skip to main content
10.1145/3544549.3583838acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Lighting up well-being with Bulb

Published:19 April 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, two problems arose. Students lacked 1) social opportunities and 2) motivation to maintain their schedules, e.g., studying or relaxing, as their work-life balance disappeared. Thus, we designed a social companion robot, Bulb, that helped students cycle through daily activities with subtle cues, i.e., light, gaze, and movements. Bulb’s "head" would light up with different colors or it gazes at different parts of the room, e.g., at the laptop to hint at studying or wiggling to suggest a small break. Five students evaluated Bulb through at-home use, which demonstrated that Bulb was seen as a "living being" and students were responsive to its social cues, like following Bulb’s gaze, resulting in a higher awareness and follow-through of students’ schedules. Our contribution is in designing a social companion robot that subtly persuaded students through light and anthropomorphic social cues, helping them maintain their daily schedule during the pandemic.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3544549.3583838-video.mp4

Video Figure

mp4

72.7 MB

References

  1. [1] Eshtiak Ahmed, Ashraful Islam, Atiqul Islam Chowdhury, Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Shahnaj Chowdhury, and Md Imran Hosen. 2021. Robo-friend: Can a social robot empathize with your feelings effectively?. In Progress in Advanced Computing and Intelligent Engineering: Proceedings of ICACIE 2020. Springer, Singapore, 777–788.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] James Auger. 2014. Living with robots: A speculative design approach. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 1 (2014), 20–42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Simon Baron-Cohen. 1995. The eye direction detector (EDD) and the shared attention mechanism (SAM): Two cases for evolutionary psychology. In In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.) Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey, 41–59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Andrew P Bayliss, Alexandra Frischen, Mark J Fenske, and Steven P Tipper. 2007. Affective evaluations of objects are influenced by observed gaze direction and emotional expression. Cognition 104, 3 (2007), 644–653.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Vol. 2. Research Designs, Harris Cooper (Ed.). American Psychological Association, Washington, 57–71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] C. Breazeal and B. Scassellati. 1999. How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In Proceedings 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human and Environment Friendly Robots with High Intelligence and Emotional Quotients (Cat. No.99CH36289), Vol. 2. IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 858–863 vol.2. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1999.812787Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] F. Bu, A. Steptoe, and D. Fancourt. 2020. Who is lonely in lockdown? Cross-cohort analyses of predictors of loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health 186 (Sep 2020), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.06.036Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Joseph Crawford, Kerryn Butler-Henderson, Jürgen Rudolph, Bashar Malkawi, Matt Glowatz, Rob Burton, Paulo Magni, and Sophia Lam. 2020. COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching 3, 1 (2020), 1–20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] K. Dautenhahn, S. Woods, C. Kaouri, M. L. Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, and I. Werry. 2005. What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler?. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 1192–1197. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Anna Dolot. 2020. The influence of COVID-19 pandemic on the remote work-an employee perspective.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Timon Elmer, Kieran Mepham, and Christoph Stadtfeld. 2020. Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. Plos one 15, 7 (2020), e0236337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] B.J. Fogg. 2003. Chapter 1 - Overview of captology. In Persuasive Technology, B.J. Fogg (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 15 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-155860643-2/50003-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] B.J. Fogg. 2003. Chapter 5 - Computers as persuasive social actors. In Persuasive Technology, B.J. Fogg (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 89 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-155860643-2/50007-XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Alexandra Frischen and Steven P Tipper. 2004. Orienting attention via observed gaze shift evokes longer term inhibitory effects: implications for social interactions, attention, and memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133, 4 (2004), 516.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] E Scott Geller. 2016. The psychology of self-motivation. In Applied Psychology, E Scott Geller (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 83–118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Chloe A Hamza, Lexi Ewing, Nancy L Heath, and Abby L Goldstein. 2020. When social isolation is nothing new: A longitudinal study psychological distress during COVID-19 among university students with and without preexisting mental health concerns. Canadian Psychology 62, 1 (2020), 20–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] ERİŞ Hüseyin and Sinem BARUT. 2020. The Effect of Feeling of Loneliness on Burnout Levels in University Students. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi 13, 2 (2020), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.606671Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Kari Daniel Karjalainen, Anna Elisabeth Sofia Romell, Photchara Ratsamee, Asim Evren Yantac, Morten Fjeld, and Mohammad Obaid. 2017. Social drone companion for the home environment: A user-centric exploration. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States, 89–96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Magdalena Klopotek. 2017. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Working Remotely from the Perspective of Young Employees. In Management Challenges in a Network Economy: Proceedings of the MakeLearn and TIIM International Conference 2017. ToKnowPress, Lublin, Poland, 535–535.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Stephen RH Langton and Vicki Bruce. 1999. Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual cognition 6, 5 (1999), 541–567.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Kwan Min Lee, Younbo Jung, Jaywoo Kim, and Sang Ryong Kim. 2006. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 10 (2006), 962 – 973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Minha Lee, Sander Ackermans, Nena van As, Hanwen Chang, Enzo Lucas, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2019. Caring for Vincent: A Chatbot for Self-Compassion. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300932Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Nancy R Lockwood. 2003. Work/life Balance: Challenges and Solutions. Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Hadis Malekie and Zeinab Farhoudi. 2015. Making Humanoid Robots More Acceptable Based on the Study of Robot Characters in Animation. International Journal of Robotics and Automation 4, 1 (2015), 63–72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Chris Michaelides. 2009. Sonification of Robot Communication: A Case Study.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Chris Moore, Philip J Dunham, and Phil Dunham. 2014. Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Psychology Press, New York, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Omar Mubin, Catherine J Stevens, Suleman Shahid, Abdullah Al Mahmud, and Jian-Jie Dong. 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning 1, 209-0015 (2013), 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Aoife O’Donovan and Brian Hughes. 01 Oct. 2007. Social support and loneliness in college students: Effects on pulse pressure reactivity to acute stress. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 19, 4 (01 Oct. 2007), 523 – 528. https://doi.org/10.1515/IJAMH.2007.19.4.523Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Amit Kumar Pandey and Rodolphe Gelin. 2018. A mass-produced sociable humanoid robot: Pepper: The first machine of its kind. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 25, 3 (2018), 40–48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Lawrence Robinson, Kai Lundgren, and Robert Segal. 2022. The Health and Mood-Boosting Benefits of Pets. https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-health/mood-boosting-power-of-dogs.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Namin Shin and Sangah Kim. 2007. Learning about, from, and with Robots: Students’ Perspectives. In RO-MAN 2007-The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 1040–1045.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Litao Sun, Yongming Tang, and Wei Zuo. 2020. Coronavirus pushes education online. Nature Materials 19, 6 (2020), 687–687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Ann Verhetsel, Roselinde Kessels, Toon Zijlstra, and Marjolein Van Bavel. 2017. Housing preferences among students: collective housing versus individual accommodations? A stated preference study in Antwerp (Belgium). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 32, 3 (2017), 449–470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Lighting up well-being with Bulb

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '23: Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2023
      3914 pages
      ISBN:9781450394222
      DOI:10.1145/3544549

      Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 April 2023

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • extended-abstract
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)214
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format