Requirement Study for User Acceptance of IWARD Robots in Hospital Environment

Saurin Badiyani
University of Warwick, WMG, International Digital Laboratory Coventry CV4 7AL, UK +44(0) 24 7657 4269

Hardik Raja
University of Warwick, WMG, International Digital Laboratory Coventry CV4 7AL, UK +44(0) 24 7657 4268

Vinesh Raja
University of Warwick, WMG, International Digital Laboratory Coventry CV4 7AL, UK +44(0) 24 7652 3924

S.Badiyani@warwick.ac.uk Iker Laskibar Garca

Fundacin INGEMA Usandizaga, 6 20002 Donostia-San Sebastin, Spain +34 943 224 143

Hardik.Raja@warwick.ac.uk Unai Daz

Fundacin INGEMA Usandizaga, 6 20002 Donostia-San Sebastin, Spain +34 943 224 643

Vinesh.Raja@warwick.ac.uk

ilaskibar@fmatia.net ABSTRACT

udiaz@fmatia.net 1. INTRODUCTION
Intelligent Robot Swarm for Attendance, Recognition, Cleaning and delivery (IWARD) targets mainly hospitals and healthcare centers to overcome the shortages of healthcare staff a major issue in European healthcare. Our aging society and economic pressure increase the patients-to-medics ratio, having an adverse effect on healthcare quality and performance. Not being able to attend all patients at the right time which increases patients recovery time and cost. To improve the quality of healthcare, these focal issues emerge: fast identification and location of patients needing immediate attention; reduction of human errors; effective cleaning in hospitals; wider reach of specialist medics, possibly attending patients remotely. To achieve this, IWARD presents a robot swarm delivering support to oversee activities in healthcare environments, providing a multipurpose, cost-effective and scalable solution to enhance quality of healthcare. The swarm based approach unburdens the nursing staff from the details of robot control and central coordination reducing the complexity of robot control to that of a chat, having the swarm negotiating which robot to use for each job, shortening the reaction time, reducing human error and increasing efficiency to deliver better patient care. Such service robots are different to industrial robots; they are developed with the aim to offer services to humans. These robots serve by assisting human beings in performing the tasks efficiently, or work closely with humans to accomplish joint tasks; and in such cooperation humans interact directly with service robots. Goetz et al. [1] proposes that to gain the cooperation between humans and service robots, service robots should provide comfortable experience for the humans and provide appropriate feedback during the interaction. The potential application of IWARD robots is to aid nurses in structured hospital environment. IWARD robots need to take

A suitable Human Robot Interface (HRI) is fundamental to enable efficient communication with robots. In the framework of the European Commission FP6 STREP Project on Intelligent Robot Swarm for Attendance, Recognition, Cleaning and Delivery (IWARD), this paper investigates the user requirements and the factors that govern the acceptance of robot in to healthcare environment. In order to get a comprehensive understanding of the potential acceptance of the service robots, the survey responses are presented and evaluated to signify the adoption of the technology by the potential users.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

A.1 [General Literature]: Introductory and Survey. H.5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g., HCI)]: User Interfaces Ergonomics, User centered design, Theory and methods.

General Terms
Design, Human Factors

Keywords
Service oriented robots, requirements, survey, appearance, adoption

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for Permission digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted provided that copies that copies are personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided are not made not made or distributed or profit or commercial advantage copies copies or distributed for profit for commercial advantage and thatand thatbear bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or this notice and the full citation on the first page. republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to HRI09, March 1113, 2009, San Diego, CA, USA. lists required prior specific permission from authors. Copyright 2009 ACM 1-58113-000-0/00/0004$5.00.

Page 1

direction from healthcare staff, for performing various tasks in the hospital. Service robots to be used in healthcare environment have different requirements and have various acceptance and adoption criteria. This paper aims towards carrying out necessary requirement study for human robot interaction (HRI), such that when appropriate interfaces are implemented, IWARD robot could be easily accepted by the healthcare community. For IWARD robot to be accepted into operation; it must be able to perform a range of useful tasks for hospital staff; and it must have acceptable appearance and behavior [2]. Researchers working on IWARD robot have incorporated user centered design approach for developing the robots, as it is the best way to take into account all the requirements of the users. Potential end users were involved for identifying their opinion for IWARD appearance and interaction patterns (adaptive and intuitive user interface), and various modalities and technologies for interacting with IWARD robots for different task scenarios. 40 hospital staff including nurses, doctors and managers across Europe were interviewed and their responses were analyzed for the future developments of HRI interface. This was with an aim of increasing the acceptance rate of the human robotic interface by a wider cross cultural European community.

Monitoring corridors where there is not much staff activity (i.e. during the night). Identify the movement and basic vital signs (movement, breathing, crying of calling for help) of a person lying on the floor, and inform staff. Monitoring specific patients room which requires supervision to inform about occasional incidences (patient walking, patient sleeping on the corner of bed or about to fall). Monitoring brakes of mobile beds. Monitoring fixtures of safety belts on stretchers and beds. Monitoring postures of the certain patients on bed. Surveillance task for robot: Identifying people trying to access restricted areas, and informing it to security personnel. Identifying unexpected smoke sources, high temperatures in any location and informing it to nurse. Identifying people asking for help, and informing it to nurse. Inform appropriate personnel about the robot being attacked (i.e. vandalism).

3. INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES AND MODALITIES TO BE USED IN THE IWARD TASKS

Researchers at INGEMA interviewed 5 auxiliaries, 4 nurses and a director of a long-stay hospital/residential centre. Different positions, ages, personal situations, likings and so on were taken into account before selecting the ones that would be interviewed with the aim of enriching the sample. They were asked about many topics like hobbies, family, etc in addition to questions about technologies and the job-related ones. Researchers identified three kinds of people: Those who know about new technology and are open to use it; Those who dont know about new technology, but are open to use it; and Those who dont know about new technology and dont want or like new technology. Human-Robot Interfaces run the risk of being too complex for a non-trained operator and hence overly demanding for use in an environment where people are not trained to use the platform. When instructing a robot, the number of controls required and the amount of information exchanged between the interface and the user has the potential to be very high. When combined with the various interface needs of different people within a hospital (visitors, staff and patients) this becomes a significant challenge. There is a need in IWARD HRI module to identify and implement most suitable Human-Robot Interface, with which average users can interact with robotic systems in an efficient manner. To work with a system, the users need to be able to control the system and assess the state of the system. When we speak of interacting with the system, we should take in consideration how usually humans communicate in their daily life. Only in this way we can create an interface that is comprehensible to humans and therefore more natural. It is for this reason that most of the interfaces present today in the market are basically based on four senses, which are vision, hearing, touch, and speech.

2. IDENTIFICATION OF ACCEPTED TASK FOR SERVICE ROBOTS

One of the criteria identified by Syrdal et al. [3] for acceptance of service robots is that, robot must be able to perform different useful tasks. For IWARD to be accepted in healthcare environment, researchers identified the potential use of robot swarm in undertaking five major tasks including (i) delivery of medicines, notes, X-rays and personal items within hospital, (ii) regular and unplanned cleaning of patient rooms and spillage, (iii) guidance of patient/visitors inside a hospital, (iv) patient monitoring and virtual consultation, and (v) hospital surveillance. Researchers at INGEMA, based on their existing healthcare environment, identified the following various tasks that could be assigned to service robots concerning the five main tasks mentioned above. Delivery tasks for robot: Delivery of drugs, materials, medical records from one location/sender to other location/recipient. Cleaning tasks for robot: Identify and clean liquid and solid spillages on various locations within hospital. Inform about the existence of spillages to cleaning staff (those which are difficult for the robot to clean). Cleaning of places not well accessible for the staff (i.e. under the bed). Guidance task for robot: Identify and guide patient/visitors to a particular location within hospital. Robot to inform staff about a specific patients location (when it is guiding that patient). Robot should be able to guide the person suffering mobility problems, (patients on wheelchair). Monitoring task for robot:

Page 2

For the acceptance of the potential Human Robot Interface, it was necessary to know the potential users competencies in using the different interface technologies (i.e technologies proposed to be used in IWARD HRI). A survey was conducted and 40 potential end users were interviewed, and their experiences in using various interfacing technologies were recorded. The users were selected such that 10 users each from the region of Donostia-San Sebastian in Spain interviewed by INGEMA, Sakaraya in Turkey interviewed by Sakarya University, and Newcastle interviewed by University of Newcastle and Coventry interviewed by University of Warwick in UK. Thereby, interviewees had the following options for estimating their level of experience with the technology (keyboard/mouse when using a computer terminal, keypads and touch screen in case of PDAs as well as speech command interface of phones) as no experience, some experience, and commonly used. In order to know whether there were significant differences among the four groups interviewed, analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been computed to determine the proportion of variability attributed to each of several components. The result of the technical ability survey revealed that the level of users experience in using various interface technologies is very different: In principle, potential users interviewed are familiar with keyboard and mouse by usage of computer terminals. However, the number of inexperienced users related to the usage of PDAs as input device and speech command interfaces is comparatively high, with 40% and ~50% respectively. Hence a human robot interface for IWARD robots should not be developed using a single interface technology. Also working patterns of hospital staff like nurses are not specific or situated at one location. And as seen from different tasks staff needs to address the system and robot in multiple ways and from different locations. It is necessary in IWARD project to use various devices and multi-modal interaction technologies (different modalities of interaction interfaces are combined) for human robot interactions, so that they complement each other overcoming the weaknesses of the single interaction interfaces.

Fig 1. Uncanny Valley [5] Following two criteria were considered for IWARD service robots to be accepted socially: Robot looks: How the robots look like, for e.g. machine, android, humanoid, etc? Robot behavior: What feedback should the robot give to its user? What means of feedback are more effective? What is the appropriate balance between non-linguistic and linguistic interaction?

4.1 Looks of the robot

Selecting an appropriate appearance and behavior of the service robot has been a research question for years, and it is a serious problem for developing and evaluating interactive robots [4]. Mori (cited in [2]) proposed that the users will be more familiar with robots when they look and perform activities similar to human beings. The level of acquaintance falls at a stage when robots looks like a human but does not behave like a human. This effect is shown in the Moris diagram above, where the curve plotted against human likeness and familiarity of users, takes the form of uncanny valley, which reverses the attraction and trust of users, i.e. negative human reaction as a function of robots lifelikeness. Mori proposed that for the acceptance of robots, it is necessary to have robot appearance and behavior consistent with each other; so that uncanny valley effect is avoided. Thus to avoid such uncanny valley effect in the acceptance of the IWARD robot, in a survey users were informed about the IWARD project, and the various tasks that IWARD robot intends to perform. Users were then asked of their opinion for the appearance look and feel of the IWARD robot for performing the tasks identified in various tasks. The responses received from the participants are as shown in table 1 (multiple answers are possible):

4. APPEARANCE OF THE ROBOT

In an environment where service robots are used; humans interact directly with the service robots for using them to perform certain tasks. Goetz et al. [1] suggests that such interactive service robots should have acceptable appearance and behavior, i.e. meet social goal. According to Goetz et al., robots appearance and behavior provide clues that influence humans perceptions of the robots propensities and assumptions about the robots capabilities in performing the tasks. Walter et al. [2], also substantiates Goetz hypothesis, that if the robot does not exhibit socially acceptable behavior (e.g. if it is annoying, irritating, unsettling or frightening to human users through interaction), then people will reject the robot irrespective of its performance. He further states that the perception of a robots social behavior will depend to a large extent on its appearance. Ishiguro [4] considers robots appearance as an important factor in evaluating the interaction, as it influences users impressions towards robots.

Page 3

Table 1. Proposed Appearance of IWARD Robot Appearance criteria (look and feel of robot) Frequency

Not important how it looks Machine-like - round/square on wheels Human-like Not higher/bigger than average human Non attractive to humans / destruct attention Attractive Not scary Easy to use Small in size (unobtrusive) Big in size (obtrusive) Clinical clean looking No response

3 3 13 3 6 1 2 3 2 2 3 8

Feedback is a crucial factor while communicating with a robot. It is the basis for a synergistic interaction. It enables the user to understand the current operation being performed by the robot. On the contrary, it enables the robot to request the user for inputting data and outputting notification. Feedback that would eventually be helpful for the user in carrying out their tasks should be provided. The robot should provide feedback to its user through status information and notification. The status information and notification can undertake various forms such as playing of some sound, flashing of text on the screen, speech feedback via telephony (fixed phone, mobile) etc. This would help users to effectively respond to robots actions. and how to give feedback to its user/public best? As regards to all the tasks, the analysis of all interview responses suggests that most of the users prefer notifications in form of text flashing on screen (This could be on a fixed computer terminal screen or a PDA screen) and speech-feedback via telephony. Concerning the monitoring and surveillance tasks there is high consensus among users for feedback via sound/speech (This could be sound via fixed Computer terminal or a PDA). Finally, what is the appropriate balance between different modalities of interaction? As regards to delivery, cleaning and guidance tasks, the analysis of all interview responses suggests the balance is evenly distributed to use various modalities such as computer terminal screen, PDA screen and speech feedback via telephony etc. as a basis for interaction. Whereas in case of monitoring and surveillance tasks the balance is evenly distributed to use various modalities for interaction such as computer terminal screen, computer terminal sound, PDA screen and PDA sound and speech feedback via telephony as a basis for interaction. In addition to the looks of the robot, the behavior of the robot through proper feedback helps in an effective communication with the user and thus helps IWARD service robots to be accepted socially.

Above result is interesting, as of mixed responses as the appearance of IWARD service robot is concerned. This dynamic variance in the appearance is influenced much by the tasks that the robot will be capable to perform. We could broadly classify the appearance of the robot into two types: Machine-Like and Human-Like, whereas the remaining criteria specified above could be taken as attributes for the two types of appearances. Hinds et al. [6] have studied the effect of robot appearance on humans carrying out a joint task with a robot. As IWARD robots will be used in an environment where they assist healthcare staff in performing various tasks and share the same space with humans; hence we could use the Hinds et al. findings as a basis of selecting the appearance of IWARD robot. Hinds et al. [6] observed that there is very little difference in the extent to which users rely on the human-like robot as compared with machinelike robot for performing cooperated tasks (according to their observation human-like robots outweighing machine-like robots by small margin); where as the users would concede more responsibility to human-like as compared with the machine-like robot. According to them human-like robots are appropriate for situations in which the burden of responsibility can or should be reduced for the users involved in the tasks. Within the IWARD working environment (hospitals), it is important for healthcare staff to spend their time in providing quality healthcare to patients, and not in the routing and low level jobs as delivery, cleaning, monitoring, surveillance, guidance, etc.; their responsibilities to perform such tasks has to be reduced. Hence developing a human-like appearance for robot (which is preferred by maximum of participants in survey) is justified. For the acceptance of a robot, features like face, torso and arms are named by the interviewees as basic requirement for reaching human-like robot appearance.

5. ADOPTION OF ROBOTS
Integration of robots into established healthcare processes is a complex but not incomprehensible process. It could rather be termed as a process of change management within an organization. It involves a gamut of economic, political, organizational factors (why and what to change/integrate) and social factors (how to implement the change in an expectable way without affecting the ongoing work process). Introducing robots into healthcare environment consists of two major tasks; one of adoption of robots by existing work force; and second of integrating robots into existing processes. Adoption of a robot within a healthcare organization is based on social factors, i.e. the robot need to be adopted and accepted by the work force in their daily work. Researchers at INGEMA identified the following criteria for successful adoption of robots into healthcare organization like theirs.

4.2 Behavior of the robot

A robot sharing the same environment with humans (like it is the case in hospitals) has to communicate its intentions in a way understandable or natural to humans. Three interrogative pronouns qualify the main points to be considered related to feedback to be given by a robot: what, how and whereby. Hence, what feedback should the robot give to its user

Page 4

Frequency

Employees need to be aware of robots and be quite open in accepting new technologies in to work place; Employees do not like very strong changes; Change should not be difficult; Human robot interface should be easy to use; Multi-modal interface; and Minimum learning required for operating the robots. Researchers developing IWARD HRI module, are considering these criteria for interface development. As far as three kind of potential end users (as mentioned in section 3 above) and User-Centered Design (UCD) approach is concerned the best way to develop user interface is that the IWARD HRI developers will take into account all the adoption criteria for the users. Researchers at University of Warwick proposed to develop Adaptive and Intuitive human robot interface that can be easily accepted and adopted by the potential end users (first two user groups).

important, 5 most important). The results of the survey is shown below: Graph - Importance of Adaptable Human Robot Interface.
25 21 20 15 11 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Importance (1 - less, 5 - more) 3 1 4

5.1 Adaptive human robot interface

For acceptance and adoption of the human robot interface, it is required to facilitate enhanced natural communication during interaction [7]. As of service robotic becoming available in recent years, users who have less experience in using it in their daily work routine, have different level of difficulties in adopting to it. Utilization of the interface of robot system is in a different way according to each user. Hence, it would be appropriate to develop different interface for each user category [8]; i.e. configuration of the user interface to suit the user needs based on predefined user capabilities. Adaptable system has several definitions. According to AlvarezCortes et al., [9] an adaptive user interface monitors the users activities trying to identify usage patterns and automatically adjust the interface components or content provided by the system to accommodate such user differences as well as changes in user skills, knowledge and preferences. Where as Kumar et al. [10] defines it as interfaces designed to tailor a system's interactive behavior with consideration of individual needs of human users and altering conditions within an application environment. Liu et al. [11] has a more sophisticated definition for adaptable user interface; an interface that provides individualized, just-in-time assistance to users by recording user interface events and frequencies, organizing them into episodes, and automatically deriving patterns. It also builds, maintains, and makes suggestions based on user profiles. Concerning the literature review and the scope of IWARD project, an adaptive user interface to be developed needs to have following attributes: Ease of use Task simplification for different users Continuous adaptation (during use) Modifies itself based on environment conditions Potential end users opinion regarding requirement of adaptable interface; and different adaptation criteria were recorded such as importance of presentations styles, modalities, use profile as well as to take environmental conditions into account. Importance is scaled in five steps from least to most important (1 least

Descriptives

GENERAL - 2

N
Ingema Sakarya Warwick Newcastle Total
10 10 10 10 40

Mean 4,80 4,30 3,00 4,50 4,15

Std. Deviation ,422 ,675 1,700 ,707 1,189

Std. Error ,133 ,213 ,537 ,224 ,188

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Upper Bound Lower Bound 5,10 4,50 4,78 3,82 4,22 1,78 5,01 3,99 4,53 3,77

Minimum 4 3 1 3 1

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5

ANOVA

GENERAL - 2

Between Groups W ithin Groups Total

Sum of Squares 18,900 36,200 55,100

df
3 36 39

Mean Square 6,300 1,006

F 6,265

Sig. ,002

Out of 40 participants, 80% favored for adaptable user interface by considering it an important feature of HRI and 10% can be considered as neutral (those selecting 3 as answer). Analysis of variance shows that there are significant differences in considering adaptable human robot interface as an important feature of HRI among the four groups (F=6.265, p= .002), being the mean of people interviewed by University of Warwick the minor (mean=3.00) and the mean of those interviewed by INGEMA the highest (mean=4.80). IWARD researchers identified various HRI adaption criteria as mentioned below: Importance of Communication by switching between presentation styles (e.g. different layout and size of buttons and fonts for different users). Importance of Communication by switching between different modalities (e.g. if user takes longer time than expected to operate a touch screen based user interface, then robot will offer different way of user interface via speech based interaction) Importance of task simplification for the interaction of routine tasks for the individual user (e.g. if Nurse A always logs in to the system at 9:00 AM and asks for routine cleaning robot, or a delivery robot; then the system after detecting such pattern for few times will present menu or choices for calling cleaning and delivery robot in first

Page 5

instance, hence simplifying the user interface, and reducing the interaction time) Importance of adaptation during use, i.e. continuous adaptation (e.g. when novice user initiates interaction with robot, with less actions per screen provided to them; and once the system is used multiple times, the user gains some user interface experience, accordingly different level of user interfaces provided to them) Importance of adaption of environmental condition based on Sound (e.g. speaker volume adjusted according to noise in environment) Importance of adaption of environmental condition based on Lighting conditions for touch screen (e.g. contrast and brightness of screen adjusted to lighting conditions) Response for these adaptation criteria were also recorded and analyzed for the development of IWARD HRI with high level of adaptability. From the results it was derived that majority of potential end users consider adaptable human robot interface and various adaptable criteria as important feature for IWARD human robot interface module. By aiming for the development of an adaptable interface considering all the criteria mentioned above, would create a highly suitable IWARD human robot interface that will be simple and easy to use, adaptable as per users expertise, useful in various environmental conditions and usable by various groups of users.

Graph - Importance of Intuitive Human Robot Interface.

25 20 20 Frequency 15 10 5 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 18

Importance (1 - less, 5 - more)

Descriptives

GENERAL - 4

N
Ingema Sakarya Warwick Newcastle Total
10 10 10 10 40

Mean 4,80 4,20 4,30 4,40 4,43

Std. Deviation ,422 ,919 ,675 ,516 ,675

Std. Error ,133 ,291 ,213 ,163 ,107

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Upper Bound Lower Bound 5,10 4,50 4,86 3,54 4,78 3,82 4,77 4,03 4,64 4,21

Minimum 4 2 3 4 2

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5

ANOVA

GENERAL - 4

Between Groups W ithin Groups Total

Sum of Squares 2,075 15,700 17,775

df
3 36 39

Mean Square ,692 ,436

F 1,586

Sig. ,210

5.2 Intuitive human robot interface

As IWARD human-robot interfaces run the risk of being too complex and time consuming for a non-trained operator to use the robot for tasks; therefore the HRI will need to be intuitive in its use. According to Brentsen [12] intuitive interface may be defined as an interface, which is immediately understandable to all users, without the need neither for special knowledge by the user nor for the initiation of special educational measures. Anybody can walk up to the system; see what kind of services it affords, and what should be done in order to operate it. While operating the device, navigation and manipulation of the system interface should proceed without the need for conscious awareness of the sensory- motor operational aspects of the interface. In the context of IWARD, we define it as interface that is immediately understandable to all users; without the need of special knowledge. Potential end users opinion regarding requirement of an intuitive interface, and different criteria characterizing intuitiveness like supporting some kind of help function, error correction functionality as well as training mode were recorded. The result of the survey is as follows; if a feature is regarded as least importance it is evaluated with 1 whereas 5 stands for most important:

Out of 40 participants, 95% favored for intuitive user interface by considering it an important feature of HRI and 2.5% as neutral. Analysis of variance shows that there are no significant differences in the importance given to the intuitive user interface among the four groups (F=1.586, p= .210). Similar to adaptability criteria, response for the various other intuitive criteria were also recorded and analyzed for the development of IWARD HRI with high level of intuitivity. Importance of runtime help provided for interaction (e.g. when users have any difficulties with user interface and takes longer time than expected to operate; system prompts user of what action needs to be performed by them). Importance of runtime error correction (e.g. if user makes any error in entering data, system notifies user of errors and corrects the errors if possible). Importance of runtime user training, but in a way that seems natural (e.g. training to use user interface in form of wizard). From these results it was confirmed that majority of potential end users consider intuitive human robot interface and various intuitive criteria as important feature for IWARD human robot interface module. On developing the intuitive interface with all the criteria mentioned above, will enable IWARD human robot interface to be easy to use, requires less time to learn as well as less learning. Thus adaptive and intuitive user interface will make IWARD system to be well adopted and accepted by potential end users.

Page 6

6. Conclusion
This paper presented the requirements for service oriented robots to be implemented for healthcare environment. The result of end users survey presented, allows defining the requirements of the robot which includes its appearance and the integration of robots into established healthcare processes. This report also described the experts proposition for accepted tasks for robots; and importance of adaptable and intuitive human robot interface. This paper is a benchmarking tool for an IWARD robot to be accepted by the healthcare community.

Controversies, IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August 2006, pp. 74-85 [5] Uncanny Valley, 1970, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mori_Uncanny_Valley.sv g [6] Hinds. P. J., Roberts T. L., and Jones H., 2004, Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in Collaborative Task, Human-Computer Interaction, 19:1, pp 151-181 [7] Nasoz F., and Lisetti C. L., 2007, Affective User Modeling for Adaptive Intelligent User Interface citeseer, HumanComputer Interaction, Berlin Heidelberg 2007, SpringerVerlag Part III, LNCS 4552, pp. 421430. [8] Duvallet C., Boukachour H., and Cardon A., 2000, Intelligent and Self-Adaptive Interface, Proceedings of International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Application of Artificial Intelligence and Expert System (IEA/AIE'2000), New Orleans, United States, June 2000, LNCS 1821, Springer Verlag, pps 711716. [9] Alvarez-Cortes V., Zayas-Perez B. E., Zarate-Silva V. H., and Ramirez Uresti J. A., 2007, Current Trends in Adaptive User Interfaces: Challenges and Applications, Proc. Electronics, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference, pp. 312-317. [10] Kumar, M., Gupta, A., and Saha, S., 2006, An approach to adaptive user interfaces using interactive media systems, Proc the 11th international Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Sydney, Australia, January 29 - February 01, pp. 312-314 [11] Liu J., Wong C. K., and Hui K. K., 2003, An adaptive user interface based on personalized learning, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18:2, pp. 52-57 [12] Brentsen K. B., 2000, INTUITIVE USER INTERFACES, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, pp 29-60. http://www.daimi.au.dk/~olavb/sjis12/2-KB_p2960pre.PDF

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was carried out with support from the IWARD research project, funded by the European Commission within the 6th Framework Programme. We extend our sincere thanks to all partners of the IWARD consortium. http://www.iward.eu University of Warwick is partner of the EU-funded FP6 Innovative Production Machines and Systems (I*PROMS) Network of Excellence. http://www.iproms.org

8. REFERENCES
[1] Goetz J., Kiesler S., and Powers A., 2003, Matching Robot Appearance and Behavior to Tasks to Improve HumanRobot Cooperation, ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Vol., IXX, Oct. 31-Nov. 2, Milbrae, CA. pp. 55-60 [2] Walters M. L., Dautenhahn K., Boekhorst R., Koay K. L., and Woods S. N., 2007. Exploring the Design Space of Robot Appearance and Behavior in an Attention-Seeking Living Room Scenario for a Robot Companion, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life (CI-ALife 2007), pp. 341-347 [3] Syrdal D. S., Dautenhahn K., Woods S. N., Walters M. L., Koay K. L. (2006). Doing the Right Thing Wrong Personality and Tolerance to Uncomfortable Robot Approaches. In Procedings of 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN06), Hatfield, United Kingdom. pp 183-188. IEEE Press [4] Ishiguro H., 2006, Humanoid and Android Science, Excerpt Coradeschi S., Human-Inspired Robots: Trends and

Page 7