Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that four broad questions—safety and its evidence, who the robot is for and with, ownership of the robot and its data, and why deploy a robot at all—form a reusable framework that roboticists should use to reflect on ethic

desk verdict Useful, honest, but partly instrument-generated: the four questions are a sane synthesis, not a cleanly community-emergent result. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02624 v1 pith:7EJJIBID submitted 2025-09-01 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HCcs.RO

Minja Axelsson , Jiaee Cheong , Rune Nyrup , Hatice Gunes This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HCcs.RO
keywords robotethicswellbeingrobotscommunityengagementparticipatorydesignthematicanalysissociallyassistiveroboticsdataownershipanticipatory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that community engagement with under-represented groups can surface the key ethical and socio-technical questions that wellbeing robots will raise once they leave the lab. Running structured reflection workshops with members of the public, women computer scientists, and humanities researchers, the authors distil participants' written and spoken reflections into four questions: Is the robot safe and how can we know that? Who is the robot built for and with? Who owns the robot and the data? Why a robot? The authors argue these four questions constitute a broad, reusable framework that roboticists can and should use during development and deployment to align robot design with public interest.

What carries the argument

The Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics, a reflection tool that prompts participants to consider six ethical dimensions (physical safety, data security, transparency, equality across users, emotional consideration, and behaviour enforcement), combined with inductive Thematic Analysis of the canvas text and researcher notes. The canvas supplies the structured elicitation; the thematic analysis turns the resulting qualitative data into the four thematic questions that form the proposed framework.

What would settle it

Re-run the workshops with full audio recording and independently transcribe and analyse the free-form discussion without reference to the canvas sheets; if the same four thematic questions fail to appear in the unaided conversation and only surface when participants are explicitly prompted by the canvas's six dimensions, the claim that these are community-derived questions collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the quartet of ethical and socio-technical questions that emerged from the authors' thematic analysis of workshop data. The questions are: (1) Is the robot safe and how can we know that?, covering physical safety, psychological attachment, and testing standards; (2) Who is the robot built for and with?, covering equality, culture, accessibility, and inclusivity; (3) Who owns the robot and the data?, covering privacy, protective policies, and data ownership; and (4) Why a robot?, covering the appropriateness of human-like robots, their placement in a wellbeing system, and their capabilities and limits. The paper presents these questions not as a definitive checklist b

Load-bearing premise

The four themes genuinely emerge from what participants reflected on, rather than being predetermined by the six ethical topics that the canvas explicitly prompts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework is adopted, wellbeing robot developers should prepare documentation that answers the four questions and make it directly accessible to users, for example as an onboard FAQ.
  • Roboticists working beyond wellbeing, on any social robot application, could use the same four questions as a reflective guide because the paper explicitly extends its findings to other social robot contexts.
  • Engaging under-represented communities through structured workshops may become a standard anticipatory-ethics practice in robotic development, shifting evaluation earlier in the design process.
  • The questions highlight that psychological and emotional safety, not just physical safety, must be part of robot safety standards and certification.
  • The 'Why a robot?' question challenges developers to justify the choice of an embodied robot over cheaper or simpler alternatives, which could alter product design decisions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The four questions effectively re-express classic AI ethics values—privacy, fairness, transparency, accountability—but reorganized from the standpoint of a prospective user rather than a system developer, which may make them easier to operationalize in design meetings.
  • A testable extension would be to run the same workshop protocol with different communities (for example, older adults, caregivers, or clinical practitioners) and see whether additional major questions emerge that do not fit under the four; this would probe the framework's completeness.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the four questions could also function as an audit scaffold: robot development teams could be evaluated on whether they can produce concrete, user-accessible answers to each question before deployment.
  • The 'Why a robot?' question carries a strong anti-solutionist undertone that, if taken seriously, could redirect research funding away from robotic wellbeing coaches and toward cheaper, more scalable non-embodied interventions—an implication the authors do not spell out.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports three community workshops (n=22) in which members of the public, women computer scientists, and humanities researchers used the Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics to reflect on wellbeing robots. Through Thematic Analysis of canvas responses and researcher notes, the authors identify four ethical and socio-technical questions: (1) Is the robot safe and how can we know that? (2) Who is the robot built for and with? (3) Who owns the robot and the data? (4) Why a robot? These are proposed as a reusable framework for roboticists to reflect on ethics and socio-technical dimensions during design, development, and deployment, and to support dialogue with communities.

Significance. If the four questions are genuinely community-grounded, the paper offers a concise, memorable reflective tool for an area—wellbeing robots—where anticipatory ethics is still underdeveloped. The work has clear strengths: it engages three under-represented groups, provides participant quotes in the appendix that substantiate each theme, includes positionality statements, and explicitly discusses power, privacy, and systemic factors. The proposed questions are practically useful as conversation starters, and the authors are transparent about several limitations, including the canvas's influence on discussion. However, the central empirical claim—that the questions emerged from community reflection—is only partially supported, because the data-collection instrument already explicitly structures most of the final thematic space. The contribution's novelty and validity depend on whether the framework is a community-emergent synthesis or a re-organisation of the authors' prior canvas dimensions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, §5.0.2] The canvas is described as explicitly addressing six ethical issues: physical safety, data security, transparency, equality across users, emotional consideration, and behaviour enforcement. Three of the four final themes map almost directly onto these dimensions (§4.1 ↔ physical/emotional safety; §4.3 ↔ data security; §4.2 ↔ equality across users). Section 5.0.2 concedes that 'the content of the canvases themselves did direct the topics of conversation.' The paper asserts that the analysis 'expanded' beyond the six dimensions, but provides no evidence which sub-themes were unprompted; for example, 'Why a robot?' could be a synthesis of transparency and emotional consideration prompts rather than an independent community concern. Because the abstract and conclusion claim that the four questions were 'identified through three community-based investigations,' this is load-bearing. Please pr
  2. [§3] The workshops and interviews were deliberately unrecorded to protect participants' privacy; the analysis therefore rests on canvas text and researcher notes. The notes are not reproduced or summarised in any systematic way. This makes it impossible for a reader to verify which themes and sub-themes actually arose in conversation rather than being prompted by the canvas, or to assess whether the notes faithfully preserve participant views. At minimum, the paper should provide an anonymised thematic summary of the notes, or explicitly identify which themes (e.g., employer surveillance, 'why a robot') rely on notes rather than canvas text.
  3. [§6, Abstract] The Conclusion states that the four questions 'are applicable to other social robot applications' and the abstract presents them as a framework that 'roboticists can and should use' broadly. This prescriptive generalisation goes beyond the evidence: the sample is three small, self-selected groups (n=22) recruited at University of Cambridge events, with limited demographic diversity and no demographics for G1. The paper carefully frames the questions as a starting point in §5, but the abstract and conclusion make a stronger, less warranted claim. I recommend softening these claims to scope them to wellbeing robots and to frame the questions as hypotheses or discussion tools requiring further validation across contexts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] In §4.1.1 the text attributes 'getting attacked by the robot' to G1P05, but Table 1 lists it under G1P06. Please check participant IDs for consistency.
  2. [Figure 1] The ordering of the four layers is described inconsistently. The text talks about an expanding circle from 'person' to 'social group' to 'society' to 'culture,' but the figure caption and the list in Figure 1 appear to place 'Culture' before 'Social group' and 'Society.' Clarify the intended ordering.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The table headers contain a typo: 'T opic' should be 'Topic.' Also, formatting of participant references is inconsistent (e.g., 'G1P01' vs. 'G1, P6' in §4.4.1).
  4. [§3] The claim of data saturation is asserted with a citation but not demonstrated. Given the heterogeneity of the three groups and the small group sizes, a brief justification of why saturation was reached would be useful.
  5. [§5.0.1] The discussion of future methods (citizens' assemblies, AI Hopes and Fears) is interesting but somewhat disconnected from the present data; it could be shortened or moved to a separate 'future work' subsection to keep the Discussion focused.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Instrument-direction: the four final themes largely restate the six explicit dimensions of the authors' own ethics canvas, so the 'community-identified' framework is partially constructed by the instrument.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 (Methodology) and Section 5.0.2 (Discussion); final themes in Sections 4.1-4.4]
    "The canvas addresses six ethical issues explicitly: physical safety, data security, transparency, equality across users, emotional consideration, and behaviour enforcement. ... the content of the canvases themselves did direct the topics of conversation. ... we expanded our inquiry and analysis from the original six dimensions represented on the canvas, and formulate these four real-world ethical questions."

    The final four questions are not independent of the data-collection instrument. The canvas, designed by the first author (Axelsson et al. 2021b; Axelsson 2020), explicitly prompts six dimensions, and the four themes are substantially aggregations of them: physical safety and emotional consideration become 'Is it safe?'; equality across users becomes 'Who is the robot built for and with?'; data security becomes 'Who owns the robot and the data?'; transparency and behaviour enforcement feed into 'Why a robot?'. The paper concedes the canvas directed the conversation, so the Abstract/Conclusion claim that the questions were 'identified through three community-based investigations' is weakened: the thematic skeleton was partly built into the instrument. The paper does add a less-prompted meta-

full rationale

This is a qualitative, self-aware study, not a formal derivation, but the central deliverable—the four-question framework—is partly pre-structured by the instrument. Section 3 describes the Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics as explicitly addressing six ethical issues, and Section 5.0.2 openly states that 'the content of the canvases themselves did direct the topics of conversation.' The four final themes map closely onto those six dimensions, so the 'community-emergent' framing in the Abstract and Conclusion overstates the degree to which the questions arose independently from participants. The paper partially mitigates this by expanding beyond the six dimensions, including the less directly prompted 'Why a robot?' question, and by integrating participants' quotes with state-of-the-art literature and a power-lens reinterpretation. The decision not to record workshops (Section 3) further means unprompted discussion cannot be independently checked, but the paper's own limitation note already flags the central issue. Because the framework retains some independent content and the paper is transparent about the instrument's influence, the circularity is partial rather than total. Score 5 reflects this instrument-driven construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No quantitative fitting occurs, so there are no free parameters and no invented entities. The load-bearing premises are data-collection and analytic choices: thematic coding as a faithful lens, saturation at n=22, canvas text plus notes as a faithful record of unrecorded sessions, comparability of live-demo and video protocols, and the contested premise that the authors' own six-dimension canvas did not structurally predetermine the four themes, which the paper concedes in Sec. 5.0.2.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Thematic Analysis by two of the authors yields themes that faithfully represent community perspectives
    The paper's method rests on researcher coding of canvas responses with no audio recordings, no inter-coder agreement metric, and analysis developed 'in conversation between two of us' (Sec. 3).
  • domain assumption Data saturation is reached at n=22 across three heterogeneous groups
    Claimed in Sec. 3 citing Guest et al. (2006), but G3 has 4 participants and G1 used live interaction while G2/G3 watched a video, so saturation per group is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Canvas responses plus researcher notes are a faithful record of unrecorded sessions
    The authors deliberately did not record interviews or workshops to protect privacy (Sec. 3), so the analysis depends on what participants wrote and what the researchers happened to note.
  • ad hoc to paper The six-dimension canvas does not structurally determine the four themes
    This is the load-bearing premise the paper's 'emergent from communities' narrative depends on, and it is partially conceded in Sec. 5.0.2: 'the content of the canvases themselves did direct the topics of conversation'.
  • domain assumption Live robot interaction (G1) and video presentation (G2, G3) elicit comparable ethical reflection
    Cross-group synthesis pools all three protocols as equivalent evidence despite different elicitation conditions (Sec. 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EJJIBID

@misc{pith2026250902624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EJJIBID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02624}
}
read the original abstract

Recent studies indicate that robotic coaches can play a crucial role in promoting wellbeing. However, the real-world deployment of wellbeing robots raises numerous ethical and socio-technical questions and concerns. To explore these questions, we undertake a community-centered investigation to examine three different communities' perspectives on using robotic wellbeing coaches in real-world environments. We frame our work as an anticipatory ethical investigation, which we undertake to better inform the development of robotic technologies with communities' opinions, with the ultimate goal of aligning robot development with public interest. We conducted workshops with three communities who are under-represented in robotics development: 1) members of the public at a science festival, 2) women computer scientists at a conference, and 3) humanities researchers interested in history and philosophy of science. In the workshops, we collected qualitative data using the Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics. We analysed the collected qualitative data with Thematic Analysis, informed by notes taken during workshops. Through our analysis, we identify four themes regarding key ethical and socio-technical questions about the real-world use of wellbeing robots. We group participants' insights and discussions around these broad thematic questions, discuss them in light of state-of-the-art literature, and highlight areas for future investigation. Finally, we provide the four questions as a broad framework that roboticists can and should use during robotic development and deployment, in order to reflect on the ethics and socio-technical dimensions of their robotic applications, and to engage in dialogue with communities of robot users. The four questions are: 1) Is the robot safe and how can we know that?, 2) Who is the robot built for and with?, 3) Who owns the robot and the data?, and 4) Why a robot?.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The circles expand from more personal and specific questions, to the more general and abstract. We present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robots can be more than black and white: examining racial bias towards robots

    Arifah Addison, Christoph Bartneck, and Kumar Yogeeswaran. Robots can be more than black and white: examining racial bias towards robots. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 493–498,

    work page 2019

  2. [4]

    Participatory design of a robotic mental well-being coach

    Minja Axelsson, Indu P Bodala, and Hatice Gunes. Participatory design of a robotic mental well-being coach. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pages 1081–1088. IEEE, 2021a. Minja Axelsson, Raquel Oliveira, Mattia Racca, and Ville Kyrki. Social robot co-design canvases: A participatory design fra...

    work page 2021

  3. [7]

    Crowdsourcing impacts: exploring the utility of crowds for anticipating societal impacts of algorithmic decision making

    Julia Barnett and Nicholas Diakopoulos. Crowdsourcing impacts: exploring the utility of crowds for anticipating societal impacts of algorithmic decision making. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 56–67,

    work page 2022

  4. [9]

    Uncertainty as a form of transparency: Measuring, communicating, and using uncertainty

    Umang Bhatt, Javier Antorán, Yunfeng Zhang, Q Vera Liao, Prasanna Sattigeri, Riccardo Fogliato, Gabrielle Melançon, Ranganath Krishnan, Jason Stanley, Omesh Tickoo, et al. Uncertainty as a form of transparency: Measuring, communicating, and using uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 401–413,

    work page 2021

  5. [12]

    Creating a Robot Coach for Mindfulness and Wellbeing: A Longitudinal Study

    Indu P Bodala, Nikhil Churamani, and Hatice Gunes. Creating a robot coach for mindfulness and wellbeing: A longitudinal study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.05289,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  6. [14]

    What is human-centered about human-centered ai? a map of the research landscape

    Tara Capel and Margot Brereton. What is human-centered about human-centered ai? a map of the research landscape. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–23,

    work page 2023

  7. [15]

    Small but Fair! Fairness for Multimodal Human-Human and Robot-Human Mental Wellbeing Coaching

    Jiaee Cheong, Sinan Kalkan, and Hatice Gunes. Causal structure learning of bias for fair affect recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 340–349, 2023a. Jiaee Cheong, Selim Kuzucu, Sinan Kalkan, and Hatice Gunes. Towards gender fairness for mental health prediction. In IJCAI, pages 5932–5940, ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [17]

    First therapy chatbot trial yields mental health benefits

    DartmouthNews. First therapy chatbot trial yields mental health benefits. https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/ 2025/03/first-therapy-chatbot-trial-yields-mental-health-benefits ,

    work page 2025

Show all 54 references
  1. [18]

    Nathaniel S Dennler, Mina Kian, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matari´c

    Accessed: 2025-03-25. Nathaniel S Dennler, Mina Kian, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Maja Matari´c. Designing robot identity: The role of voice, clothing, and task on robot gender perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00494,

    2025 arXiv

  2. [19]

    Wendy Faulkner

    European Union, Accessed: 2025-05-15. Wendy Faulkner. ‘nuts and bolts and people’gender troubled engineering identities. Engineering Identities, Epistemolo- gies and Values: Engineering Education and Practice in Context, Volume 2, pages 23–40,

    2025

  3. [21]

    Black feminist musings on algorithmic oppression

    Lelia Marie Hampton. Black feminist musings on algorithmic oppression. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21, page 1, New York, NY , USA,

    2021

  4. [22]

    ISBN 9781450383097

    Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450383097. doi:10.1145/3442188.3445929. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3442188.3445929. 18 Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement Sven Ove...

  5. [23]

    A comparative study of older and younger adults using solution-focused brief therapy with an active listening counseling robot

    Yugo Hayashi, Keita Kiuchi, Shigen Shimojo, Lisa Abe, and Emika Watanabe. A comparative study of older and younger adults using solution-focused brief therapy with an active listening counseling robot. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot...

    2025

  6. [24]

    A bilingual social robot with sign language and natural language

    Xiaoxuan Hei, Chuang Yu, Heng Zhang, and Adriana Tapus. A bilingual social robot with sign language and natural language. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , pages 526–529,

    2024

  7. [25]

    Ai bias in human-robot interaction: An evaluation of the risk in gender biased robots

    Tom Hitron, Benny Megidish, Etay Todress, Noa Morag, and Hadas Erel. Ai bias in human-robot interaction: An evaluation of the risk in gender biased robots. In 2022 RO-MAN. IEEE,

    2022

  8. [26]

    Power in human-robot interaction

    Yoyo Tsung-Yu Hou, EunJeong Cheon, and Malte F Jung. Power in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 269–282,

    2024

  9. [27]

    Effective enforceability of eu competition law under ai development scenarios: a framework for anticipatory governance

    Shin-Shin Hua and Haydn Belfield. Effective enforceability of eu competition law under ai development scenarios: a framework for anticipatory governance. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 596–605,

    2023

  10. [28]

    A robotic positive psychology coach to improve college students’ wellbeing

    Sooyeon Jeong, Sharifa Alghowinem, Laura Aymerich-Franch, Kika Arias, Agata Lapedriza, Rosalind Picard, Hae Won Park, and Cynthia Breazeal. A robotic positive psychology coach to improve college students’ wellbeing. In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human...

    2020

  11. [29]

    Machine learning fairness for depression detection using eeg data

    Angus Man Ho Kwok, Jiaee Cheong, Sinan Kalkan, and Hatice Gunes. Machine learning fairness for depression detection using eeg data. In 2025 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1–5. IEEE,

    2025

  12. [30]

    Opening up to social robots: how emotions drive self-disclosure behavior

    Guy Laban, Arvid Kappas, Val Morrison, and Emily S Cross. Opening up to social robots: how emotions drive self-disclosure behavior. In 2023 32nd ieee international conference on robot and human interactive communication (ro-man), pages 1697–1704. IEEE,

    2023

  13. [31]

    Towards understanding the entanglement of human stereotypes and system biases in human-robot interaction

    Clara Lachemaier, Eleonore Lumer, Hendrik Buschmeier, and Sina Zarrieß. Towards understanding the entanglement of human stereotypes and system biases in human-robot interaction. InCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 646–649,

    2024

  14. [32]

    Exercise specialists evaluation of robot-led physical therapy for people with parkinsons disease

    Matthew Lamsey, Meredith D Wells, Lydia Hamby, Paige Scanlon, Rouida Siddiqui, You Liang Tan, Jerry Feldman, Charles C Kemp, and Madeleine E Hackney. Exercise specialists evaluation of robot-led physical therapy for people with parkinsons disease. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04635,

    arXiv

  15. [33]

    Co-designing ai futures: Integrating ai ethics, social computing, and design

    Daria Loi, Christine T Wolf, Jeanette L Blomberg, Raphael Arar, and Margot Brereton. Co-designing ai futures: Integrating ai ethics, social computing, and design. In Companion publication of the 2019 on designing interactive systems conference 2019 companion, pages 381–384,

    2019

  16. [34]

    Rune Nyrup

    Accessed: 2025-03-25. Rune Nyrup. From general principles to procedural values: responsible digital health meets public health ethics. Frontiers in Digital Health, 3:690417,

    2025

  17. [35]

    doi:10.1093/oso/9780192889898.003.0018

    ISBN 9780192889898. doi:10.1093/oso/9780192889898.003.0018. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ oso/9780192889898.003.0018. Tobi Ogunyale, De’Aira Bryant, and Ayanna Howard. Does removing stereotype priming remove bias? a pilot human-robot interaction study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.00948,

  18. [36]

    Ethics, equity, & justice in human-robot interaction: A review and future directions

    Anastasia K Ostrowski, Raechel Walker, Madhurima Das, Maria Yang, Cynthia Breazea, Hae Won Park, and Aditi Verma. Ethics, equity, & justice in human-robot interaction: A review and future directions. In 2022 RO-MAN, pages 969–976. IEEE,

    2022

  19. [37]

    The shape of our bias: Perceived age and gender in the humanoid robots of the abot database

    Giulia Perugia, Stefano Guidi, Margherita Bicchi, and Oronzo Parlangeli. The shape of our bias: Perceived age and gender in the humanoid robots of the abot database. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 110–119. IEEE,

    2022

  20. [38]

    Hamed Pourfannan, Rachel Young, and Alessandro Di Nuovo

    Accessed: 2025-08-11. Hamed Pourfannan, Rachel Young, and Alessandro Di Nuovo. Integrating humanoid robots in stroke rehabilitation: Practitioners’ expectations and insights. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 1553–1557,

    2025

  21. [40]

    About ml: Annotation and benchmarking on understanding and transparency of machine learning lifecycles

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji and Jingying Yang. About ml: Annotation and benchmarking on understanding and transparency of machine learning lifecycles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06166,

    1912 arXiv

  22. [41]

    Technology-assisted journal writing for improving student mental wellbeing: Humanoid robot vs

    Batuhan Sayis and Hatice Gunes. Technology-assisted journal writing for improving student mental wellbeing: Humanoid robot vs. voice assistant. In Companion of the 2024 acm/ieee international conference on human-robot interaction, pages 945–949,

    2024

  23. [42]

    Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction

    21 Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, Kathryn Henne, AJung Moon, Negar Rostamzadeh, Paul Nicholas, N’Mah Yilla- Akbari, Jess Gallegos, Andrew Smar...

    2023

  24. [44]

    Affective robotics for wellbeing: A scoping review

    Micol Spitale and Hatice Gunes. Affective robotics for wellbeing: A scoping review. In 2022 10th International conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction workshops and demos (ACIIW), pages 1–8. IEEE,

    2022

  25. [45]

    Robotic mental well-being coaches for the workplace: An in-the-wild study on form

    Micol Spitale, Minja Axelsson, and Hatice Gunes. Robotic mental well-being coaches for the workplace: An in-the-wild study on form. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 301–310, 2023a. Micol Spitale, Minja Axelsson, Nev...

    2023 arXiv

  26. [46]

    Ukcp code of ethics and professional practice

    UKCP. Ukcp code of ethics and professional practice. https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/media/bkjdm33f/ ukcp-code-of-ethics-and-professional-practice-2019.pdf ,

    2019

  27. [47]

    UKGovernment

    Accessed: 2025-04-01. UKGovernment. Regulating medical devices in the uk. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ regulating-medical-devices-in-the-uk ,

    2025

  28. [48]

    Niels van Berkel, Benjamin Tag, Jorge Goncalves, and Simo Hosio

    Accessed: 2025-04-01. Niels van Berkel, Benjamin Tag, Jorge Goncalves, and Simo Hosio. Human-centred artificial intelligence: a contextual morality perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(3):502–518,

    2025

  29. [50]

    On the relationship between benchmarking, standards and certification in robotics and ai

    Alan FT Winfield and Matthew Studley. On the relationship between benchmarking, standards and certification in robotics and ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12139,

    arXiv

  30. [51]

    Norm- breaking responses to sexist abuse: A cross-cultural human robot interaction study

    Katie Winkle, Ryan Blake Jackson, Gaspar Isaac Melsión, Dražen Bršˇci´c, Iolanda Leite, and Tom Williams. Norm- breaking responses to sexist abuse: A cross-cultural human robot interaction study. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ...

    2022

  31. [52]

    Feminist human-robot interaction: Disentangling power, principles and practice for better, more ethical hri

    Katie Winkle, Donald McMillan, Maria Arnelid, Katherine Harrison, Madeline Balaam, Ericka Johnson, and Iolanda Leite. Feminist human-robot interaction: Disentangling power, principles and practice for better, more ethical hri. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International ...

    2023

  32. [53]

    An empathetic social robot with modular anxiety interventions for autistic adolescents

    Baijun Xie and Chung Hyuk Park. An empathetic social robot with modular anxiety interventions for autistic adolescents. In 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), pages 1148–1155. IEEE,

    2024

  33. [54]

    Robots for social justice (r4sj): Toward a more equitable practice of human- robot interaction

    Yifei Zhu, Ruchen Wen, and Tom Williams. Robots for social justice (r4sj): Toward a more equitable practice of human- robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 850–859,

    2024

  34. [1991]

    Cultural incongruencies in artificial intelligence

    Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Rida Qadri, and Ben Hutchinson. Cultural incongruencies in artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13069,

    arXiv

  35. [1995]

    Challenges and opportunities for the design of inclusive digital mental health tools: Understanding culturally diverse young people’s experiences

    Ewan Soubutts, Pranita Shrestha, Brittany I Davidson, Chengcheng Qu, Charlotte Mindel, Aaron Sefi, Paul Marshall, and Roisin McNaney. Challenges and opportunities for the design of inclusive digital mental health tools: Understanding culturally diverse young people’s experienc...

    2024

  36. [2014]

    org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/ socio-technical-system-design

    URL https://www.interaction-design. org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/ socio-technical-system-design . Alan FT Winfield and Marina Jirotka. The case for an ethical black box. In Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems: 18th Annual Conference,...

    2017

  37. [2015]

    Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction

    Julia Fink. Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. In Social Robotics: 4th International Conference, ICSR 2012, Chengdu, China, October 29-31,

    2012

  38. [2017]

    Fairness and transparency in human-robot interaction

    Houston Claure, Mai Lee Chang, Seyun Kim, Daniel Omeiza, Martim Brandao, Min Kyung Lee, and Malte Jung. Fairness and transparency in human-robot interaction. In 2022 HRI, pages 1244–1246. IEEE,

    2022

  39. [2018]

    Multimodal gender fairness in depression prediction: Insights on data from the usa & china

    Joseph Cameron, Jiaee Cheong, Micol Spitale, and Hatice Gunes. Multimodal gender fairness in depression prediction: Insights on data from the usa & china. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04026,

    arXiv

  40. [2019]

    Non-verbal communication with a social robot peer: Towards robot assisted interactive sign language tutoring

    Neziha Akalin, Pinar Uluer, and Hatice Kose. Non-verbal communication with a social robot peer: Towards robot assisted interactive sign language tutoring. In 2014 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pages 1122–1127. IEEE,

    2014

  41. [2020]

    Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/jg2t8, Accessed: 11-08-2025

    URLhttps://osf.io/jg2t8/. Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/jg2t8, Accessed: 11-08-2025. Minja Axelsson, Mattia Racca, Daryl Weir, and Ville Kyrki. A participatory design process of a robotic tutor of assistive sign language for children with autism. In 2019 28th IEEE int...

    2025

  42. [2021]

    Gaze and filled pause detection for smooth human-robot conversations

    16 Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement Miriam Bilac, Marine Chamoux, and Angelica Lim. Gaze and filled pause detection for smooth human-robot conversations. In 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th ...

    2017

  43. [2022]

    Robotic coaches delivering group mindfulness practice at a public cafe

    Minja Axelsson, Micol Spitale, and Hatice Gunes. Robotic coaches delivering group mindfulness practice at a public cafe. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 86–90,

    2023

  44. [2023]

    oh, sorry, i think i interrupted you

    Minja Axelsson, Micol Spitale, and Hatice Gunes. " oh, sorry, i think i interrupted you": Designing repair strategies for robotic longitudinal well-being coaching. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 13–22,

    2024

  45. [2024]

    Explainable machine learning in deployment

    Umang Bhatt, Alice Xiang, Shubham Sharma, Adrian Weller, Ankur Taly, Yunhan Jia, Joydeep Ghosh, Ruchir Puri, José MF Moura, and Peter Eckersley. Explainable machine learning in deployment. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pag...

    2020

  46. [2025]

    Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed

    Accessed: 2025-03-25. Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. Power to the people? opportunities and challenges for participatory ai. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Acces...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.