Public Acceptance of Cybernetic Avatars in the service sector: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey in Dubai

Hiroko Kamide; Hiroshi Ishiguro; Laura Aymerich-Franch; Paolo Dario; Takahiro Miyashita; Tarek Taha

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 10 references

Public Acceptance of Cybernetic Avatars in the service sector: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey in Dubai

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dubai residents broadly accept robotic customer-service avatars, with clear preferences for physical robots, clearly robotic or cartoonish designs, and commercial spaces.

desk verdict A solid, useful descriptive survey of avatar acceptance in Dubai with a clean dataset; the main caveats are the 'ideal society' framing and the non-representative sample, both manageable in revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14268 v1 pith:7FT6P7KW submitted 2025-06-17 cs.RO cs.ETcs.HC

Laura Aymerich-Franch , Tarek Taha , Takahiro Miyashita , Hiroko Kamide , Hiroshi Ishiguro , Paolo Dario This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.ETcs.HC

keywords cyberneticavatarsrobottechnologyacceptancemulticulturalcontextssocialrobotshuman-robotinteractionservicesectorDubai

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

This paper reports a survey of 1,001 residents of Dubai measuring public acceptance of cybernetic avatars, defined as robots or digital characters that combine autonomous abilities with remote human control. Its core finding is that acceptance is generally high but conditional: physical robots are preferred over digital avatars, distinctly anthropomorphic robotic appearances and cartoonish designs beat androids and animal forms, and people accept avatars for informational and logistical tasks in commercial, transport, and cultural spaces far more than in healthcare, schools, or emotionally sensitive roles. The study also claims that cultural background shapes these preferences, with Emirati respondents unusually accepting of androids and respondents from the Other Asia cluster unusually fond of cartoonish designs. If these results hold, they give service providers and city governments a concrete map of where and in what form avatar customer service will be welcomed, and where it will meet resistance.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is a survey battery built around a six-category appearance typology—ultra-realistic android, hybrid android, highly anthropomorphic robotic-looking, low anthropomorphic robotic-looking, cartoonish, and animal-looking—each illustrated by two visual stimuli and rated on a three-point agree-neutral-disagree scale. The same battery asks about two modalities (physical robot versus digital avatar), twenty service settings, and thirteen tasks, plus attitude and fear scales. The comparisons are carried by a stratified quota sample of 1,001 participants balanced by gender and by six community clusters (Emirati, Middle East, South Asia, Other Asia, Western, Other Africa), which is what allows the paper to attribute differences such as Emirati android acceptance or Other Asia cartoonish acceptance to cultural background rather than to chance sampling.

What would settle it

Run the same acceptance questions on a probability sample drawn from Dubai's official resident records, administered in Arabic, Hindi, Urdu, Tagalog, and English, and check whether the headline figures replicate: overall 67.3% agreement with physical robot avatars, 61.1% agreement with highly anthropomorphic robotic appearances, and the Emirati cluster's 69.4% agreement with androids; failure to reproduce these percentages within sampling error would undermine the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that public acceptance of cybernetic avatars in Dubai is real but patterned. Overall, 67.3% of the 1,001 respondents agreed that physical robots should serve customers, versus 56.9% for digital avatars. Of six appearance categories, highly anthropomorphic robotic-looking designs drew the most agreement (61.1%), followed by cartoonish (53.3%) and android (50.4%) designs; animal-like forms drew the least (39.0%) and the most disagreement (28.0%). Acceptance was highest in shopping malls (74.5%), airports (69.6%), museums (69.1%), and metro stations (68.9%), and lowest in healthcare settings (31.6 to 37.4%) and schools (39.4%). Task preferences followed the same logic: information, guidance, recycling collection, and carrying items were widely accepted, while handling complaints (43.2%) and companionship (50.2%) were not. The paper further claims that community identity shifts these preferences: Emirati respondents agreed with android avatars at 69.4% versus the overall 50.4%, while the Other Asia cluster accepted cartoonish avatars at 68.4% versus the overall 53.3% and accepted androids at only 33.3%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quota sample drawn by an external panel in a single language (English) and grouped into six broad community clusters actually represents the attitudes of Dubai's population; if the sample misses Arabic-only or other non-English-speaking residents, or if the clusters lump unlike communities together, the overall acceptance rates and cluster comparisons do not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Robotic customer-service avatars deployed in Dubai's commercial, transport, and cultural venues—shopping malls, airports, museums, and metro stations—are likely to meet broad public approval, while hospitals, clinics, schools, and nursing homes will face majority resistance.
Highly anthropomorphic robotic-looking designs are the safest default appearance, followed by cartoonish designs, while animal-like and hybrid-android forms are more likely to be rejected.
Physical robot avatars should be prioritized over screen-based or VR avatars when the goal is to maximize acceptance.
Appearance preferences vary by community, so a single uniform avatar design may be less accepted than designs tailored to the demographic profile of each deployment site.
Task assignment matters as much as appearance: information, guidance, multilingual support, and object carrying are welcome, whereas complaint handling and companionship roles are not.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that stated acceptance of still images may not predict actual behavior with a moving, interacting robot; a field trial in a Dubai shopping mall comparing stated acceptance with observed willingness to approach and use a physical avatar would test that gap.
Because the 'Western' cluster groups Latin American countries such as Peru, Cuba, Panama, and the Dominican Republic with European and North American countries, its 40.4% cartoonish-acceptance figure should not be read as a unified Western cultural response; a country-level re-analysis could change the cluster conclusions.
The same relative ordering—clearly robotic and cartoonish forms over androids and animals, commercial over healthcare settings, informational over emotionally sensitive tasks—may extend from cybernetic avatars to conventional service robots, since the authors note the relevance to social and humanoid robotics.
The open-ended android responses suggest that acceptance is tied to Dubai's innovation-brand identity while rejection is tied to uncanny-valley discomfort, job displacement, and religious or ethical objections; these mechanisms could be measured directly as predictors in a follow-up survey.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, this is a decent, useful paper. It reports the largest survey I know of on cybernetic avatar acceptance in a genuinely multicultural city, with over a thousand Dubai residents from six community clusters. The descriptive results are clear and the analysis is appropriate for what it is: Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, binomial tests with Bonferroni corrections. The main findings—robot avatars preferred over digital, highly anthropomorphic robotic and cartoonish forms beating androids and animal-like designs, high support in malls and airports, low support in healthcare—are new for this population and presented with enough detail to be actionable.

The strongest part is the dataset itself. The survey has attention checks, a quota balanced on gender and community, and a transparent breakdown of exclusions. The open-ended analysis on android acceptance is a nice addition, with themes like comfort, alignment with Dubai's innovation agenda, job displacement, and religious concerns. That is real value.

The soft spots are both about interpretation, not the raw numbers. First, the stress-test is right: participants were asked to envision an 'ideal society for Dubai' before saying whether robot avatars 'would be permitted' or 'would be used.' That wording invites aspirational agreement. The Discussion acknowledges the survey was 'hypothetical' but never mentions the ideal-society frame, so the stated limitation doesn't cover the strongest threat. This doesn't sink the paper—people can still express a preference under that prompt—but it means the headline 'high acceptance' should be read as 'endorsement in an idealized scenario,' not 'acceptance of actual deployment today.'

Second, the reader's concern about generalizability is legitimate. The sample is quota-based and English-only, and the 'Western' cluster lumps Peru with Canada. The authors are upfront that they didn't aim for a probability sample, and the balanced design is defensible for cross-group comparison. But the title says 'evidence from Dubai' and the Discussion implies city-wide guidance, so the framing overreaches. That's fixable by softening the language and making the limits explicit. Also, no raw data or stimuli are provided, which hampers replication.

This paper is for applied HRI and policy researchers, not for someone building theory. It deserves a serious referee. I'd accept it conditional on revision—add a paragraph on the ideal-society framing and recalibrate the generalizability claims. Put it on the reading group list.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a large-scale survey (N = 1001) of Dubai residents on acceptance of cybernetic avatars in customer-service roles. Participants rated acceptance of physical robot avatars versus digital avatars, six robot appearance categories, twenty deployment settings, and thirteen tasks. The main descriptive findings are that physical robots are accepted more than digital avatars (67.3% vs 56.9%), highly anthropomorphic robotic and cartoonish appearances are favored over android, hybrid, low-anthropomorphic, and animal-like appearances, and acceptance is higher in commercial, transport, and cultural settings and for informational tasks than in healthcare, education, and emotionally sensitive roles. The paper also reports community-cluster and gender comparisons and a thematic analysis of open-ended reasons for android acceptance and rejection.

Significance. Taken at face value, the study provides one of the largest datasets on cybernetic-avatar acceptance in a multicultural urban setting, with transparent reporting of quota sampling, attention checks, multiple-testing corrections in the main analyses, and supplementary tables. Its direct policy link to Dubai's deployment strategy makes the descriptive rankings practically useful. However, the headline claims are currently stronger than the measurement and sampling design support: the 'ideal society' question frame and the non-probability, English-only sample place important limits on what can be concluded about actual acceptance among Dubai residents. Because these issues bear directly on the central conclusion, the contribution is promising but needs revision.

major comments (4)

[§1.1–1.3, §2.1, §4 (Limitations)] The acceptance items ask participants to 'envision an ideal society for Dubai' and then to state whether robot avatars 'would be permitted' or 'would be used' in that ideal scenario. This wording elicits idealized desirability rather than acceptance under real-world constraints such as cost, trust, safety, job displacement, and unfamiliarity, and it applies to every headline rate in Sections 3.1–3.4. The Discussion's limitation paragraph acknowledges that the survey was 'hypothetical,' but it does not address the 'ideal society' framing specifically, which is the strongest threat to construct validity. I recommend either reframing all conclusions as 'stated acceptance in an idealized future scenario' or adding items that present realistic trade-offs, and discussing how the framing may inflate agreement rates.
[§2.2, §2.3.1, Table 1] The sample is a non-probability quota sample recruited through an external panel and administered only in English. The authors explicitly state in §2.3.1 that the goal was balanced representation rather than statistical representativeness, yet the abstract and Discussion generalize to 'public in Dubai' and 'Dubai residents.' English-only administration is likely to exclude a substantial share of Dubai's non-English-speaking residents, and the cluster definitions are heterogeneous (e.g., the 'Western' cluster includes Peru, Cuba, Panama, and the Dominican Republic). The population-level claims should be softened, and the limitations section should explicitly discuss language, panel-recruitment, and cluster-definition biases.
[§3.2.1, Tables 3A–8A; §3.1, Tables 1A–2A] The binomial tests in Section 3.2.1 compare each community cluster's agreement rate to the corresponding agreement rate in the overall sample, but the overall sample includes the cluster being tested. This violates the independence assumption of the exact binomial test and biases the comparison, since the baseline proportion already contains the cluster's own respondents. For example, the Emirati android agreement rate (69.4%) is tested against 50.4%, a proportion that already includes the 170 Emirati participants. The cluster-level claims, including the abstract's statement about Emirati and 'Other Asia' differences, should be reanalyzed with the target cluster excluded from the baseline proportion, or with an omnibus test such as chi-square followed by post-hoc comparisons. The same issue applies to the modality comparisons in Section 3.1.
[§3.2.1] Bonferroni correction is applied separately within each appearance type (six cluster comparisons per appearance, α = .0083), but not across the six appearance types. With 36 cluster-by-appearance binomial tests, the expected number of false positives under the null is close to 1.8 at the per-test level; the significant findings for hybrid android and cartoonish appearances should be assessed with a family-wise correction across all appearance tests, or the results should be labeled as exploratory.

minor comments (7)

[Title and abstract heading] The word 'Cyberne3c' appears in the title and in the abstract heading; this should be corrected to 'Cybernetic.'
[§3.2.1] The sentence 'Responses were recoded into a binary outcome (“agree” = 0 vs. “not agree” = 1' appears inconsistent with the later statement that 'Agree' responses were treated as successes; please clarify the dummy coding.
[§3.4] The text says 'Table 6 presents the percentage of respondents who agreed...' but the relevant table is numbered Table 3; the cross-reference should be corrected.
[§3.1, §3.2.1] Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests are reported with p-values but no effect sizes or confidence intervals; given the large sample, reporting rank-biserial correlation or Cliff's delta would help readers assess the magnitude of the differences.
[§2.1 and Appendix/SI] The full survey instrument is not included in the paper or supplementary information; providing the complete questionnaire would improve transparency and reproducibility.
[§3.2.2] The thematic analysis of open-ended responses reports no reliability statistics, coding scheme, or intercoder agreement; the authors should describe how many responses fell into each theme and how the AI-assisted grouping was validated.
[§4] The Discussion describes the sample as capturing 'residents of over 80 countries,' but the analysis is based on six broad community clusters rather than country-level representation; please rephrase or clarify the level at which countries are represented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the acceptance results are direct measurements of survey responses, with no fitted parameters or derived quantities that reduce to the input.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are direct descriptive summaries of self-report survey responses. The acceptance percentages by modality, appearance, space, and task are computed directly from Likert-style agreement items; there is no model, no fitted parameter, and no derived quantity that is later 'predicted.' The appearance typology and the lists of spaces and tasks are borrowed from the authors' prior publications (Aymerich-Franch and Ferrer, 2020, 2022, 2023), but those citations supply stimulus materials, not the empirical result; the acceptance rankings are measured from the new Dubai sample and would stand or fall on the data. The 'ideal society' wording frames the items, but this is a question-validity concern, not a circular derivation: nothing in the analysis assumes the conclusion. The binomial cluster comparisons test each cluster against the overall sample proportion; while that is statistically non-independent, it is not a circularity in the sense of a prediction reducing to its input. No uniqueness theorem is imported and no renaming of a known result occurs. Therefore the paper does not exhibit definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on measurement and sampling assumptions rather than on derived parameters. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated. The key assumptions concern the validity of self-report in hypothetical scenarios, the appearance stimulus typology, the representativeness of the quota sample, and the language of administration. These assumptions are common in survey-based acceptance research and are partly acknowledged in the Discussion.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Self-reported agreement in a hypothetical 'ideal society' scenario predicts real-world acceptance of deployed avatars.
All acceptance questions ask participants to envision an ideal future Dubai and then state agreement on a three-point scale. The Discussion acknowledges that real exposure may lead to different results.
domain assumption The six-category appearance typology, with two still images per category, validly represents the appearance space and is perceived consistently by respondents.
The typology is based on the authors' prior work and uses images of Erica and Ibuki plus AI-generated designs (Section 1.1 and Figure 1). No manipulation check or category validation is reported.
domain assumption The quota sample and the six community clusters represent Dubai's multicultural population well enough to generalize.
The sampling strategy in Section 2.3.1 is quota-based on gender and cluster and explicitly not statistically representative. Cluster labels, especially 'Western', include heterogeneous countries.
domain assumption Administering the survey in English does not systematically bias acceptance estimates across non-native English speakers.
The survey was conducted in English only (Section 2.2). No English proficiency measure or language-based analysis is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Public Acceptance of Cybernetic Avatars in the service sector: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey in Dubai." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FT6P7KW

@misc{pith2026250614268,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Public Acceptance of Cybernetic Avatars in the service sector: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey in Dubai},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FT6P7KW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14268}
}

read the original abstract

Cybernetic avatars are hybrid interaction robots or digital representations that combine autonomous capabilities with teleoperated control. This study investigates the acceptance of cybernetic avatars in the highly multicultural society of Dubai, with particular emphasis on robotic avatars for customer service. Specifically, we explore how acceptance varies as a function of robot appearance (e.g., android, robotic-looking, cartoonish), deployment settings (e.g., shopping malls, hotels, hospitals), and functional tasks (e.g., providing information, patrolling). To this end, we conducted a large-scale survey with over 1,000 participants. Overall, cybernetic avatars received a high level of acceptance, with physical robot avatars receiving higher acceptance than digital avatars. In terms of appearance, robot avatars with a highly anthropomorphic robotic appearance were the most accepted, followed by cartoonish designs and androids. Animal-like appearances received the lowest level of acceptance. Among the tasks, providing information and guidance was rated as the most valued. Shopping malls, airports, public transport stations, and museums were the settings with the highest acceptance, whereas healthcare-related spaces received lower levels of support. An analysis by community cluster revealed among others that Emirati respondents showed significantly greater acceptance of android appearances compared to the overall sample, while participants from the 'Other Asia' cluster were significantly more accepting of cartoonish appearances. Our study underscores the importance of incorporating citizen feedback into the design and deployment of cybernetic avatars from the early stages to enhance acceptance of this technology in society.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14268 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

Introduc3on Cyberne'c avatars are hybrid interac'on robots or digital representa'ons that can perform tasks on their own, while also being controlled by a human operator (Horikawa et al., 2023; Ishiguro, 2021; Ishiguro et al., 2025). Operators can interact socially through cyberne'c avatars, control the avatar body, and communicate verbally through it (Ay...

work page 2023
[2]

I am paying anen'on to the survey, select “XX

Methodology 2.1. Contents of the survey The survey contained the following blocks*: - Introduc'on to cyberne'c avatars - Acceptance of robot avatars by appearance (ultra-realis'c androids, hybrid androids, highly anthropomorphic robo'c-looking, low anthropomorphic robo'c looking, cartoonish looking, and animal looking) - Acceptance of robot avatars by spa...

work page 2024
[3]

Spaces in the service sector The third research ques'on explored robot avatar acceptance depending on the seDng where robot avatars are found: RQ3

Robot avatar appearances assessed in the survey 1.2. Spaces in the service sector The third research ques'on explored robot avatar acceptance depending on the seDng where robot avatars are found: RQ3. To what extent are robot avatars accepted in the diﬀerent spaces of the service sector, among Dubai residents? We elaborated a list of key spaces in healthc...

work page 2024
[5]

The survey was ini'ated by 4,000 par'cipants. Of these, 1,542 were screened out due to ineligibility, 883 were excluded aver quota targets were reached, 198 did not ﬁnalize the survey, and 376 were removed through quality control checks. These measures helped ensure a high-quality and demographically balanced dataset for analysis. The ﬁnal sample consiste...

work page 2024
[6]

References Aymerich-Franch, L. (2020a). Avatar embodiment experiences to enhance mental health. In Technology and Health: Promo'ng ADtude and Behavior Change. hnps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816958-2.00003-4 Aymerich-Franch, L. (2020b). Towards a Common Framework for Mediated Embodiment. Digital Psychology, 1(2). hnps://doi.org/10.24989/dp.v1i2.1824 Ayme...

work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816958-2.00003-4 2020
[8]

hnps://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00944 Broadbent, E., Staﬀord, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older popula'on: Review and future direc'ons. In Interna'onal Journal of Social Robo'cs (Vol. 1, Issue 4). hnps://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6 Dafarra, S., Panacini, U., Romualdi, G., RapeD, L., Grieco, R., Darvish, K., ...

work page arXiv 2009
[70]

hnps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101993 Aymerich-Franch, L., & Ferrer, I. (2023). Socially Assis've Robots’ Deployment in Healthcare SeDngs: A Global Perspec've. Interna'onal Journal of Humanoid Robo'cs, 20(1). hnps://doi.org/10.1142/S0219843623500020 Aymerich-Franch, L., & Gómez, E. (2024). Public percep'on of socially assis've robots for healthcare...

arXiv 2023
[2016]

B., & Duan, X

hnps://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745086 Hameed, I., Tan, Z.-H., Thomsen, N. B., & Duan, X. (2016). User Acceptance of Social Robots. ACHI 2016 : The Ninth Interna'onal Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interac'ons, 274–279. Hatada, Y ., Barbareschi, G., Takeuchi, K., Kato, H., Yoshifuji, K., Minamizawa, K., & Narumi, T. (2024). People with Disabi...

arXiv 2016

Show all 10 references

[2023]

hnps://doi.org/10.1109/SII55687.2023.10039460 Ishiguro, H. (2021). The realisa'on of an avatar-symbio'c society where everyone can perform ac've roles without constraint. Advanced Robo'cs, 35(11). hnps://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2021.1928548 Ishiguro, H., Ueno, F., & Tachibana...

2021
[2024]

and for remote travel and physical interac'on, such as virtual museum visits (Roussou et al., 2001). Addi'onally, virtual avatars are extensively used for real-world applica'ons in gaming and interac'on in social virtual reality applica'ons, improving mental health, and promo'...

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Introduc3on Cyberne'c avatars are hybrid interac'on robots or digital representa'ons that can perform tasks on their own, while also being controlled by a human operator (Horikawa et al., 2023; Ishiguro, 2021; Ishiguro et al., 2025). Operators can interact socially through cyberne'c avatars, control the avatar body, and communicate verbally through it (Ay...

work page 2023

[2] [2]

I am paying anen'on to the survey, select “XX

Methodology 2.1. Contents of the survey The survey contained the following blocks*: - Introduc'on to cyberne'c avatars - Acceptance of robot avatars by appearance (ultra-realis'c androids, hybrid androids, highly anthropomorphic robo'c-looking, low anthropomorphic robo'c looking, cartoonish looking, and animal looking) - Acceptance of robot avatars by spa...

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Spaces in the service sector The third research ques'on explored robot avatar acceptance depending on the seDng where robot avatars are found: RQ3

Robot avatar appearances assessed in the survey 1.2. Spaces in the service sector The third research ques'on explored robot avatar acceptance depending on the seDng where robot avatars are found: RQ3. To what extent are robot avatars accepted in the diﬀerent spaces of the service sector, among Dubai residents? We elaborated a list of key spaces in healthc...

work page 2024

[4] [5]

The survey was ini'ated by 4,000 par'cipants. Of these, 1,542 were screened out due to ineligibility, 883 were excluded aver quota targets were reached, 198 did not ﬁnalize the survey, and 376 were removed through quality control checks. These measures helped ensure a high-quality and demographically balanced dataset for analysis. The ﬁnal sample consiste...

work page 2024

[5] [6]

References Aymerich-Franch, L. (2020a). Avatar embodiment experiences to enhance mental health. In Technology and Health: Promo'ng ADtude and Behavior Change. hnps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816958-2.00003-4 Aymerich-Franch, L. (2020b). Towards a Common Framework for Mediated Embodiment. Digital Psychology, 1(2). hnps://doi.org/10.24989/dp.v1i2.1824 Ayme...

work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816958-2.00003-4 2020

[6] [8]

hnps://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00944 Broadbent, E., Staﬀord, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older popula'on: Review and future direc'ons. In Interna'onal Journal of Social Robo'cs (Vol. 1, Issue 4). hnps://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6 Dafarra, S., Panacini, U., Romualdi, G., RapeD, L., Grieco, R., Darvish, K., ...

work page arXiv 2009

[7] [70]

hnps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101993 Aymerich-Franch, L., & Ferrer, I. (2023). Socially Assis've Robots’ Deployment in Healthcare SeDngs: A Global Perspec've. Interna'onal Journal of Humanoid Robo'cs, 20(1). hnps://doi.org/10.1142/S0219843623500020 Aymerich-Franch, L., & Gómez, E. (2024). Public percep'on of socially assis've robots for healthcare...

arXiv 2023

[8] [2016]

B., & Duan, X

hnps://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745086 Hameed, I., Tan, Z.-H., Thomsen, N. B., & Duan, X. (2016). User Acceptance of Social Robots. ACHI 2016 : The Ninth Interna'onal Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interac'ons, 274–279. Hatada, Y ., Barbareschi, G., Takeuchi, K., Kato, H., Yoshifuji, K., Minamizawa, K., & Narumi, T. (2024). People with Disabi...

arXiv 2016