%) and cerebral palsy (10%). Humanoid robots improved autism severity (Shamsuddin & Yussof, 2012) and enhanced social behavior [21], communication skills among children; Moreover, use to humanoid robots enhanced collaborative behavior, learning capacity among autistic children and interaction with robots made them feel entertained and comfortable (Kim, Chung, & Jung, 2018). Apart from successfully treating autism, humanoid robots yield positive results in educating patients with diabetes management skills [7], minimize stress in pediatric cancer patients. Patients who have cerebral palsy got encouraged by interacting with humanoid robots. Usage of the robot also enhanced treatment efficiency by initiating joint attention between the patient and the therapist [6].

Figure 2: Diseases treated using Humanoid robot.

Figure 1, developed based on the literature review, shows the proportion of work dedicated to healthcare, education, and social assistance using humanoid robots and highlights [51] the influence of humanoid robots [52] in the field of healthcare, moreover, the potential of a humanoid robot to become a personal healthcare assistant has been projected in Miyachi and Iga's recent work [53]; however, some limitations exist especially to treat autistic children. To better manage autism, humanoid robots must have a diverse set of objectives and should be personalized based on the user. Figure 2, also developed based on the literature review, shows that about sixty-five percent of the work using a humanoid robot within the healthcare domain have been directed towards managing autism.

Application of humanoid robots in the field of education has also been promising. Studies have shown the positive influence of robots on education; moreover, humanoid robots have acted as a tour guide within the college campus [54]. Figure 3, developed based on the literature review findings, shows the most analyzed aspect of humanoids in education. From the literature review, it was found that application of a humanoid robot-enhanced the interaction of participants within a classroom setting, however [32,41] no significant increase in learning rate were observed.

Figure 3: Humanoid's Impact on Education.

The study conducted by Barakova in 2015 focused on analyzing the effect of using collocated robot and simulation on a student’s enthusiasm. During the experiment with both robot and simulator, performance such a dropout rate, class attendance, task completion rate, creative thinking, and social impact were measured. All the measures were higher when working with a humanoid robot than that of a simulator; moreover, according to the questionnaire developed by Marina and Freidin in 2014 in their study, teacher, and students both preferred usage of a humanoid robot in the classroom setting. The study measured anxiety, attitude, adaptability, trust, and other, using questionnaire. The study also observed that factors such as social presence and social influence are not relevant to determine a humanoid robot’s acceptance.

Moreover, students enjoyed and preferred the presence of humanoid robot in class [55,56]. Few studies have shown significant impact on the learning ability of the student using humanoid robots, but the presence of humanoid robot ensures higher class attendance, promotes creative thinking and increases subject curiosity. Table 3 below shows the user's requirement from a typical humanoid robot specifically in the domain of private healthcare.

Table 3: Tasks for Home Healthcare Humanoid Robots.

The users have appreciated the role of humanoid robots in the field of healthcare and education. Contrastingly, people's attitude towards social or assistive robots varies significantly. Children and elderly users prefer robots and have less resistance towards the application of humanoid robots than that of middle-aged users. Trust and acceptance of humanoid robots were affected by its appearance [57], gaze, and functionality. According to a survey by Alaiad, people felt that using humanoid might be a threat to their privacy [58].

Humanoid robots were preferred more than general assistive robots; even people gave more attention to humanoid robots which are user-friendly. Adult female users’ trust decreased when the robots constantly gazed at them; however, users with lower confidence had more trust towards the robot. Humanoid robots were trusted on their functional knowledge such as weight, size, color, and other quantitative measures, but users did not trust on social and logical knowledge such good, bad, and other qualitative measures given by the robot. People also believe that humanoid robots take undesirable actions intentionally and are more prone to make an error. Unlike adult users, children were not concerned about the robot’s utility. They enjoyed the company of humanoid robot and treated them as a friend. Children were willing and able to interact with the humanoid robot easily. Old males had high concern about a robot's functionality more than adolescent or females. Users want the humanoid robots to measure blood pressure, body temperature, connecting with doctor remotely, reminding tasks, entertain, helping in baby care management, lifting heavy, detect fall, control home appliance, housekeeping, making phone call and many other things.

Conclusion

The application of humanoid robots is crucial in the field of healthcare, education and as a social robot. In all these domains, most of the research is focused on the effect of using the humanoid robot, user acceptance and trust on the robot. It can be observed from the existing literature that opinion of the people towards the use of humanoid robot varies from individual to individual. A user of different age, gender, and health condition perceive the usage and importance of humanoid robots differently. The appearance of the robot was found to be a crucial factor affecting user acceptance and trust; moreover, robot functionality and gaze also affected user preference towards humanoid robot application.

Although many studies have been conducted to analyze the usage and effectiveness of humanoid robots, we still need more research in this field. As future research, the influence of incorporating a humanoid robot into the Project Leonard as an assistant to care managers in order to enhance disease and care management effect must be addressed [59].

References

1. Rahman RAA, Akhtar HF (2015) Use of humanoid robot in children with cerebral palsy: the ups and downs in clinical experience. Procedia Comp Sci 76: 394-399.
2. Alemi M, Ghanbarzadeh A (2016) Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. Int J Soc Robotics 8: 743-759.
3. Beran TN, Ramirez SA, Vanderkooi OG, Kuhn S (2013) Reducing children's pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine 31: 2772-2777.
4. Bäck I, Kallio J, Perälä S, Mäkelä K (2012) Remote monitoring of nursing home residents using a humanoid robot. J Telemed Telecare 18: 357-361.
5. Kamide H, Kawabe K, Shigemi S, Arai T (2013) Development of a psychological scale for general impressions of humanoid. Adv Robotics 27: 3-17.
6. Malik NA, Yussof H, Hanapiah FA, Rahman RAA, Basri HH (2015) Human-robot interaction for children with cerebral palsy: reflection and suggestion for interactive scenario design. Procedia Comp Sci 76: 388-393.
7. Henkemans OAB, Bierman BPB, Janssen J, Looije R, Neerincx MA, et al. (2017) Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. Int J Human-Comp Stud 106: 63-76.
8. Costa S, Lehmann H, Dautenhahn K, Robins B, Soares F (2015) Using a humanoid robot to elicit body awareness and appropriate physical interaction in children with autism. Int J Social Robotics 7: 265-278.
9. Huskens B, Palmen A, Van der Werff M, Lourens T, Barakova E (2015) Improving collaborative play between children with autism spectrum disorders and their siblings: the effectiveness of a robot-mediated intervention based on Lego® Therapy. J Autism Develop Disorders 45: 3746-3755.
10. Vandemeulebroucke T, De Casterlé BD, Gastmans C (2018) How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment Health 22: 149-167.
11. Gaudiello I, Zibetti E, Lefort S, Chetouani M, Ivaldi S (2016) Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user confirmation to iCub answers. Comp Human Behavior 61: 633-655.
12. Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail LI, Mohamed S, Hanapiah FA, et al. (2012) Humanoid robot NAO interacting with autistic children of moderately impaired intelligence to augment communication skills. Procedia Engineer 41: 1533-1538.
13. Mann JA, MacDonald BA, Kuo IH, Li X, Broadbent E (2015) People respond better to robots than computer tablets delivering healthcare instructions. Comp Human Behavior 43: 112-117.
14. Broadbent E, Vinayak K, Li X, Sollers J, Stafford RQ (2013) Robots with Display Screens A Robot with a More Humanlike Face Display Is Perceived To Have More mind and a Better Personality. PLoS One 8: e72589.
15. Kuo IH, Rabindran JM, Broadbent E, Lee YI, Kerse N, et al. (2009) Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication pp: 214-219.
16. Chang C, Lee J, Chao PY, Wang CY, Chen GD (2010) Exploring the Possibility of Using Humanoid Robots as Instructional Tools for Teaching a Second Language in Primary School. Edu Tech Soc 13: 13-24.
17. Yun SS, Kim H, Choi J, Park SK (2016) A robot-assisted behavioral intervention system for children with autism spectrum disorders. Robotics Autonomous Sys 76: 58-67.
18. Stanton CJ, Stevens CJ (2017). Don't Stare at Me: The Impact of a Humanoid Robot's Gaze upon Trust During a Cooperative Human-Robot Visual Task. Int J Social Robotics 9: 745-753.
19. Thellman S, Silvervarg A, Ziemke T (2017) Folk-Psychological Interpretation of Human vs. Humanoid Robot Behavior: Exploring the Intentional Stance toward Robots. Frontiers Psychol 8: 1962.
20. Ismail LI, Shamsudin S, Yussof H, Hanapiah F, Zaharid NI (2012) Robot-based Intervention Program for Autistic Children with Humanoid Robot NAO: Initial Response in Stereotyped Behavior. Procedia Engineer 41: 1441-1447.
21. Charron N, Lewis L, Craig M (2017) A robotic therapy case study: developing joint attention skills with a student on the autism spectrum. J Edu Tech Syst 46: 137-148.
22. Taheri A, Meghdari A, Alemi M, Pouretemad H (2018) Human-robot interaction in autism treatment: a case study on three pairs of autistic children as twins, siblings, and classmates. Int J Social Robotics 10: 93-113.
23. Wainer J, Dautenhahn K, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F (2014) A pilot study with a novel setup for collaborative play of the humanoid robot KASPAR with children with autism. Int J Social Robotics 6: 45-65.
24. Costa S, Lehmann H (2015) Using a Humanoid Robot to Elicit Body Awareness and Appropriate Physical Interaction in Children with Autism. Int J Social Robotics Pp: 265-278.
25. Pennisi P, Tonacci A, Tartarisco G, Billeci L, Ruta L (2016) Autism and social robotics: a systematic review. Autism Res 9: 165-183.
26. Kim SY, Chung K, Jung S (2018) Effects of repeated food exposure on increasing vegetable consumption in preschool children with autism spectrum disorder. Res Autism Spect Disord 47: 26-35.
27. Powers A, Kiesler S, Fussell S, Torrey C (2007) Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction Pp: 145-152.
28. Li J, Kizilcec R, Bailenson J, Ju W (2016) Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Comp Human Behavior 55: 1222-1230.
29. Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong JJ (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. Techn Educ Learn 1: 1-7.
30. Yi H, Knabe C, Pesek T, Hong DW (2016) Experiential learning in the development of a DARwIn-HP humanoid educational robot. J Intelligent Robotic Sys 81: 41-49.
31. Rosi A, Dall'Asta M, Brighenti F, Del Rio D, Volta E, et al. (2016) The use of new technologies for nutritional education in primary schools: a pilot study. Public Health 140: 50-55.
32. Shiomi M, Kanda T, Howley I, Hayashi K, Hagita N (2015) Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int J Social Robotics 7: 641-652.
33. Fridin M (2014) Kindergarten social assistive robot: first meeting and ethical issues. Comp Human Behavior 30: 262-272.
34. Bacivarov IC, Ilian VL (2012) The paradigm of utilizing robots in the teaching process: a comparative study. Int J Tech Design Edu 22: 531-540.
35. Rosi A, Dall’asta M (2016) The use of new technologies for nutritional education in primary schools: a pilot study. Public Health Pp: 50-55.
36. Chin K, Wu C, Hong ZW (2011) A humanoid robot as a teaching assistant for primary education. Fifth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing, Pp: 21-24.
37. Fridin M (2014) Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot- A tool for effective learning in preschool education. Comp Edu 70: 53-64.
38. Baxter P, Ashurst E, Read R, Kennedy J, Belpaeme T (2017) Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: personalization promotes child learning. Plos One 12: e0178126.
39. Jeonghye H (2010) Robot-aided learning and R-learning services. In: Human-Robot Interaction (Chugo D Edn), Pp: 247-266.
40. Yi H, Knabe C (2016) Experiential Learning in the Development of a DARwIn-HP Humanoid Educational Robot. J Intelligent Robotic Sys Pp: 41-49.
41. Barakova EI, Bajracharya P, Willemsen M, Lourens T, Huskens B (2015) Long?term LEGO therapy with a humanoid robot for children with ASD. Exp Syst 32: 698-709.
42. Li, Jamy (2016) Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Comp Human Behavior, Pp: 1222-1230.
43. Kahn PH, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier NG, Severson RL, et al. (2012) "Robovie, you will have to go into the closet now": children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol 48: 303-314.
44. Ioannou A, Andreou E, Christofi M (2015) Pre-Schoolers' Interest and Caring Behaviour around a Humanoid Robot. Tech Trends 59: 23-26.
45. Ioannou A, Andreou E, Christofi M (2015) Pre-Schoolers' Interest and Caring Behaviour around a Humanoid Robot. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning Pp: 23-26.
46. Cabibihan JJ, Javed H, Ang M, Aljunied SM (2013) Why robots? a survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. Int J Soc Robotics 5: 593-618.
47. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Kerse N, Knock B, Patience A, et al. (2009) Retirement home staff and residents' preferences for healthcare robots. The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Pp: 645-650.
48. Kachouie R, Sedighadeli S, Khosla R, Chu MT (2013) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed method systematic literature review. Int J Human-Comp Int 30: 369-393.
49. Erich F, Hirokawa M, Suzuki K (2017) A Systematic literature review of experiments in socially assistive robotics using humanoid robots. Cornell University Pp: 1-6.
50. Mahum R, Butt FS, Ayyub K, Islam S (2017) A review of humanoid robots. Int J Adv Appl Sci 4: 83-90.
51. Miyachi T, Iga S, Furuhata T (2017) Human-robot communication with facilitators for care robot innovation. Procedia Comp Sci 112: 1254-1262.
52. Huijnen CA, Lexis MA, Jansens R, de Witte LP (2016) Mapping robots to therapy and educational objectives for children with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Develop Disorders 46: 2100-2114.
53. Hashim R, Yussof H (2017) Humanizing humanoids towards social inclusiveness for children with autism. Procedia Comp Sci 105: 359-364.
54. Boboc, R?zvan G (2014) An Educational Humanoid Laboratory Tour Guide Robot. Procedia – Soci Behav Sci Pp: 424-430.
55. Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robotics 3: 41-52.
56. Fernández-Llamas C, Conde MA, Rodríguez-Lera FJ, Rodríguez-Sedano FJ, García F (2018) May I teach you? Students' behavior when lectured by robotic vs. human teachers. Comp Human Behavior 80: 460-469.
57. Bruce A, Nourbakhsh I, Simmons R (2002) The role of expressiveness and attention in human-robot interaction. Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Pp: 4138-4142.
58. Alaiad A, Zhou L (2014) The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: an empirical investigation. Int J Med Informatics 83: 825-840.
59. Ciccone MM, Aquilino A, Cortese F, Scicchitano P, Sassara M, et al. (2010) Feasibility and effectiveness of a disease and care management model in the primary health care system for patients with heart failure and diabetes (Project Leonardo). Vasc Health Risk Manag 6: 297-305.