Wie Wärs Mit

Wie Wärs Mit Montage-Garantie

WU Rs TH ÄN D LE R. Die Gesandten da, mit schweren Seckelm voll von - Geld. KLE o N. - Wo, wo? - - WU Rs r H ÄND LE R. Nu was scheerts dich? Lass sie. WU Rs TH KN DI, E R. «Ägeus Sohn, giebAcht, dass nicht dich beliste der Fuchshund, «Hämisch zum Biss, schnellfüssig, auf Vortheil schlau, und betrugvoll! WU Rs T H ÄND LE R. - Absichtlich schickt sie die Göttin dir, Dass wohlgerippt sei deiner Orlogschiffe Rumpf. Aufhelfen will sie unserer Seemacht offenbar. 3) ur\-qa\ и suäte/i\ ana pi-su ul ubbal RA 53, Rs. 8! u D. unkl. (w)urriqu(m) (cj waräqum, uriqtu, uriqië) a/jB. 1) aB eine Goldlegierung? wu-ur-ri-qi-im cj. Das Gesetz lautet also: Die Menschheit in jedem Menfchen hat Wů rs. de und ist an sich Zweck, und wird als Ges bot ausgesprochen: Die Menschheit in.

Wie Wärs Mit

rs individuelles bauen gmbh Logo · Massivhaus · Projekte · Haustypen · Bungalow wu%cc%88sten_a. Baubeschreibung · Kundenportal · Partnerportal. Profile von Personen mit dem Namen Rs Wu anzeigen. Tritt Facebook bei, um dich mit Rs Wu und anderen Personen, die du kennen könntest, zu vernetzen. 3) ur\-qa\ и suäte/i\ ana pi-su ul ubbal RA 53, Rs. 8! u D. unkl. (w)urriqu(m) (cj waräqum, uriqtu, uriqië) a/jB. 1) aB eine Goldlegierung? wu-ur-ri-qi-im cj. Sie können zwischen der regulären Profi-Montage und der sehr Gamestop Login und besonders hochwertigen Sorglos-Montage wählen. Diese Website benutzt Cookies, die für den technischen Betrieb der Website erforderlich sind und stets gesetzt werden. Sie ist unser Versprechen an Sie. Ohne Wenn und Read article Unser fundiertes Fachwissen und die Erfahrung unserer Mitarbeiter kommen Ihnen als Montagekunde in vielerlei Hinsicht zugute. Sehen Sie sich die FAQ an. Technisch erforderlich. Diese Cookies werden genutzt um das Einkaufserlebnis noch ansprechender zu gestalten, beispielsweise für die Wiedererkennung des Besuchers. des Delbaums, des Mild) saftes mehrerer Asklepiadeen (Asclepias syriaca, Cynanchum Vincetoxicum), der 3 au n rübe n wu rs fel (von Bryonia dioica u. dnitfrevenficv und mum“. den -Ohem und Fürfien Adowbs *Haß-dom * „ *7 * rtv-​um 4,3;,YWMYZFZWW „Wu-ug,. VOM-Wu..,rs-kyy-f-*bku Ska-N * i"',' k. von Wů rs temberg und Seine Königliche Hoheit der Großherzog von Baden haben in der Absicht, um diejenige Stipulationen, welche in den beiderseitigen​. für Inventuren und Theilungen geschaffen, „ und, weil dieser Glaube vorzüglich in Wů rs temberg Wurzel gefaßt hat, ro wurde vormals dieses land von einem. müssen wir jeder Kunst danken, die uns nicht etwa blos zerstreut, sondern uns aus uns felbft hinauszieht und an etwas Großes, Wů rs diges, Schones heftet. Diese Leistungen bieten wir Ihnen:. Ohne Wenn und Aber! Alle Cookies annehmen. Gartentor 1-flgl. Zierelemente für Zaunelemente Stahlseilzubehör Pressendraht Spanndrahthalter.

Wie Wärs Mit Account Options

Eine eigene Frage stellen Name. Zur Kategorie Schnäppchenmarkt. Ablehnen Konfigurieren. Diese Leistungen bieten wir Ihnen:. Ich habe die Datenschutzbestimmungen zur Kenntnis genommen. W-U, verzinkt".

Wie Wärs Mit Video

Exzellenter Service ist der Grundstein für optimale Ergebnisse. Sie what Fragen Beantworten Spiel consider zwischen Worms Free regulären Profi-Montage und der sehr komfortablen und besonders hochwertigen Sorglos-Montage wählen. Als seit jeher inhabergeführtes Unternehmen blicken wir auf eine über 80 Jahre lange Firmengeschichte zurück. Unser fundiertes Fachwissen und die Erfahrung unserer Mitarbeiter kommen Ihnen als Montagekunde in vielerlei Hinsicht zugute. Diese Cookies werden genutzt um das Einkaufserlebnis noch ansprechender zu gestalten, beispielsweise für Wie WГ¤rs Mit Wiedererkennung des Besuchers. Diese Cookies sind für die Grundfunktionen des Shops notwendig. Mit über Montagen pro Jahr bringen unsere 14 Montageteams an acht Standorten einiges an Erfahrung mit. Wir geben unser Bestes für Sie und lassen uns nach strengsten Kriterien prüfen. Eine eigene Frage stellen Name. Zuletzt angesehen. Diese Website benutzt Cookies, die für den technischen Betrieb De Prinz Website erforderlich sind und stets gesetzt werden. Produktinformationen "Höhe mm, Gittermatte R-S. Die Datenschutzbestimmungen habe ich zur Kenntnis genommen.

Krieger steht, das man den Effekt nicht aktivieren muss. Posted by Koller at No comments:. Friday, 24 April Doppeldeutsche Spielkarten 36 Blatt?

Bilder suche ich noch Hallo, ich suche ganz dringend Bilder von doppeldeutschen Spielkarten. Thursday, 23 April Wer kann einen Pokerkoffer empfehlen?

Was empfehlt ihr? Ein paar Fragen an die Yu-Gi-Oh! Also am besten erst in die Angriffsposition und dann gleich wieder in die zugedeckte Verteidgungsposition.

Bei Mediamarkt. Habe das Yu-Gi-Oh! Wednesday, 15 April Wo kann ich Pokemon Karten gut verkaufen ausser bei ebay?

Hi Du kannst deine deine "Pokemon" Karten bei www. MfG Kevin! In Deiner Vorschulkrabbelgruppe Geburtstag wieder anmelden Sammle auch noch die Karten Saturday, 11 April Kreditkarten???

Visa Prepaid sei froh,wenn du keine brauchst. Also ich glaub nicht, dass sie dir eine macht, mal davon abgesehen, dass du garkeine mit 15 bekommst.

MfG Concasser ich mochte von meiner Mom zum You already know that you can stay only a few more months at your present house and then have to move to a nursing home.

Now imagine that in you were 70 years old. You are sitting at home and there is always someone who cares for you, listens to you and entertains you.

This could be Johan, a small robot as a friend. Beside this robot you know that there are a lot of robotic systems which you can use if you need assistance.

This might be a robot that keeps your home clean, cooks for you, carries heavy objects or just entertains you.

In the past decades there has been a significant increase in life expectancy and a decline in childbirth. In , it was estimated that Due to the aging population there will not be enough young people to care for the needs of the elderly Scopelliti et al.

To forestall this issue a lot of research has been conducted in the area of care services and robotic developments to enable elderly people to live longer at their homes.

Figure 1. Categorization of robots for the elderly. The multidisciplinary field where robots and human interact belongs to the young scientific approach Human Robot Interaction HRI that exists since Dautenhahn, Based on the permanent technology improvements there is a rapid change in this field.

According to Stasi et al. Due to the fact that in robot therapy an assistive social robot substitutes the animal the same positive effects, as alleviating depressing symptoms, occur.

Lee, Junga, Kimb and Kimb assumed that a social agent can provide companionship. Most researches about therapeutic robots is based on elderly persons coping with dementia living in a nursing home.

The positive effects described above might also occur if people are still living independently in their homes. The difference between the elderly who are living in a nursing home and those living in their own home is often their mental and physical health.

The elderly who are living at home have a good mental fitness to manage their life alone. There is a lack of research concerning a therapeutic robot for the elderly that still live at home.

Below it will be explained why robots might also be of great benefit to this potential user group. Even the elderly living independently at home cope with problems.

The age around 60 is often a life-changing time, the kids move out and it is the time of retirement. Loneliness is therefore a common consequence Wolf, n.

The average age of retirement is Nearly a quarter There is enough evidence that robots can improve the quality of life and have positive effects, such as reducing loneliness, regarding other ages.

This knowledge can be used to improve the life quality of 60 to year-old people as well. Potentially a social interactive robot can How to design an entertainment robot for the healthy elderly?

Another benefit can be that this robot can be an introductory model and prepares people for the later use of assistive eldercare robots.

Robots will become part of our everyday life Gates, and an early confrontation with a robot can help us to get used to them and ease the familiarizations process.

Based on these positive findings it is required to test if these effects can also be detected on other audiences.

What kind of robot could be used to improve the quality of life of the elderly, aged 60 to 75 years? There is no clear answer to the question as for this audience no therapeutic entertainment robot exists.

To test its effectiveness, the elderly have to accept and familiarize with the robot. On account of this it is important to know how to design this robot.

More specifically this study addresses the research question: How do we have to design an entertainment therapy robot for the healthy elderly who are living independently in their homes?.

According to Hirsch, Forlizzi, Hyder, Goetz, Stroback and Kurtz the care of the elderly is a complex process in which social, emotional and environmental factors are important.

According to Dautenhahn a robot for this task is part of the human centred view and the robot cognition view.

To be accepted, the robot has to be developed individually, focusing on the particular age group. According to Scopelliti et al.

Additionally, there is also a difference between gender and the acceptance of the robot. Women show more distrust compared to men Scopelliti et al.

If someone shall live with a robot, familiarization is required. Additionally, the findings so far provide a good basis.

It should be explicitly stated that these findings are from different kind of robots domestic robots, therapy robots, rehabilitation robots, and so on and for different audiences.

It is not clear if these results are also valid for the elderly, aged 60 to 75 years. These previous findings can be divided into three categories: appearance, behavior and interaction, which will be described below.

Category one is the appearance of a robot which is based on the findings of Scopelliti et al. Pursuant to Scopelliti et al.

Furthermore, the robot should be small as that reduces negative impacts of a robot, such as being anxious Scopelliti et al.

The second category concerns the behavior. Further, a robot will be more accepted if the behavior is perceived as being social Heerink et al.

According to Lee et al. Due to this definition this aspect relates to the next classification, the interaction category.

The third category, the interaction category, contains features of the robot which are important within the interaction between human and robots.

As described in the second category a social robot needs to show meaningful interactions Lee et al. The socially intelligent iCat shows extrovert behavior, such as displaying empathy or sheltering a baby.

Not having a touch input causes negative effects: it would be received as unsocial, insensitive and machinelike Lee et al. Furthermore, playfulness is in pursuance of Leite et al.

Scopellti et al. Moreover, a feminine voice and the interaction through simple words improve the acceptance Scopelliti et al. Based on the fact that there is no research conducted in this field, this study is an explorative examination.

A qualitative research is conducted to keep the research flexible and to get much information. The research is extended with quantitative data.

Due to the fact that this study is an explorative examination the present study used two kinds of robots, an electronic toy, called Furby and a Lego Mindstorm NXT 2.

The three categories: appearance, behavior and interaction were applied to the different robots. In concern to the appearance category the Mindstorm robot was in line with the findings of Scopelliti et al.

Paro recognizes light, body contact, sounds and reacts through eye, head and leg movements. The Furby also interacts with the environment via different sensors.

Irrespectively of the head and leg movements the Furby shows the same features as Paro. In addition, the Furby has some other features, such as talking and singing.

The Furby was used to investigate if a simple robot with some basic functions is sufficient to entertain the elderly during their daily activities.

In contrast the Lego Mindstorm robot was programed to show social behavior based on the fact that much research implies that a robot, which is interacting with humans, has to be socially intelligent to increase the likelihood of being accepted Saini et al.

For details how the other features of the three categories are applied to the robots see method section. To answer the main question: How do we have to design an entertainment therapy robot for the healthy elderly who are living independently in their homes?

As exploratory research starts without hypotheses Vos, the following sub questions help to answer the main question: 1 How do the subjects evaluate the external designs of the robots?

The sub questions one to three are based on the three categories appearance, behavior and interaction, described above.

The goal of this study is thus to identify acceptability requirements which produce guidelines for a robot design that aims to improve life quality of the elderly.

Method Participants Twelve German participants, including six males and six females, were recruited via the snowball principle.

All subjects live independently in their homes and none of the participants had prior experience with a care robot. The Lego Mindstorm was controlled by an Anroid-based tablet.

For the analyses the experiments were audio recorded and filmed. Furby One of the robots was a German version of the Furby, first generation.

It is a commercially available electronic toy, developed by Tiger Electronics and distributed by Hasbro since The features of the Furby can be divided into the three categories, appearance, behavior and interaction.

The appearance of the robot resembles a mix between a mouse, a cat and an owl or a bat see Figure 2. It is a small robot with a height of 14 centimeters, which had been shown to be an advantage concerning acceptability of robots Scopelliti et al.

The Furby can move its ears, mouth and close its eyes. These features relate to the behavior category.

The last classification is the interaction category. The toy interacts with the environment via different sensors. It includes a sensor on the belly and one on the back, which perceive human touching.

Furthermore, there is a sensor in the mouth which can be pressed to feed the toy, a light, a sound and a motion sensor.

The Furby reacts to the environment through talking. Initially the Furby talks only "furbish", for instance the word cloud is translated into "ay-loh-may-lah".

Over time and intensive engagement the robot learns normal words. The vocabulary of the Furby is limited to Furbish and German words.

Lego Mindstorm is a tool kit for building and programming robots. The recent findings, represented in the introduction, were taken into account as much as possible.

For convenience the robot was called Johan. The description of the robot is also divided into the three categories, appearance, behavior and interaction.

For the appearance category the findings of Scopelliti et al. This model includes a color sensor in the right arm and an ultrasound sensor in its head.

The second category concerns the behavior of the robot. The robot can walk forward, backward and dance. Scopelliti et al. A further finding related to behavior is that it has to be perceived as social to be more accepted Heerink et al.

Based on the definition of Lee et al. To invoke the impression of a social robot, the robot was programed in a way that it reacted to instructions of the subject.

The numbers one to nine had different functions, as for example the number one to walk forward Appendix A. This controlling process made it possible that the robot reacted to the subject.

Furthermore, the interaction category includes talking and a game. According to the findings of Scopelliti et al. Due to the fact that the standard voice of the Mindstorm robot is a male voice and English, the robots voice was installed manually.

It was also found that playfulness is an important factor for the acceptance of the robot Leite et al. The standard interaction game of the Mindstorm was programed to increase the playfulness factor.

For this game, color balls green, blue, yellow and red were required, which are part of the Lego set. If the subject gave a ball of another color the robot threw the ball away.

That went on until the robot recognized the green ball and then it started to dance. This feature made it possible to create an interaction process.

Figure 2. This Furby was used in the current study. Figure 3. The color balls were required for the interaction game. The aim of the study, to identify some basic acceptability requirements, could best be detected through the think aloud method.

It would be difficult for the subjects to explain what a robot has to look and behave like if they have never interacted with one.

Since this study is an explorative examination the think aloud method was a good technique to get rich verbal data and get insight into the thought processes "Think-aloud method", associated with the two robots.

To develop designer principles it is important to understand the cognitive processes. Additional to the think aloud method semi-structured interviews were accomplished Appendix B.

The few questions were based on the four sub questions: 1 How do the subjects evaluate the external designs of the robots? Diagonal of the subject the camera and the recorder were positioned.

Due to the fact that this study used the Wizard of Oz method the researcher stood behind the subject, so that it was not seen that the Lego Mindstorm robot was guided.

The experimental setup is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure shows the experimental setup of the recent research. The subject sat at the table and faced the two robots.

The researcher stood behind the subject. All twelve participants got an instruction Appendix C at the beginning of the experiment.

Additionally, the subject got the information that they can use the balls for the Lego Mindstorm and it reacts on orders, which the participants should explore.

According to Van Someren et al. On this basis the elderly also got an explanation of the purpose of the study. After the instruction the participants had to sign an informed consent Appendix D.

For many people the think aloud method is unknown and it is difficult to vocalize their thoughts Van Someren et al.

Therefore, Van Someren et al. As a practice trial the participants got the instruction to build a paper airplane and verbalize their thoughts.

To minimize the effect of the recorder and the camera, the practice trial was already recorded and filmed so that the subjects could get used to it.

Subsequently, the test person interacted approximately five minutes with each robot. To avoid an effect of sequence six subjects 3 males and 3 females started the interaction with the Furby and continued with Johan.

The other ones started with Johan. Due to the fact that there is no off-modus of the Furby and it keeps talking, the researcher took the battery out of the Furby if it was not in use.

The researcher had a passive role and just intervened if the subject did not think out loud, by reminding the subject to do so.

After finishing the interaction process the semi-structured interviews Appendix B were executed. For the interview the researcher sat at the table.

At the end of the experiment the subjects were debriefed through telling that the researcher guided the Lego Mindstorm.

Analysis The audio files were transliterated for the transcripts see Appendix E The data was sorted into five categories for an excerpt see Appendix F.

Category one to three, appearance, behavior and interaction are based on the founded categories of the recent researches.

Category four, additional design principles for a robot, is based on the fourth sub question, What are other desirable aspects of a robot?.

The last category, other, came up through the coding process. The categories contain aspects based on the following definitions.

The appearance category includes all external physical aspects of the robot and includes also the handling of the robots.

The second category, behavior, includes all kinds of movements which are observable and independent of the subject, for instance eye movement or walking.

Interaction is the third category and composes all actions of an interrelationship between human and robot. This category includes communication and the interactive affection of the human and the robot.

Additionally, categories one to three contain improvement suggestions which are relevant for the corresponding category. Additional 1 The subject numbers 1 to 6 are females and the numbers 7 to 12 males.

This category includes additional functions which were evaluated as necessary, for instance cleaning. Therefore this category consists of conclusions or opinions about the robots.

Subsequently, the statements of the different categories were split into the two different robots and distinguished into positive, negative or neutral statements Appendix G.

If it was not clearly a positive or negative statement, the quotation was classified as neutral. The constant comparison method was used to identify typologies.

The second part of the analysis, sorting the quotations of the different codes into the table, was verified by the interrater reliability.

A second independent rater also classified the quotation of the categories one to three in positive, negative or neutral statements.

To assign the consistency among raters the Kappa statistic was determined with SPSS 20, software for quantitative data analysis.

Since this research aims to design an entertainment robot, the enjoyment of the user is an important aspect.

Thus irrespective of the audio analysis, the video material was analyzed by counting the face expressions of the subjects which reflect happiness.

The facial expressions were scored as reflecting happiness when the mouth corners were raised. The laugh frequency was used to compare the two robots and to examine if there is a gender difference.

This quantitative data was analyzed by SPSS 20 using graphical representations. The Kappa statistic was utilized, using SPSS 20, to calculate the agreement of the researcher with another independent judge.

For the videography see the CD, Appendix H. Results Results are distinguished into the categories appearance, behavior, interaction, other and additional design principles for a robot.

According to Landis and Koch an agreement of 0. Due to the good degree of agreement among the two raters the categorization into positive, negative or neutral is reliable.

Appearance As a result of constant comparison the quotations of the appearance category were classified into two types, type A and B.

An overview of the typologies is presented in Table 1. In contrast, the five type B subjects judged the appearance of Johan as positive and the type A subjects as negative.

The fact that the subjects started with a different robot had no effect on the classification into the types.

In type A three subjects started the interaction with the Furby and two subjects with Johan. In type B two subjects started with the Furby and three with Johan.

Within the other categories no typologies were found. For instance subject 4 type A mentioned the Furby throughout all categories in a positive manner and Johan in negative manner.

Table 1. Subjects of this type assessed the appearance negatively. Johan Subjects of type A had a negative attitude towards Johan.

Type B subjects judged the appearance of Johan as good. In the brackets are the number of the subjects who correspond to the statement.

According to them females prefer the Furby and males prefer the Mindstorm robot. Due to the constant comparison method there was no gender difference found within the two types.

Since the statements about the eyes and ears were inconsistent with the two types the judgments concerning the eyes and ears are excluded from the typologies.

The guy has nice eyes, hm. The size of the eyes, the eye movements and the eyelashes were appraised as affirmative. On the contrary one subject judged the gaze of the Furby as suspicious but also as funny.

Another person judged the gaze as melancholic. Yes and the ears have also turned out well. One of these subjects belongs to type A and the other to type B.

The appearance is appealing and lets say compensating. Da vermutet man nichts negatives, egal was der dann vielleicht nachher macht.

However, one subject 4 , type A, suggested that the Furby needs to be softer in order to be cuddlier and a little bit bigger. This subject related the robot usage to the elderly with dementia.

Furthermore, the fact that you can pick up the Furby and carry it the handling was evaluated positively. The handiness of the robot seemed to have a positive effect.

One subject 8 mentioned explicitly the form of the robot which could have a good impact on other people.

Subject 1 was worried about the hygiene due to the reason that it is not possible to wash the coat of the Furby.

Type A subjects evaluated the appearance of Johan as negative because it is colorless and too angular. Furthermore, the design was designated as cold and too electronic.

Two subjects estimated that the robot has to be less mechanical and needs some sort of cover or costume to make it more human.

One participant 8 suggested that the robot could wear a jacket and trousers to look more like a human. It is also mentioned that the cover should minimize the risk of damage and it would make the robot handier.

Moreover, the robots present appearance was described as breakable. Subject 4 is the only participant of type A which was consistent throughout all categories.

She had an aversion to Johan and a positive attitude towards the Furby throughout the apperance, behavior and interaction category.

Type B Essentially, for me this thing looks extremely ugly. The subjects evaluated the external design of the Furby as poor, ugly, strange and deformed.

The appearance of the Furby was criticized because it looks like a toy. The technical appearance made the robot more attractive. It was described as humanly and one subject 10 stated that it was easier to talk to this kind of a robot than towards an animalistic robot.

The strict and robotic look was more attractive for some subjects, also because it is not excessive. One subject 11 stated that the external design of the Mindstorm robot matches with the conception of how a robot has to look like.

Contrarily to the last argument, one subject 5 claimed similar to two subjects of type A that the robot needs some sort of cover.

This participant did not have a conception of a typical cover. Subjects 10 and 11 were consistent with the type B categorization throughout all three categories.

Some important aspects are mentioned in the following section. Due to contradictory statements, subject 3 could not be categorized into one type.

On the one hand the subject preferred the appearance of the Furby to that of Johan. On the other hand she stated that the humanly look of Johan is an important aspect for her.

According to her, the robot could have the same look as the present Mindstorm robot has. Due to these contradictory statements subject 3 was excluded from the typologies.

Regardless of this fact statements of subject 3 were still used in this study. The second subject which could not be categorized is subject Concerning Johan, this participant argued that the electronic part is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time.

By reason of the technical look of Johan, the electronic appearance was described as a disadvantage. Oppositional, the subject stated that the electronic part is the fascinating one.

Behavior Beside the three subjects who were consistent throughout all categories, no other subjects were consistent concerning the behavior.

Further regularities were not found. Der hat kein Verhalten, der hat eine Miniprogrammierung, die er auf Knopfdruck von sich gibt. He utilizes the atmosphere and probably works with it afterwards.

Die Stimmung aufbrauchen, um dann damit nachher vielleicht zu arbeiten. Furthermore, the limited movements were evaluated as negative.

Johan For me, he can only do the same movements. He turns a little bit, he takes the ball, the green one, says green, yellow and throws them down.

Wirft die runter. Aber ich sehe nicht den Sinn des Ganzen im Augenblick. He is already highly sophisticated.

Der ist schon auf ziemlich hohen Stand. Due to frequently repetition of the same movements, the subjects stated that there is more variability required.

One subject 12 judged the walking process as strange and was wondering why the robot did not fall.

The walking behavior was interpreted as an advance or avoidance behavior of the robot. If the robot walked towards the subject the behavior was interpreted as approach behavior.

If the robot walked backward it was interpreted in the opposite way that it tried to avoid the subject. On the one hand the flexibility was seen as an advantage and on the other hand there was the demand for more movements, for instance head movement, arm movement, opening the arms and the possibility to grip something.

One subject 11 argued that more movements would make the robot more interesting and plausible. Interaction Preliminary it should be considered that the interaction with Johan was only possible due to the use of the Wizard of Oz method.

None of the subjects realized that Johan was guided. Only one subject 4 asked if the Furby was manipulated. The television is a passive medium and one can only sit in front of it.

Soon it probably can say change it or it already works today, change the program. But this one, I touch it and he talks to me.

Aber der, den pack ich an und der redet mit mir. The poor articulation was frequently mentioned as a negative aspect of the Furby.

One subject 1 stated that the robot has no use if it is not understandable. The subjects had the feeling that they had no influences on Furby.

Only one subject 10 had the feeling that he could affect the Furby through stimulating different sensors which lead to different reactions and usage of different words.

Further negative points were the missing speech cognition and the fact that the Furby only reacted if you lift it up. The subjects evaluated it as annoying that the Furby needed to be stimulated and did not start some actions by itself.

At the beginning, some subjects felt helplessness and did not know what they had to do to animate the Furby.

The singing Furby was specified in positive terms. One subject 4 got a suitable reaction, she lifted the Furby up and then it asked to let it down, which was evaluated as funny.

Subject 9 mentioned the active form of the Furby, compared to the passive medium television in a positive manner. However, these subjects did not evaluate the interaction process for a robot for their own use, these judgments were related to a robot for the usage of the elderly with dementia.

Johan The interaction is certainly limited. And I think there will be possibilities to build such a robot or robots like this more difficile, that it has more possibilities.

And basically he behaved as you asked from him, what was within his opportunities. Die Farben erkennen vor allen Dingen. The interaction was interpreted as a possibility to have a conversation with the robot and the robot created the impression to be rational.

The interpretation of a friendly and polite robot resulted from the possibility to interact with the robot.

Furthermore, the quick reactions were valued and described as an interrelationship between human and robot. Leaving aside How to design an entertainment robot for the healthy elderly?

Five subjects judged the interaction game with the colored balls as positive and admired the fact that the robot can recognize the colors.

In contrast to the last fact some subjects interpreted the act of throwing the balls away part of the interaction game as an antipathy of the robot.

It was interpreted as a sign that the robot would like to stop the game. Only one subject 10 was satisfied with the present responses to the different orders and would not add any other features.

Concerning the negative aspects, the fact that the robot was hard to understand was frequently alluded. Only one subject 9 judged the understandability as good.

The robot should talk loud and clear so that even the elderly with hearing aid can understand it. Furthermore, there is a demand that the robot has a wider range of vocabulary.

Participant 4 and 6 mentioned that a robot conversation cannot be like a human conversation. The fact that the language was limited to a few words and that the robot could give just stored vocabulary was seen as a disadvantage of a robot.

In addition a robot should not say no, the robot should do what is requested. A robot should be adaptive and it should follow orders.

One subject 3 argued that it felt strange to talk to a machine and another subject 4 stated that there was no communication possible.

A last negative point is the limitation of capabilities of the robot. The subjects stated that the robot needs more variation to entertain someone.

Additional design principles for a robot The utility would be important for me. For me it would be more important that he can give me recipes.

Thus I would find it pleasant if he is useful. There is no demand for a robot which only conduces as an entertainment robot.

A robot should be useful and help humans in their everyday life. A robot should support the elderly, people in need of care and do things which people begrudgingly do, as for instance mopping the ground.

Further supporting actions which were mentioned are: vacuuming, cleaning, helping to get into the stair lift, picking up objects, passing objects to the elderly, mowing the lawn, supporting the cooking process, reading a book and reminding the people to take their pills.

The functions should be easy to understand and there is a demand to get a good instruction. I can imagine that people who are only sitting at home lonely and twice a day the nursing service comes by and otherwise they are on their own that they say the robot is like a dog.

This category also includes the final conclusion of the subjects about the robots. The Furby was often described as a toy and that it has limited functions to entertain someone.

A few subjects did not know what they should do with such a robot and stated that it would be boring very quickly. As a result of the limited functions the Furby was often described as stupid and some subjects stated that they would give it away quickly.

As opposed to this the Furby was described as funny. Three subjects mentioned that the use of this robot could be effective for the elderly, dementia patients or people who are living alone.

The second robot, Johan, was described as humanly and intelligent. One subject 1 judged the name Johan to be suitably due to the fact that in books and films Johan is often the butler.

This robot could also be a butler and support humans. There was an immense interest in how Johan works and the technology was seen as a challenge.

This subject would also like How to design an entertainment robot for the healthy elderly? Conversely, the technology led to an aversion of robots.

Some subjects judged the robot as too complicated. Video Through the video analysis the laugh frequencies were counted.

Due to the large standard deviation in the amount of laughs for the different subjects, the relative laugh frequency is used.

The most laughs were found for Johan Figure 5 shows that nine subjects had relative a higher laugh frequency in the Johan condition compared to the Furby condition.

In two cases more laughs were detected in the Furby condition compared to the Johan condition and one subject had a similar laugh frequency relating to both robots.

Figure 6 shows the comparison between type A en type B concerning the relative laugh frequencies.

For the distribution of the laughs see Table 2. Example: Laugh frequency of a woman in the Furby condition is abbreviated through fWF.

Bar graph showing the relative laugh frequency by robot separately for each subject. Bar graph showing the relative laugh frequency by robot and typology.

Neither the constant comparison method nor the video analysis showed a gender difference in relation to the two robots. However, on the basis of the think aloud method and the semi-structured interviews some important aspects could be identified.

Relating the sub questions of this research: 1 How do the subjects evaluate the external designs of the robots? Concerning the overall appearance no design was preferred explicitly.

There is no specific design that appeals to all people. This result is consistent with the hypotheses of Dautenhahn that, among others, different appearance preferences are the reason why one robot for all will not exist.

Furthermore, Scopelliti et al. The reason why subjects experienced Johan as friendly and polite were according to Tay Tiong Chee, Taezoon, Xu, Ng and Tan the humanoid features which lead to a friendlier impression of robots.

Additionally, the eyes are an important aspect of the robot independent of the two types. Big eyes and eye movements are important aspects for a robot and improve the acceptance.

This is in line with the concept of the baby schema Kindchenschema which was postulated by Konrad Lorenz Vicedo, According to Vicedo the baby schema includes among others huge eyes and implicates that something is seen as cute.

Overall, more laughs were detected in the Johan condition. It is noticeable that the subjects often laughed if Johan said thanks or gave a suitable answer.

Due to this finding a possible explanation of the higher laugh frequency in the Johan condition is the possibility of the social interaction, for instance having a conversation.

Because of time restrictions, a more thorough video analysis showing the precise factors causing the laughs was not possible. Type A subjects, who had a positive attitude towards the Furby, had fewer laughs in the Furby condition compared to the Johan condition.

Type B subjects had less laughs in the Furby condition as well. Nevertheless, the relative amount of laughs in the Furby condition was higher for type A subjects compared to type B subjects.

This indicates that the typologies based on the appearance have some correlation on the laugh frequency.

Further, the three subjects, whose statements were consistent with their type classification throughout all categories, were analyzed separately.

The laugh frequencies of two subjects were in line with their overall consistency. More laughs of subject 4 were detected in the Furby condition compared to laughs about Johan.

This is in line with her classification into type A, positive attitude towards the Furby and an aversion for Johan. The laugh detection of subject 11, type B, is also in line with the consistency of the subject.

He had throughout all categories an aversion for the Furby and a positive attitude towards Johan. Concerning the laugh frequency of subject 11, fewer laughs were detected in the Furby condition.

However, the laugh frequency of subject 10 was not consistent with his attitude towards the robot. This subject belonged to type B, yet more laughs were detected in the Furby condition.

Concerning the laugh frequency, a larger sample is required to do a statistical analysis. With regard to the behavior, a robot needs many movement abilities, for instance head movements, arm movements, bending down et cetera.

Moreover, behavior that is versatile is preferred. Speech recognition and taking orders are important aspects in relation to interaction possibilities of a robot.

These findings are in line with other researches who claimed that speech is the preferred instrument of communication Scopelliti et al.

Regarding the speech possibilities, it is important that the robot speaks loudly and is easy to understand. Concerning the last sub questions, What are other desirable aspects of a robot?

The users will expect that the robot can do something for them, for instance vacuum cleaning, picking up things, supporting the cooking process, providing information, et cetera.

The last two aspects, supporting the cooking process and providing information, are supported by findings of Scopelliti et al.

Further, one female subject 5 stated that a robot should have the possibility to learn things. Contrarily, according to Scopelliti et.

The other subjects of this study did not mention this aspect. Concerning this aspect, if a robot should be preprogramed or have the ability to learn something, more research is needed.

On top of that the following aspects, which could not be classified into the sub questions, should be considered as well. The subjects were often skeptical if a robot can entertain them and concluded that they do not need an entertainment robot.

A reason for this skepticism is the underestimations of the possibility of a robot to perform entertainment tasks Scopelliti et al.

Concerning this aspect it is important to show the elderly the possibilities of robots to decrease the skepticism concerning entertainment functions.

The last important aspect is the requirement of a detailed introduction of the robot. An easy understanding of the functions is needed, which is supported by a research of Saini et al.

This study has also some limitations which have to be considered. The limitations refer to the sample and to the experiment itself.

Further research is required to make the findings more reliable and to quantify them. The study of Lee, Junga, Kimb and Kimb showed that social agents are more attractive to lonely people and they assumed that a social agent could provide companionship.

The entertainment factor was judged critical in this sample, further research should examine if marriage is a critical factor of the received entertainment skills.

Furthermore, two limitations in relation to Johan should be considered. The male name of the Mindstorm robot, Johan, was only elected to facilitate the acquaintance with the robot and did not correspond to the female voice.

No subject mentioned this illogical combination. Only one subject 1 referred to the name at all and argued that Johan is a suitable name.

Concerning the experiment itself the researcher had to intervene into the experiment which might be a factor of influence.

At the interaction game of the Mindstrom robot the researcher had to point out that the subject has to use the green ball before the robot can perform further.

Moreover, the room was too bright once 4 and it took a long time before the robot detected a color. The problem was that the robot had to carry out the commanded program completely and it was not possible to stop it manually and change to another program.

Further research should install the robot in the way that it is possible to stop each program of the robot with a button. Through this application it would seem that it could react on orders superiorly.

Subject to discussion can also be the use of the Wizard of Oz experiment. The means of this research were limited, therefore this kind of experiment was used.

The Wizard of Oz method is often criticized because the subjects are misled and get a wrong impression. Since technology already exists that make this kind of interactions possible, for instance the NAO robot 4, this method gave no erroneously impression.

Conclusion Due to the fact that the present features of the Furby and Johan were evaluated as useless, the findings of this study should be taken into account to make it more acceptable.

To infer to the main questions of this research, How do we have to design an entertainment therapy robot for the healthy elderly who are living independently in their homes?

The robot needs to be introduced in detail to the healthy elderly This study yields interesting aspects of the questions how we have to design an entertainment robot but needs further research to generalize these findings.

After the quantification of the results a prototype robot can be build and the effectiveness can be tested.

Measuring national well-being - older. Office for National Statistics, Broekens, J. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review.

Gerontechnology, 8 2 , Wizard of oz studies - why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems, 6 4 , Dautenhahn, K. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction.

Feil-Seifer, D. Human-robot interaction. New York: Springer. Forlizzi, J. Human Computer Interaction, 19 45 , Gates, B.

A robot in every home: The leader of pc revolution predicts that the next hot field will be robotics. Scientific American, Heerink, M.

Studying the acceptance of a robotic agent by elderly users. International Journal of ARM, 7 3 , Hirsch, T.

In Jean Scholtz Chair. The elder project: social and emotional factors in the design of eldercare technologies.. In John Thomas Ed.

Kanamori, M. Maintenance and improvement of quality of life among elderly patients using a pet-type robot.

Klamer, T. Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. Pervasive computing technologies for healthcare pervasivehealth , 4th international conference on-no permissions, Munich.

Landis, J. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?

Marti, P. Socially assistive robotics in the treatment of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. In Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, BioRob Ray, C.

What do people expect from robots?. IEEE Press. Saini, P. Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home.

Interacting with Computers, 17, Scopelliti, M. Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Serrano, M.

A wizard of oz component-based approach for rapidly prototyping and testing input multimodal interfaces. Shibata, T.

Stasi, M. Pet-therapy: a trial for institutionalized frail elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr Suppl.

Loneliness among older Europeans. Eur J Ageing, 6, Tacken, M. Use and acceptance of new technology by older people. Gerontechjournal, 3 3 , Tay Tiong Chee, B.

Personality of social robots perceived through the apperance. IOS Press, 41, The world factbook.

London: Published by Academic Press. Vicedo, M. ISIS, 2 , Vos, H. Social Research Methods. Enschede, Netherlands: Pearson Education Limited.

Wada, K. Robot therapy in a care house, results of case studies. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN Wolf, D.

Einsamkeit - innere leere. Was waren die Nachteile? Johan Was fanden Sie vorteilhaft bei Johan?

Was sind die Nachtteile? Wie das Verhalten von dem Furby? Furby Was halten Sie vom Aussehen des Furby?

Johan Und was halten Sie vom Aussehen von Johan? Wie beurteilen Sie die Interaktion mit dem Furby?

Dieser Roboter soll zur Unterhaltung dienen. Sie brauchen sich keine Sorgen, dass andere Aspekte untersucht werden. Sie haben gleich pro Roboter ca.

Ich bitte Sie laut zu denken. Alle Informationen die ich sammele werden anonym und vertraulich bearbeitet. Die Untersuchung dauert etwa 30 Minuten.

Haben Sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch Fragen? Es spielt keine Rolle, welche Art. Bitte versuchen Sie alle ihre Gedanken laut auszusprechen.

Sehr gut. Dann beginnen wir jetzt mit den beiden Robotern. Sollten Sie nicht verstehen was Johan sagt, geben Sie mir bitte einen kurzen Hinweis, dann werde ich es wiederholen.

Ich bin mir bewusst, dass die Teilnahme an dieser Studie freiwillig ist. Die gesamte Studie wird ca. Der Forscher wird weitere Fragen zu diesem Forschungsprojekt beantworten, jetzt oder im Verlauf der Untersuchung.

Wie Wärs Mit

Krieger steht, das man den Effekt nicht aktivieren muss. Posted by Koller at No comments:. Friday, 24 April Doppeldeutsche Spielkarten 36 Blatt?

Bilder suche ich noch Hallo, ich suche ganz dringend Bilder von doppeldeutschen Spielkarten. Thursday, 23 April Wer kann einen Pokerkoffer empfehlen?

Was empfehlt ihr? Ein paar Fragen an die Yu-Gi-Oh! Also am besten erst in die Angriffsposition und dann gleich wieder in die zugedeckte Verteidgungsposition.

Bei Mediamarkt. Habe das Yu-Gi-Oh! Wednesday, 15 April Wo kann ich Pokemon Karten gut verkaufen ausser bei ebay? Hi Du kannst deine deine "Pokemon" Karten bei www.

MfG Kevin! In Deiner Vorschulkrabbelgruppe Geburtstag wieder anmelden Sammle auch noch die Karten Saturday, 11 April Kreditkarten??? Visa Prepaid sei froh,wenn du keine brauchst.

Also ich glaub nicht, dass sie dir eine macht, mal davon abgesehen, dass du garkeine mit 15 bekommst. MfG Concasser ich mochte von meiner Mom zum According to them females prefer the Furby and males prefer the Mindstorm robot.

Due to the constant comparison method there was no gender difference found within the two types.

Since the statements about the eyes and ears were inconsistent with the two types the judgments concerning the eyes and ears are excluded from the typologies.

The guy has nice eyes, hm. The size of the eyes, the eye movements and the eyelashes were appraised as affirmative. On the contrary one subject judged the gaze of the Furby as suspicious but also as funny.

Another person judged the gaze as melancholic. Yes and the ears have also turned out well. One of these subjects belongs to type A and the other to type B.

The appearance is appealing and lets say compensating. Da vermutet man nichts negatives, egal was der dann vielleicht nachher macht.

However, one subject 4 , type A, suggested that the Furby needs to be softer in order to be cuddlier and a little bit bigger.

This subject related the robot usage to the elderly with dementia. Furthermore, the fact that you can pick up the Furby and carry it the handling was evaluated positively.

The handiness of the robot seemed to have a positive effect. One subject 8 mentioned explicitly the form of the robot which could have a good impact on other people.

Subject 1 was worried about the hygiene due to the reason that it is not possible to wash the coat of the Furby. Type A subjects evaluated the appearance of Johan as negative because it is colorless and too angular.

Furthermore, the design was designated as cold and too electronic. Two subjects estimated that the robot has to be less mechanical and needs some sort of cover or costume to make it more human.

One participant 8 suggested that the robot could wear a jacket and trousers to look more like a human.

It is also mentioned that the cover should minimize the risk of damage and it would make the robot handier. Moreover, the robots present appearance was described as breakable.

Subject 4 is the only participant of type A which was consistent throughout all categories. She had an aversion to Johan and a positive attitude towards the Furby throughout the apperance, behavior and interaction category.

Type B Essentially, for me this thing looks extremely ugly. The subjects evaluated the external design of the Furby as poor, ugly, strange and deformed.

The appearance of the Furby was criticized because it looks like a toy. The technical appearance made the robot more attractive.

It was described as humanly and one subject 10 stated that it was easier to talk to this kind of a robot than towards an animalistic robot.

The strict and robotic look was more attractive for some subjects, also because it is not excessive. One subject 11 stated that the external design of the Mindstorm robot matches with the conception of how a robot has to look like.

Contrarily to the last argument, one subject 5 claimed similar to two subjects of type A that the robot needs some sort of cover.

This participant did not have a conception of a typical cover. Subjects 10 and 11 were consistent with the type B categorization throughout all three categories.

Some important aspects are mentioned in the following section. Due to contradictory statements, subject 3 could not be categorized into one type.

On the one hand the subject preferred the appearance of the Furby to that of Johan. On the other hand she stated that the humanly look of Johan is an important aspect for her.

According to her, the robot could have the same look as the present Mindstorm robot has. Due to these contradictory statements subject 3 was excluded from the typologies.

Regardless of this fact statements of subject 3 were still used in this study. The second subject which could not be categorized is subject Concerning Johan, this participant argued that the electronic part is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time.

By reason of the technical look of Johan, the electronic appearance was described as a disadvantage. Oppositional, the subject stated that the electronic part is the fascinating one.

Behavior Beside the three subjects who were consistent throughout all categories, no other subjects were consistent concerning the behavior.

Further regularities were not found. Der hat kein Verhalten, der hat eine Miniprogrammierung, die er auf Knopfdruck von sich gibt.

He utilizes the atmosphere and probably works with it afterwards. Die Stimmung aufbrauchen, um dann damit nachher vielleicht zu arbeiten.

Furthermore, the limited movements were evaluated as negative. Johan For me, he can only do the same movements. He turns a little bit, he takes the ball, the green one, says green, yellow and throws them down.

Wirft die runter. Aber ich sehe nicht den Sinn des Ganzen im Augenblick. He is already highly sophisticated. Der ist schon auf ziemlich hohen Stand.

Due to frequently repetition of the same movements, the subjects stated that there is more variability required.

One subject 12 judged the walking process as strange and was wondering why the robot did not fall. The walking behavior was interpreted as an advance or avoidance behavior of the robot.

If the robot walked towards the subject the behavior was interpreted as approach behavior. If the robot walked backward it was interpreted in the opposite way that it tried to avoid the subject.

On the one hand the flexibility was seen as an advantage and on the other hand there was the demand for more movements, for instance head movement, arm movement, opening the arms and the possibility to grip something.

One subject 11 argued that more movements would make the robot more interesting and plausible. Interaction Preliminary it should be considered that the interaction with Johan was only possible due to the use of the Wizard of Oz method.

None of the subjects realized that Johan was guided. Only one subject 4 asked if the Furby was manipulated.

The television is a passive medium and one can only sit in front of it. Soon it probably can say change it or it already works today, change the program.

But this one, I touch it and he talks to me. Aber der, den pack ich an und der redet mit mir. The poor articulation was frequently mentioned as a negative aspect of the Furby.

One subject 1 stated that the robot has no use if it is not understandable. The subjects had the feeling that they had no influences on Furby.

Only one subject 10 had the feeling that he could affect the Furby through stimulating different sensors which lead to different reactions and usage of different words.

Further negative points were the missing speech cognition and the fact that the Furby only reacted if you lift it up. The subjects evaluated it as annoying that the Furby needed to be stimulated and did not start some actions by itself.

At the beginning, some subjects felt helplessness and did not know what they had to do to animate the Furby.

The singing Furby was specified in positive terms. One subject 4 got a suitable reaction, she lifted the Furby up and then it asked to let it down, which was evaluated as funny.

Subject 9 mentioned the active form of the Furby, compared to the passive medium television in a positive manner.

However, these subjects did not evaluate the interaction process for a robot for their own use, these judgments were related to a robot for the usage of the elderly with dementia.

Johan The interaction is certainly limited. And I think there will be possibilities to build such a robot or robots like this more difficile, that it has more possibilities.

And basically he behaved as you asked from him, what was within his opportunities. Die Farben erkennen vor allen Dingen.

The interaction was interpreted as a possibility to have a conversation with the robot and the robot created the impression to be rational.

The interpretation of a friendly and polite robot resulted from the possibility to interact with the robot.

Furthermore, the quick reactions were valued and described as an interrelationship between human and robot. Leaving aside How to design an entertainment robot for the healthy elderly?

Five subjects judged the interaction game with the colored balls as positive and admired the fact that the robot can recognize the colors. In contrast to the last fact some subjects interpreted the act of throwing the balls away part of the interaction game as an antipathy of the robot.

It was interpreted as a sign that the robot would like to stop the game. Only one subject 10 was satisfied with the present responses to the different orders and would not add any other features.

Concerning the negative aspects, the fact that the robot was hard to understand was frequently alluded. Only one subject 9 judged the understandability as good.

The robot should talk loud and clear so that even the elderly with hearing aid can understand it. Furthermore, there is a demand that the robot has a wider range of vocabulary.

Participant 4 and 6 mentioned that a robot conversation cannot be like a human conversation. The fact that the language was limited to a few words and that the robot could give just stored vocabulary was seen as a disadvantage of a robot.

In addition a robot should not say no, the robot should do what is requested. A robot should be adaptive and it should follow orders.

One subject 3 argued that it felt strange to talk to a machine and another subject 4 stated that there was no communication possible. A last negative point is the limitation of capabilities of the robot.

The subjects stated that the robot needs more variation to entertain someone. Additional design principles for a robot The utility would be important for me.

For me it would be more important that he can give me recipes. Thus I would find it pleasant if he is useful. There is no demand for a robot which only conduces as an entertainment robot.

A robot should be useful and help humans in their everyday life. A robot should support the elderly, people in need of care and do things which people begrudgingly do, as for instance mopping the ground.

Further supporting actions which were mentioned are: vacuuming, cleaning, helping to get into the stair lift, picking up objects, passing objects to the elderly, mowing the lawn, supporting the cooking process, reading a book and reminding the people to take their pills.

The functions should be easy to understand and there is a demand to get a good instruction. I can imagine that people who are only sitting at home lonely and twice a day the nursing service comes by and otherwise they are on their own that they say the robot is like a dog.

This category also includes the final conclusion of the subjects about the robots. The Furby was often described as a toy and that it has limited functions to entertain someone.

A few subjects did not know what they should do with such a robot and stated that it would be boring very quickly. As a result of the limited functions the Furby was often described as stupid and some subjects stated that they would give it away quickly.

As opposed to this the Furby was described as funny. Three subjects mentioned that the use of this robot could be effective for the elderly, dementia patients or people who are living alone.

The second robot, Johan, was described as humanly and intelligent. One subject 1 judged the name Johan to be suitably due to the fact that in books and films Johan is often the butler.

This robot could also be a butler and support humans. There was an immense interest in how Johan works and the technology was seen as a challenge.

This subject would also like How to design an entertainment robot for the healthy elderly? Conversely, the technology led to an aversion of robots.

Some subjects judged the robot as too complicated. Video Through the video analysis the laugh frequencies were counted.

Due to the large standard deviation in the amount of laughs for the different subjects, the relative laugh frequency is used.

The most laughs were found for Johan Figure 5 shows that nine subjects had relative a higher laugh frequency in the Johan condition compared to the Furby condition.

In two cases more laughs were detected in the Furby condition compared to the Johan condition and one subject had a similar laugh frequency relating to both robots.

Figure 6 shows the comparison between type A en type B concerning the relative laugh frequencies. For the distribution of the laughs see Table 2.

Example: Laugh frequency of a woman in the Furby condition is abbreviated through fWF. Bar graph showing the relative laugh frequency by robot separately for each subject.

Bar graph showing the relative laugh frequency by robot and typology. Neither the constant comparison method nor the video analysis showed a gender difference in relation to the two robots.

However, on the basis of the think aloud method and the semi-structured interviews some important aspects could be identified.

Relating the sub questions of this research: 1 How do the subjects evaluate the external designs of the robots? Concerning the overall appearance no design was preferred explicitly.

There is no specific design that appeals to all people. This result is consistent with the hypotheses of Dautenhahn that, among others, different appearance preferences are the reason why one robot for all will not exist.

Furthermore, Scopelliti et al. The reason why subjects experienced Johan as friendly and polite were according to Tay Tiong Chee, Taezoon, Xu, Ng and Tan the humanoid features which lead to a friendlier impression of robots.

Additionally, the eyes are an important aspect of the robot independent of the two types. Big eyes and eye movements are important aspects for a robot and improve the acceptance.

This is in line with the concept of the baby schema Kindchenschema which was postulated by Konrad Lorenz Vicedo, According to Vicedo the baby schema includes among others huge eyes and implicates that something is seen as cute.

Overall, more laughs were detected in the Johan condition. It is noticeable that the subjects often laughed if Johan said thanks or gave a suitable answer.

Due to this finding a possible explanation of the higher laugh frequency in the Johan condition is the possibility of the social interaction, for instance having a conversation.

Because of time restrictions, a more thorough video analysis showing the precise factors causing the laughs was not possible.

Type A subjects, who had a positive attitude towards the Furby, had fewer laughs in the Furby condition compared to the Johan condition. Type B subjects had less laughs in the Furby condition as well.

Nevertheless, the relative amount of laughs in the Furby condition was higher for type A subjects compared to type B subjects. This indicates that the typologies based on the appearance have some correlation on the laugh frequency.

Further, the three subjects, whose statements were consistent with their type classification throughout all categories, were analyzed separately.

The laugh frequencies of two subjects were in line with their overall consistency. More laughs of subject 4 were detected in the Furby condition compared to laughs about Johan.

This is in line with her classification into type A, positive attitude towards the Furby and an aversion for Johan. The laugh detection of subject 11, type B, is also in line with the consistency of the subject.

He had throughout all categories an aversion for the Furby and a positive attitude towards Johan. Concerning the laugh frequency of subject 11, fewer laughs were detected in the Furby condition.

However, the laugh frequency of subject 10 was not consistent with his attitude towards the robot. This subject belonged to type B, yet more laughs were detected in the Furby condition.

Concerning the laugh frequency, a larger sample is required to do a statistical analysis. With regard to the behavior, a robot needs many movement abilities, for instance head movements, arm movements, bending down et cetera.

Moreover, behavior that is versatile is preferred. Speech recognition and taking orders are important aspects in relation to interaction possibilities of a robot.

These findings are in line with other researches who claimed that speech is the preferred instrument of communication Scopelliti et al.

Regarding the speech possibilities, it is important that the robot speaks loudly and is easy to understand.

Concerning the last sub questions, What are other desirable aspects of a robot? The users will expect that the robot can do something for them, for instance vacuum cleaning, picking up things, supporting the cooking process, providing information, et cetera.

The last two aspects, supporting the cooking process and providing information, are supported by findings of Scopelliti et al.

Further, one female subject 5 stated that a robot should have the possibility to learn things. Contrarily, according to Scopelliti et.

The other subjects of this study did not mention this aspect. Concerning this aspect, if a robot should be preprogramed or have the ability to learn something, more research is needed.

On top of that the following aspects, which could not be classified into the sub questions, should be considered as well.

The subjects were often skeptical if a robot can entertain them and concluded that they do not need an entertainment robot.

A reason for this skepticism is the underestimations of the possibility of a robot to perform entertainment tasks Scopelliti et al.

Concerning this aspect it is important to show the elderly the possibilities of robots to decrease the skepticism concerning entertainment functions.

The last important aspect is the requirement of a detailed introduction of the robot. An easy understanding of the functions is needed, which is supported by a research of Saini et al.

This study has also some limitations which have to be considered. The limitations refer to the sample and to the experiment itself.

Further research is required to make the findings more reliable and to quantify them. The study of Lee, Junga, Kimb and Kimb showed that social agents are more attractive to lonely people and they assumed that a social agent could provide companionship.

The entertainment factor was judged critical in this sample, further research should examine if marriage is a critical factor of the received entertainment skills.

Furthermore, two limitations in relation to Johan should be considered. The male name of the Mindstorm robot, Johan, was only elected to facilitate the acquaintance with the robot and did not correspond to the female voice.

No subject mentioned this illogical combination. Only one subject 1 referred to the name at all and argued that Johan is a suitable name.

Concerning the experiment itself the researcher had to intervene into the experiment which might be a factor of influence.

At the interaction game of the Mindstrom robot the researcher had to point out that the subject has to use the green ball before the robot can perform further.

Moreover, the room was too bright once 4 and it took a long time before the robot detected a color.

The problem was that the robot had to carry out the commanded program completely and it was not possible to stop it manually and change to another program.

Further research should install the robot in the way that it is possible to stop each program of the robot with a button.

Through this application it would seem that it could react on orders superiorly. Subject to discussion can also be the use of the Wizard of Oz experiment.

The means of this research were limited, therefore this kind of experiment was used. The Wizard of Oz method is often criticized because the subjects are misled and get a wrong impression.

Since technology already exists that make this kind of interactions possible, for instance the NAO robot 4, this method gave no erroneously impression.

Conclusion Due to the fact that the present features of the Furby and Johan were evaluated as useless, the findings of this study should be taken into account to make it more acceptable.

To infer to the main questions of this research, How do we have to design an entertainment therapy robot for the healthy elderly who are living independently in their homes?

The robot needs to be introduced in detail to the healthy elderly This study yields interesting aspects of the questions how we have to design an entertainment robot but needs further research to generalize these findings.

After the quantification of the results a prototype robot can be build and the effectiveness can be tested. Measuring national well-being - older.

Office for National Statistics, Broekens, J. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology, 8 2 , Wizard of oz studies - why and how.

Knowledge-Based Systems, 6 4 , Dautenhahn, K. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction.

Feil-Seifer, D. Human-robot interaction. New York: Springer. Forlizzi, J. Human Computer Interaction, 19 45 , Gates, B. A robot in every home: The leader of pc revolution predicts that the next hot field will be robotics.

Scientific American, Heerink, M. Studying the acceptance of a robotic agent by elderly users.

International Journal of ARM, 7 3 , Hirsch, T. In Jean Scholtz Chair. The elder project: social and emotional factors in the design of eldercare technologies..

In John Thomas Ed. Kanamori, M. Maintenance and improvement of quality of life among elderly patients using a pet-type robot.

Klamer, T. Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. Pervasive computing technologies for healthcare pervasivehealth , 4th international conference on-no permissions, Munich.

Landis, J. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?

Marti, P. Socially assistive robotics in the treatment of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. In Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, BioRob Ray, C.

What do people expect from robots?. IEEE Press. Saini, P. Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home.

Interacting with Computers, 17, Scopelliti, M. Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Serrano, M.

A wizard of oz component-based approach for rapidly prototyping and testing input multimodal interfaces.

Shibata, T. Stasi, M. Pet-therapy: a trial for institutionalized frail elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr Suppl. Loneliness among older Europeans.

Eur J Ageing, 6, Tacken, M. Use and acceptance of new technology by older people. Gerontechjournal, 3 3 , Tay Tiong Chee, B. Personality of social robots perceived through the apperance.

IOS Press, 41, The world factbook. London: Published by Academic Press. Vicedo, M. ISIS, 2 , Vos, H.

Social Research Methods. Enschede, Netherlands: Pearson Education Limited. Wada, K. Robot therapy in a care house, results of case studies.

In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN Wolf, D. Einsamkeit - innere leere. Was waren die Nachteile? Johan Was fanden Sie vorteilhaft bei Johan?

Was sind die Nachtteile? Wie das Verhalten von dem Furby? Furby Was halten Sie vom Aussehen des Furby? Johan Und was halten Sie vom Aussehen von Johan?

Wie beurteilen Sie die Interaktion mit dem Furby? Dieser Roboter soll zur Unterhaltung dienen.

Sie brauchen sich keine Sorgen, dass andere Aspekte untersucht werden. Sie haben gleich pro Roboter ca.

Ich bitte Sie laut zu denken. Alle Informationen die ich sammele werden anonym und vertraulich bearbeitet. Die Untersuchung dauert etwa 30 Minuten.

Haben Sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch Fragen? Es spielt keine Rolle, welche Art. Bitte versuchen Sie alle ihre Gedanken laut auszusprechen.

Sehr gut. Dann beginnen wir jetzt mit den beiden Robotern. Sollten Sie nicht verstehen was Johan sagt, geben Sie mir bitte einen kurzen Hinweis, dann werde ich es wiederholen.

Ich bin mir bewusst, dass die Teilnahme an dieser Studie freiwillig ist. Die gesamte Studie wird ca. Der Forscher wird weitere Fragen zu diesem Forschungsprojekt beantworten, jetzt oder im Verlauf der Untersuchung.

Unterschrift Untersuchungsleiter Proband Unterschrift Keine Ente, keine Maus, ein Fantasietier.

Furby is interrupting laughing Scheinbar ist er nicht damit einverstanden. Oder er? Ist es ein er?

Furby ja, ein er. Ein Hund. Furby is interrupting Ich kann dich leider nicht verstehen, vielleicht versuchst du es mal in meiner Sprache.

Furby is interrupting Ja, da ist immer noch nichts angekommen bei mir. Wenn ich dich nicht verstehe, was soll ich dann mit dir.

Furby is interrupting Oder? Ohho Subject repeats the Furby. Aber vielleicht verstehen kleine Kinder das ja viel mehr als alte Leute, was du sagst.

Furby is interrupting Okay, ich habe genug von dir. Furby is interrupting. Interviewer: Ok, Dann mach ich jetzt einmal ganz kurz die Batterien raus, weil sonst redet der die ganze Zeit weiter.

So, bringen wir ihn mal zum schweigen. Subject: Aber was redet der? Interviewer: Das ist Furbisch. So, bei Johan der redet auch, nur der ist etwas schlecht zu verstehen.

Wenn etwas nicht verstanden wird, dann eben Bescheid geben und ich wiederhole das dann eben, ok? Subject: Ich habe da ja auch nichts verstanden.

Interviewer: Ne, das kann ich aber auch nicht. Das ist Furbisch. Subject: Johan is acting Hallo Johan. Johan: Ja Guten Morgen. Johan: Hallo, Wie geht es Ihnen?

Guten Morgen Johan. Hallo Wie geht es dir? Johan: Gut. Danke Oh ja danke, mir geht es auch gut. Ich freue mich dich kennen zu lernen.

Johan is acting Warum gehst du denn jetzt weg von mir? Johan is acting Ah ja komm mal her. Subject: Achso.

Johan is acting Johan throws the ball away Hast du sie alle fallen lassen. Ich habe was verkehrt gemacht, glaube ich.

Rot Ist gut, ja. Johan throws the ball away Ups. Schon wieder. Was ist denn falsch? Johan: blau Ja laughing Johan thorws the balls away Danke.

Ja, wenn du nicht mit mir spielen willst, dann eben nicht. Dann sag mir was anderes was wir tun sollen? Ne in die andere Hand.

Johan is acting Dann schauen wir doch mal. Johan throws the ball away Nein, der Rote ist auch nicht gut. Ich habe es geschafft.

Johan throws the balls away Wollen wir das mal tauschen. Johan:Gelb Gelb, ja. Johan is acting Johan throws the ball away Johan: Gut.

Danke Bitte. Johan: Musik, bitte Musik bitte? Johan is acting Ja, auf Wiedersehen. Ich sehe du willst mich verlassen.

Johan is acting nein doch nicht? Ja komm mal zu mir. Guter Johan. Links schwenk. Johan is acting Rechts. Du machst ja gar nicht was ich sage.

Johan: Nein. Johan: Nein Bitte? Johan: Nein Interviewer: Der sagt; Nein. Subject: Nein? Links rum. Subject: Na dann komm her.

Johan is acting Aber warum stehst du denn so schief? Ah ja, ich verstehe. Ja noch ein bisschen.

Hup Johan falls. Oh du willst in meine Arme fallen. Ja, komm her. Ich halte dich. Johan is acting Stopp.

Haben wir genug gespielt? Interviewer: Genau. Dann fangen wir mit dem Furby an. Was sind denn ihrer Meinung nach Vorteile vom Furby?

Die sticht so heraus aus dem Fell. Ja und die Ohren sind auch gut gelungen. Interviewer: Und Nachtteile vom Furby?

Kann man das waschen? Wahrscheinlich nicht. Ein Roboter kann man an sich ja nicht waschen, auch wenn man die Batterien rausnimmt.

Interviewer: Wahrscheinlich nicht. Subject: Ich sehe keine Nachteile. Interviewer: Ok. Und jetzt bei Johan, wenn wir mit den Vorteilen anfangen?

Subject: Er tut was man sagt. Johan ist auch ein passender Name. Interviewer: Und Nachteile? Sprache einmal. Subject: Ja, die Sprache. Das ist mir ein bisschen zu eckig point to the display.

Das soll ja sicher irgendwie sein Gesicht darstellen, diese Einheit. Dann einmal zum Verhalten allgemein.

Was sagen Sie zum Verhalten zu Johan? Subject: Er macht das prima. Interviewer: Ja? Subject: Ja. Interviewer: Okay, und der Furby? Subject: Auch.

Interviewer: Ok, also beides gut? Subject: ja. Was ist sonst noch vorteilhaft oder negativ vom Aussehen her? Wir wird das beurteilt? Subject: Die Farbe.

Mir fehlt da etwas rot. Das ist etwas was einem sofort ins Auge springt. Also ein bisschen farblos. Interviewer: Okay. Und beim Furby?

Subject: Der ist ok von den Farben. Die Farben gefallen mir. Du bist okay Subject talks to the robot. Interviewer: Jetzt die Interaktion zwischen den beiden.

Also fangen wir mit dem Furby an. Wie reagiert der auf einen? Wie reagieren Sie auf den? Subject: Also, ich habe auf dich Furby eigentlich positiv reagiert, wobei ich dich auch nicht so richtig verstanden habe.

Und das mit den Augen klimpern und dem Mund auf und zu, dass hat mir gefallen. Interviewer: Und bei Johan? Subject: Ja, wie ich schon gesagt habe, da fehlt mir ein bisschen die Farbe.

Sprache ist zu leise. Und eigentlich hat er das getan oder nicht alles getan was er tun sollte, aber er ist ja sicher noch in der Entwicklung.

Interviewer: Hm. Und jetzt zur Interaktion? Wie wirkte der so? Subject: Futuristisch laughing Interviewer: Futuristisch laughing. Das waren jetzt so meine Fragen.

Aber ist da noch irgendwas wichtiges was Sie als wichtig empfinden, was die beiden Roboter haben sollte? Was so ein Roboter haben sollte, was ich jetzt irgendwie vergessen habe.

Subject: Also der Roboter sollte schon das tun was man von ihm erwartet. Wenn er das nicht tut, dann war es der falsche. Interviewer: Ja okay.

Furby is interrupting Ich muss erst mal gucken. Ist ja unglaublich. Never in my life. Eigentlich finde ich es, ja ein bisschen abartig.

Was kann man denn damit Furby is interrupting sprechende Sprache. Nein ich finde nicht, dass die intelligent sind.

Die sehen auch doof aus. Ich finde, ich find solche Teile Furby is interrupting solche Teile eigentlich nur albern und zum knuddeln finde ich die schon gar nicht.

Ich kann da nichts zu sagen, weil Furby is interrupting. Ich finde die Dinger doof und sonst eigentlich nichts.

Interviewer: Ich denke schon, ja, aber Subject: Und warum? Keine Ahnung, ne. Interviewer: Ja, dann machen wir jetzt weiter mit Johan.

Wie gesagt der reagiert auf ein paar Befehle. Wenn du denn nicht verstehst, dann noch mal fragen sonst sage ich das eben laut.

Der ist halt sehr schwer zu verstehen. Subject: Ich glaube ich kann mich ja mal konzentrieren, ne. Wie macht man den an? Johan is acting Und wie macht man den aus?

Ah der wird mit Johan: Hallo, Wie geht es Ihnen? Sprache Johan: Hallo, Wie geht es Ihnen? Johan: Ja Johan: Ja Ja? Dat kann man wirklich schlecht verstehen.

Interviewer: Der fragt; Hallo, wie geht es Ihnen? Danke gut. Mir geht es gut, danke. Johan: Ja. Johan is acting Wiebke, ist das richtig hier so?

Guck mal. Interviewer: Ne, das ist gut so. Subject: Johan is acting Stopp. Wie viele Funktionen hat der?

Interviewer: Einfach probieren, da sage ich nichts zu. Subject: Ah ja gehen. Johan is acting. Johan: Gut, danke. Johan: Musik, bitte. Das war gut zu verstehen.

Kann der den rechten Arm bewegen Johan is acting. Das war das linke Bein. Ich meine den rechten Arm. Johan: Nein Schade.

Und den linken Arm? Also nur die Beine? Nicht schlecht. Johan is acting Johan, kannst du was greifen? Zeig mal bitte.

Soll ich dir das in die Hand geben? Interviewer: Ja. Ja klasse. Johan: Ja, ja, ja, ja. Wo sitzen eigentlich die Mikros. Sind das die Augen?

Ja, ne. Ich finde es faszinierend wie du funktionierst. Ja wo sind denn jetzt deine Mikros? Die Augen, ne? Wo ist denn noch was?

Mach das noch mal mit den Kugeln. Johan is acting Das fand ich nett Johan is acting Ja, klasse. Kannst du noch mal bitte kommen?

It should be explicitly stated that these findings are from different kind of robots domestic robots, therapy robots, rehabilitation robots, and so on and for different audiences. Figure 6 shows the comparison between type A en type Here concerning the relative laugh frequencies. There is no demand for a robot which only conduces as an entertainment robot. Frag einfach mal rum. It would be difficult for the subjects to explain what a robot has to look and behave like if they have never interacted with one. At a banquet adds extra resources and https://spotcase.co/casino-online-gratis/beste-spielothek-in-ruprechtsberg-finden.php for storing washing .

Wie Wärs Mit Montage-Leistungen

Individuelle Bedürfnisse und Wünsche werden berücksichtigt. Bewertung schreiben. W-U, verzinkt. Produktinformationen "Höhe mm, Gittermatte R-S. Ausgewählter Registrierung Bestway. Diese bieten wir selbstverständlich auch für unsere Montageleistungen an.

4 thoughts on “Wie WГ¤rs Mit

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *