pith. machine review for the scientific record.
sign in

arxiv: 2604.23976 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.HC

Designing Robots to Support Parent-Child Connections: Opportunities Through Robot-Mediated Communication

Michael F Xu , Bengisu Cagiltay , Yaxin Hu , Anjun Zhu , Bilge Mutlu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 03:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.HC
keywords robot-mediated communicationparent-child interactionfamily connectednesshuman-robot interactiontechnology probesdesign dimensionssynchronous and asynchronous modes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Robot-facilitated communication creates opportunities for parent-child connection by navigating behavior strategies and timing modes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates whether robots can nurture family bonds instead of displacing them. Researchers ran in-home probes with six families to map the design space, then tested two dimensions in a lab study with twenty more families: how actively the robot behaves and whether exchanges happen in real time or later. Families took up these tools in personal ways but ran into friction over who starts the exchange, when it occurs, and who sees what. The work shows concrete paths for using robots to support everyday family closeness if those frictions are addressed.

Core claim

By varying the robot's behavior from passive to proactive and its communication from synchronous to asynchronous, parents and children appropriated robot-mediated exchanges, encountered tensions around initiative, timing, and privacy, and identified opportunities for supporting everyday connectedness.

What carries the argument

Two interaction design dimensions—the robot's behavior strategy (passive, reactive, proactive) and the mode of communication (synchronous, asynchronous)—that together shape how families appropriate and experience robot-mediated exchanges.

If this is right

  • Families appropriate robot-mediated exchanges to maintain everyday connections.
  • Tensions surface around who takes initiative, when communication happens, and privacy boundaries.
  • Designers can target those tensions to unlock new opportunities for family connectedness.
  • The two dimensions provide a practical starting point for building robot tools that fit family routines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending these dimensions to support multi-child or multi-generational households could reveal new appropriation patterns.
  • Integrating privacy controls directly into the robot's proactive behaviors might reduce the observed tensions.
  • Longer deployments would test whether the identified opportunities persist or shift as novelty wears off.

Load-bearing premise

The design dimensions and interaction patterns observed with a modest number of families in probes and lab sessions will hold for broader groups and ordinary home life.

What would settle it

A longer-term deployment study with diverse families in their homes that finds no meaningful appropriation of the robot for connection or that the reported tensions do not appear when the same dimensions are used.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23976 by Anjun Zhu, Bengisu Cagiltay, Bilge Mutlu, Michael F Xu, Yaxin Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Motivated by the messy realities of everyday family life, we first explored the design space of robot-facilitated view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of our Research through Design process. Our iterative design process started with in-home technology view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the screens seen by the participants in the various scenarios in both conditions of the user study. Main view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of unexpected playful interactions between the robot and the children. In S17, children attempted to engage view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The sense of family connectedness may support positive outcomes including individual well-being, resilience, and healthy family functioning. However, as technologies advance, they often replace human-human interactions instead of nurturing them. In this work, we investigate how robot-facilitated communication tools might instead create new opportunities for family connection. We conducted two studies with families with children aged 5-12. We first explored the design space through in-home technology probe sessions with six families. These probes inspired us to explore two key interaction design dimensions: the robot's behavior strategy (passive, reactive, proactive) and the mode of communication (synchronous, asynchronous). We then conducted a laboratory study with 20 families to examine how the two dimensions shaped parent-child interaction and connection. Our findings characterize how parents and children appropriated robot-mediated exchanges, the tensions they experienced around initiative, timing, and privacy, and the opportunities they envisioned for supporting everyday connectedness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports two studies on robot-mediated communication to support parent-child connections for families with children aged 5-12. An in-home technology probe study with six families explores the design space and identifies two dimensions: robot behavior strategy (passive/reactive/proactive) and communication mode (synchronous/asynchronous). A follow-up laboratory study with 20 families examines how these dimensions shape interactions. Findings characterize appropriation of robot-mediated exchanges, tensions around initiative/timing/privacy, and envisioned opportunities for everyday family connectedness.

Significance. If the observed patterns are robust, the work offers concrete design dimensions and tension points that can guide development of social robots for family support rather than replacement of human interaction. The empirical grounding in probe and lab sessions provides actionable insights for the HCI/robotics community on appropriation and privacy concerns in mediated family communication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion] The central claim that the studies 'characterize' opportunities for supporting everyday connectedness (abstract and discussion) rests on the leap from convenience samples and single-session observations to broader design implications. The 6-family probe and 20-family lab protocols (short-term, partly lab-based, no longitudinal home deployment) do not test recurrence or scalability of the identified appropriations and tensions outside the studied cohort, making the actionability positioning load-bearing but under-supported.
  2. [Laboratory Study] Laboratory study section: the characterization of how the two dimensions shaped parent-child interaction and connection relies solely on qualitative observation with no quantitative metrics, error bars, or statistical controls reported. This is consistent with the exploratory intent but limits the strength of claims about differential effects of passive/reactive/proactive or sync/async conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the description of the two studies does not specify recruitment details, exact age distributions within 5-12, or session durations, which would help readers assess the sample and protocol.
  2. [Probe Study] The transition from probe findings to the two design dimensions could be clarified with a brief table or explicit mapping to avoid implying the dimensions emerged fully formed without intermediate analysis steps.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below with point-by-point responses, clarifying the exploratory scope of the work and adjusting language where needed to better align claims with the study design and data.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Discussion] The central claim that the studies 'characterize' opportunities for supporting everyday connectedness (abstract and discussion) rests on the leap from convenience samples and single-session observations to broader design implications. The 6-family probe and 20-family lab protocols (short-term, partly lab-based, no longitudinal home deployment) do not test recurrence or scalability of the identified appropriations and tensions outside the studied cohort, making the actionability positioning load-bearing but under-supported.

    Authors: We agree that the studies rely on convenience samples and short-term sessions without longitudinal follow-up, and thus cannot demonstrate recurrence or scalability. Our goal was to use in-depth qualitative probes and observations to surface initial design dimensions and tensions rather than to produce generalizable or scalable results. We have revised the abstract and discussion to state that the findings characterize patterns and opportunities observed in these specific cohorts and conditions, and we now present the design implications as grounded suggestions for future development rather than as broadly actionable. This revision maintains the empirical contribution while addressing the concern about overstatement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Laboratory Study] Laboratory study section: the characterization of how the two dimensions shaped parent-child interaction and connection relies solely on qualitative observation with no quantitative metrics, error bars, or statistical controls reported. This is consistent with the exploratory intent but limits the strength of claims about differential effects of passive/reactive/proactive or sync/async conditions.

    Authors: The laboratory study was conducted as a qualitative exploration using thematic analysis of video observations and post-session interviews to identify how the two dimensions influenced interactions. No quantitative metrics or statistical tests were collected or reported because the study did not aim to establish differential effects or test hypotheses. We have reviewed the laboratory study section to ensure all descriptions of shaping effects are explicitly tied to observed patterns and participant accounts, without implying statistical validation or comparative strength. This approach is consistent with the stated exploratory intent. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical findings derived directly from study observations

full rationale

The paper presents results from two qualitative user studies (in-home probes with six families and a lab study with twenty families). The central claims characterize observed appropriation patterns, tensions around initiative/timing/privacy, and envisioned design opportunities, all drawn from direct participant data and interviews. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text. Design dimensions (passive/reactive/proactive; synchronous/asynchronous) are described as inspired by the probe sessions rather than forced by self-definition or prior self-citations. No load-bearing steps reduce to inputs by construction, self-citation chains, or renaming of known results. The work is self-contained as standard empirical HCI research.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the domain assumption that family connectedness produces positive outcomes and that robots can be designed to nurture rather than replace human interactions; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The sense of family connectedness may support positive outcomes including individual well-being, resilience, and healthy family functioning.
    Opening sentence of the abstract frames this as the motivating premise for the entire investigation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1389 out tokens · 58628 ms · 2026-05-08T03:13:26.919141+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. https://www.freepik.com/. Accessed: 2024-12-20

    2024

  2. [2]

    Kasumi Abe, Masahiro Shiomi, Yachao Pei, Tingyi Zhang, Narumitsu Ikeda, and Takayuki Nagai. 2018. ChiCaRo: tele-presence robot for interacting with babies and toddlers.Advanced Robotics32, 4 (2018), 176–190

    2018

  3. [3]

    Dennis A Adams, R Ryan Nelson, and Peter A Todd. 1992. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication.MIS quarterly (1992), 227–247

    1992

  4. [4]

    Safinah Ali, Nisha Devasia, Hae Won Park, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2021. Social robots as creativity eliciting agents.Frontiers in Robotics and AI8 (2021), 673730

    2021

  5. [5]

    Jenay M Beer, Arthur D Fisk, and Wendy A Rogers. 2014. Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction.Journal of human-robot interaction3, 2 (2014), 74

    2014

  6. [6]

    Keri Black and Marie Lobo. 2008. A conceptual review of family resilience factors. Journal of family nursing14, 1 (2008), 33–55

    2008

  7. [7]

    Alexandra Bremers, Alexandria Pabst, Maria Teresa Parreira, and Wendy Ju. 2023. Using Social Cues to Recognize Task Failures for HRI: Overview, State-of-the-Art, and Future Directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11972(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Joanna Brooks, Serena McCluskey, Emma Turley, and Nigel King. 2015. The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research.Qualitative research in psychology12, 2 (2015), 202–222

    2015

  9. [9]

    AJ Bernheim Brush, Kori M Inkpen, and Kimberly Tee. 2008. SPARCS: exploring sharing suggestions to enhance family connectedness. InProceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 629–638

    2008

  10. [10]

    Bengisu Cagiltay, Hui-Ru Ho, Joseph E Michaelis, and Bilge Mutlu. 2020. In- vestigating family perceptions and design preferences for an in-home robot. In Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference. 229–242

    2020

  11. [11]

    Bengisu Cagiltay and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. Toward Family-Robot Interactions: A Family-Centered Framework in HRI. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 76–85

    2024

  12. [12]

    Michael Chan. 2011. Shyness, sociability, and the role of media synchronicity in the use of computer-mediated communication for interpersonal communication. Asian Journal of Social Psychology14, 1 (2011), 84–90

    2011

  13. [13]

    Huili Chen, Yubin Kim, Kejia Patterson, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park

  14. [14]

    Social robots as conversational catalysts: Enhancing long-term human- human interaction at home.Science Robotics10, 100 (2025), eadk3307

    2025

  15. [15]

    Huili Chen, Anastasia K Ostrowski, Soo Jung Jang, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2022. Designing long-term parent-child-robot triadic interac- tion at home through lived technology experiences and interviews. In2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 401–408

    2022

  16. [16]

    Pauline Chevalier, Bob R Schadenberg, Amir Aly, Angelo Cangelosi, and Adriana Tapus. 2022. Context-awareness in human-robot interaction: Approaches and challenges. In2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 1241–1243

    2022

  17. [17]

    Carla Crespo, Magdalena Kielpikowski, Paul E Jose, and Jan Pryor. 2010. Rela- tionships between family connectedness and body satisfaction: A longitudinal study of adolescent girls and boys.Journal of youth and adolescence39 (2010), 1392–1401

    2010

  18. [18]

    Thomas Dalsgaard, Mikael B Skov, and Bo Ramsdahl Thomassen. 2007. eKISS: sharing experiences in families through a picture blog. InProceedings of HCI 2007 The 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference University of Lancaster, UK. BCS Learning & Development

    2007

  19. [19]

    Maartje MA De Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan AGM Van Dijk. 2016. Long- term evaluation of a social robot in real homes.Interaction studies17, 3 (2016), 462–491

    2016

  20. [20]

    Maartje MA De Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan AGM Van Dijk. 2019. Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human–Computer Interaction34, 2 (2019), 115–173

    2019

  21. [21]

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2008. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health.Canadian psy- chology/Psychologie canadienne49, 3 (2008), 182

    2008

  22. [22]

    Maysara Elazzazi, Luay Jawad, Mohammed Hilfi, and Abhilash Pandya. 2022. A natural language interface for an autonomous camera control system on the da vinci surgical robot.Robotics11, 2 (2022), 40

    2022

  23. [23]

    Inner-Voice

    Cathy Mengying Fang, Yasith Samaradivakara, Pattie Maes, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2025. Mirai: A Wearable Proactive AI" Inner-Voice" for Contextual Nudging. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9

    2025

  24. [24]

    Julia Fink, Séverin Lemaignan, Pierre Dillenbourg, Philippe Rétornaz, Florian Vaussard, Alain Berthoud, Francesco Mondada, Florian Wille, and Karmen Frani- nović. 2014. Which robot behavior can motivate children to tidy up their toys? design and evaluation of" ranger". InProceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE interna- tional conference on Human-robot interactio...

    2014

  25. [25]

    William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design?. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 937–946. IDC ’26, June 22–25, 2026, Brighton, United Kingdom Michael F. Xu, Bengisu Cagiltay, Yaxin Hu, Anjun Zhu, and Bilge Mutlu

    2012

  26. [26]

    Ioanna Giorgi, Francesca Ausilia Tirotto, Oksana Hagen, Farida Aider, Mario Gianni, Marco Palomino, and Giovanni L Masala. 2022. Friendly but faulty: A pilot study on the perceived trust of older adults in a social robot.IEEE Access10 (2022), 92084–92096

    2022

  27. [27]

    Connie Golsteijn and Elise van den Hoven. 2013. Facilitating parent-teenager communication through interactive photo cubes.Personal and Ubiquitous Com- puting17, 2 (2013), 273–286

    2013

  28. [28]

    Xinning He, Michael F Xu, Bengisu Cagiltay, and Bilge Mutlu. 2025. Developing Robot Prototypes to Explore Robot-Facilitated Family Routines. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 1342– 1346

    2025

  29. [29]

    Yasamin Heshmat, Carman Neustaedter, and Brendan DeBrincat. 2017. The autobiographical design and long term usage of an always-on video recording system for the home. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 675–687

    2017

  30. [30]

    It’s Not a Replacement:

    Hui-Ru Ho, Edward M Hubbard, and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. " It’s Not a Replacement:" Enabling Parent-Robot Collaboration to Support In-Home Learning Experiences of Young Children. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2024

  31. [31]

    Hui-Ru Ho, Nathan Thomas White, Edward M Hubbard, and Bilge Mutlu. 2023. Designing parent-child-robot interactions to facilitate in-home parental math talk with young children. InProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 355–366

    2023

  32. [32]

    Steve Hodges, Lyndsay Williams, Emma Berry, Shahram Izadi, James Srinivasan, Alex Butler, Gavin Smyth, Narinder Kapur, and Ken Wood. 2006. SenseCam: A retrospective memory aid. InUbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing: 8th Interna- tional Conference, UbiComp 2006 Orange County, CA, USA, September 17-21, 2006 Proceedings 8. Springer, 177–193

    2006

  33. [33]

    Shanee Honig and Tal Oron-Gilad. 2021. Expect the unexpected: Leveraging the human-robot ecosystem to handle unexpected robot failures.Frontiers in Robotics and AI8 (2021), 656385

    2021

  34. [34]

    Long-Jing Hsu, Weslie Khoo, Peter Lenon Goshomi, Philip B Stafford, Manasi Swaminathan, Katherine M Tsui, David J Crandall, and Selma Sabanović. 2024. Is now a good time? opportune moments for interacting with an ikigai support robot. InCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction. 549–553

    2024

  35. [35]

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Al- lison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 17–24

    2003

  36. [36]

    Swapna Joshi and Selma Šabanović. 2019. Robots for inter-generational interac- tions: implications for nonfamilial community settings. In2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 478–486

    2019

  37. [37]

    2006.Perceived* presence in mediated communication: Antecedents and effects

    Jessica Simmons Jourdan. 2006.Perceived* presence in mediated communication: Antecedents and effects. The University of Texas at Austin

    2006

  38. [38]

    Wendy Ju and Larry Leifer. 2008. The design of implicit interactions: Making interactive systems less obnoxious.Design Issues24, 3 (2008), 72–84

    2008

  39. [39]

    Tejinder K Judge, Carman Neustaedter, and Andrew F Kurtz. 2010. The family window: the design and evaluation of a domestic media space. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2361–2370

    2010

  40. [40]

    SunKyoung Kim, Masakazu Hirokawa, Atsushi Funahashi, and Kenji Suzuki. 2022. What Can We Do with a Robot for Family Playtime?. In2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 847–849

    2022

  41. [41]

    Bing Cai Kok and Harold Soh. 2020. Trust in robots: Challenges and opportunities. Current robotics reports1, 4 (2020), 297–309

    2020

  42. [42]

    Jieon Lee, Daeho Lee, and Jae-gil Lee. 2022. Can robots help working parents with childcare? optimizing childcare functions for different parenting characteristics. International Journal of Social Robotics14, 1 (2022), 193–211

    2022

  43. [43]

    Leigh Levinson, Gonzalo A Garcia, Guillermo Perez, Gloria Alvarez-Benito, J Gabriel Amores, Mario Castaño-Ocaña, Manuel Castro-Malet, Randy Gomez, and Selma Šabanović. 2022. Living with haru4kids: child and parent perceptions of a co-habitation robot for children. InInternational Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 54–63

    2022

  44. [44]

    Jieun Lim, Youngji Koh, Auk Kim, and Uichin Lee. 2024. Exploring context- aware mental health self-tracking using multimodal smart speakers in home environments. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2024

  45. [45]

    Sonia Livingstone and Ellen Helsper. 2007. Gradations in digital inclusion: Chil- dren, young people and the digital divide.New media & society9, 4 (2007), 671–696

    2007

  46. [46]

    Irene Lopatovska, Katrina Rink, Ian Knight, Kieran Raines, Kevin Cosenza, Harriet Williams, Perachya Sorsche, David Hirsch, Qi Li, and Adrianna Martinez. 2019. Talk to me: Exploring user interactions with the Amazon Alexa.Journal of Librarianship and Information Science51, 4 (2019), 984–997

    2019

  47. [47]

    Sam R McHugh, Maureen A Callanan, Kevin Weatherwax, Jennifer L Jipson, and Leila Takayama. 2021. Unusual artifacts: Linking parents’ STEM background and children’s animacy judgments to parent–child play with robots.Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies3, 4 (2021), 525–539

    2021

  48. [48]

    Merriam-Webster. [n. d.]. Communication. https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/communication

  49. [49]

    Off Script:

    Joseph E Michaelis, Bengisu Cagiltay, Rabia Ibtasar, and Bilge Mutlu. 2023. " Off Script:" Design Opportunities Emerging from Long-Term Social Robot Interac- tions In-the-Wild. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 378–387

    2023

  50. [50]

    Joseph E Michaelis and Bilge Mutlu. 2018. Reading socially: Transforming the in-home reading experience with a learning-companion robot.Science Robotics 3, 21 (2018), eaat5999

    2018

  51. [51]

    Fan Mo, Jia Zhou, and Shuping Yi. 2017. How to enhance intergenerational communication? The influence of family orientation and generation when using social robots as an intermediary. InInternational conference on human aspects of IT for the aged population. Springer, 348–359

    2017

  52. [52]

    Wendy Moyle, Cindy Jones, and Billy Sung. 2020. Telepresence robots: Encourag- ing interactive communication between family carers and people with dementia. Australasian journal on ageing39, 1 (2020), e127–e133

    2020

  53. [53]

    Carman Neustaedter, Kathryn Elliot, and Saul Greenberg. 2006. Interpersonal awareness in the domestic realm. InProceedings of the 18th Australia conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments. 15–22

    2006

  54. [54]

    Linus Nwankwo and Elmar Rueckert. 2024. The conversation is the command: Interacting with real-world autonomous robots through natural language. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Inter- action. 808–812

    2024

  55. [55]

    Laura M Padilla-Walker, Sarah M Coyne, and Ashley M Fraser. 2012. Getting a high-speed family connection: Associations between family media use and family connection.Family Relations61, 3 (2012), 426–440

    2012

  56. [56]

    Eun Kyung Park and S Shyam Sundar. 2015. Can synchronicity and visual modality enhance social presence in mobile messaging?Computers in Human Behavior45 (2015), 121–128

    2015

  57. [57]

    Soroor Parvizy and Fazlollah Ahmadi. 2009. A qualitative study on adolescence, health and family.Mental Health in Family Medicine6, 3 (2009), 163

    2009

  58. [58]

    Michael D Resnick, L J Harris, and Robert W Blum. 1993. The impact of caring and connectedness on adolescent health and well-being.Journal of paediatrics and child health29 (1993), S3–S9

    1993

  59. [59]

    Natalia Romero, Panos Markopoulos, Joy Van Baren, Boris De Ruyter, Wijnand Ijsselsteijn, and Babak Farshchian. 2007. Connecting the family with awareness systems.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing11, 4 (2007), 299–312

    2007

  60. [60]

    Patricia Luciana Runcan, Corneliu Constantineanu, Brigitta Ielics, and Dorin Popa. 2012. The role of communication in the parent-child interaction.Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences46 (2012), 904–908

    2012

  61. [61]

    Jiyeon Seo, Hajin Lim, Bongwon Suh, and Joonhwan Lee. 2024. I feel being there, they feel being together: exploring how telepresence robots facilitate long- distance family communication. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2024

  62. [62]

    Hanieh Shakeri, Denise Y Geiskkovitch, Radhika Garg, and Carman Neustaedter

  63. [63]

    InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Sensing their presence: how emerging adults and their parents connect after moving apart. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2023

  64. [64]

    Ji Youn Shin, Minjin Rheu, Jina Huh-Yoo, and Wei Peng. 2021. Designing tech- nologies to support parent-child relationships: a review of current findings and suggestions for future directions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–31

    2021

  65. [65]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction36, 6 (2020), 495–504

    2020

  66. [66]

    2011.Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other

    Sherry Turkle. 2011.Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books, Inc., USA

    2011

  67. [67]

    Daisuke Uriu, Naruhiko Shiratori, Satoru Hashimoto, Shuichi Ishibashi, and Naohito Okude. 2009. CaraClock: an interactive photo viewer designed for family memories. InCHI’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3205–3210

    2009

  68. [68]

    Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2015. COVER STORY beyond interaction: a short introduc- tion to mediation theory.interactions22, 3 (2015), 26–31

    2015

  69. [69]

    Frank Vetere, Jeremy Smith, and Martin Gibbs. 2009. Phatic interactions: Be- ing aware and feeling connected. InA wareness systems: Advances in theory, methodology and design. Springer, 173–186

    2009

  70. [70]

    Lynette Watts. 2016. Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature.Quarterly Review of Distance Education17, 1 (2016), 23–32

    2016

  71. [71]

    Elise Woodman and Morag McArthur. 2018. Young people’s experiences of family connectedness: Supporting social work practice with families and young people. British Journal of Social Work48, 3 (2018), 693–713

    2018

  72. [72]

    Michael F Xu, Bengisu Cagiltay, Joseph Michaelis, Sarah Sebo, and Bilge Mutlu

  73. [73]

    In2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)

    Robots in family routines: Development of and initial insights from the family-robot routines inventory. In2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). IEEE, 1070–1077. Designing Robots to Support Parent-Child Connections IDC ’26, June 22–25, 2026, Brighton, United Kingdom

    2026

  74. [74]

    Proceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Michael F. Xu, Enhui Zhao, Yawen Zhang, Joseph Michaelis, Sarah Sebo, and Bilge Mutlu. 2026. Designing Robots for Families: In-Situ Prototyping for Contextual Reminders on Family Routines. InProceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’26). 356–365. doi:10.1145/3757279. 3788654

    work page doi:10.1145/3757279 2026

  75. [75]

    John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 493–502

    2007