Could Robots Empatize? A Review on The Employment of Social Robots in Mental Healthcare

Abstract

The advances in artificial intelligence and robotics began to transform business and human relations. The employment of robots in health, education, entertainment and rehabilitation as well as industries introduced the concept of "social robots". Although there is no consensus on the definition of the concept, robots with some degree of autonomy and could conduct meaningful social interactions with humans are considered social robots. Studies have been conducted on the employment of social robots in mental health services. Studies have been conducted on the employment of social robots in mental health services. The effectiveness of social robots in the treatment of anxiety, stress, depression, anger, and eating disorders, especially dementia and autism spectrum disorder, has also been investigated. The question of “can robots empathize” is a significant topic in research that focus on human-robot interactions. Robotic empathy studies were conducted with two dimensions of human empathy for robots and robot empathy for humans and led to various philosophical and ethical discussions. Some argued that robot-human interaction leads to new opportunities in mental health services, while others criticized the use of robots since it could increase human solitude, blur the line between reality and virtuality perceptions and the distinction between ontological categories. The present literature review aimed to discuss the concepts of artificial intelligence, robots, and social robots, provide information about the studies on the employment of social robots in mental healthcare, and address the studies and views based on the question "can social robots empathize?"

Keywords

• Social Robot
• Robot
• Artificial Intelligence
• Mental Health
• Empathy

Robotlar Empati Yapabilir mi? Sosyal Robotların Ruh Sağlığı Hizmetlerinde Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Derleme

Abstract

Günümüzde yapay zekâ ve robotik alanındaki gelişmeler iş ve insan ilişkilerini dönüştürmeye başlamıştır. Robotların sadece endüstriyel alanda değil, sağlık, eğitim, eğlence, rehabilitasyon gibi alanlarda kullanılması “sosyal robot” kavramını gündeme getirmiştir. Kavramın üzerinde uzlaşılan ortak bir tanımı bulunmasa da, bir dereceye kadar özerkliğe sahip, insanlarla anlamlı sosyal etkileşimler kurabilen robotlar sosyal robotlar olarak kabul edilebilir. Bu bağlamda sosyal robotların ruh sağlığı hizmetlerinde kullanımına yönelik çalışmalar da yapılmaktadır. Sosyal robotların demans ve otizm spektrum bozukluğu başta olmak üzere anksiyete, stres, depresyon, öfke, yeme problemleri gibi sorunların terapisinde de etkililiği araştırılmaktadır. “Robotlar empati yapabilir mi?” sorusu ise insan-robot etkileşimine odaklanan araştırmaların önemli bir tartışma konusudur. Robot-insan etkileşiminin ruh sağlığı hizmetleri için yeni fırsatlar yarattığını savunanlar olduğu gibi, insanın yalnızlığını arttıracağı, gerçeklik ve sanallık arasındaki çizgiyi belirsizleştirebileceği, ontolojik kategoriler arasındaki ayrımı bulanıklaştırabileceği gibi eleştiriler de yapılmaktadır. Bu derleme yazıda yapay zekâ, robot, sosyal robot kavramlarını açıklamak; sosyal robotların ruh sağlığı hizmetlerinde kullanımına ilişkin yapılan çalışmalar hakkında bilgi vermek, “sosyal robotlar empati yapabilir mi?” sorusu çerçevesinde yapılan araştırmaları ve öne sürülen görüşleri tartışmak amaçlanmıştır.

Keywords

• Sosyal Robot
• Ruh Sağlığı
• Robot
• Yapay zeka
• Empati

References

1. Abdi, J., Al-Hindawi, A., Ng, T. & Vizcaychipi, M. P. (2018). Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open, 8:e018815. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815.
2. Airenti, G. (2015). The Cognitive Bases of Anthropomorphism: From Relatedness to Empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0263-x.
3. Alemi, M., Ghanbarzadeh, A., Meghdari, A. & Moghadam, L. J. (2016). Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 743-759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0294-y.
4. Anzalone, S. M., Tilmont, E., Boucenna, S., Xavier, J., Jouen, A., Bodeau, N., Maharatna, K., Chetouani, M. & Cohen, D. (2014). How children with autism spectrum disorder behave and explore the 4-dimensional (spatial 3D+time) environment during a joint attention induction task with a robot. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(7), 814-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.03.002.
5. Asprino, L., Ciancarini, P., Nuzzolese, A. G., Presutti, V. & Russo, A. (2022). A reference architecture for social robots. Journal of Web Semantics, 72, 1570-8268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2021.100683.
6. Bagheri, E., Roesler, O., Cao, HL. & Vanderborght, B. (2021). A Reinforcement Learning Based Cognitive Empathy Framework for Social Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 1079-1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00683-4.
7. Bank, M.R., Willoughby, L.M. & Banks, W.A. (2008). Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 9(3), 173-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007.
8. Baraka K., Alves-Oliveira P. & Ribeiro T. (2020). An extended framework for characterizing social robots. In Jost C. et al. (eds) Human-Robot Interaction (pp.21-64). Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems, 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_2

9. Begum, M., Serna, R.W. & Yanco, H.A. (2016). Are robots ready to deliver autism ınterventions? A comprehensive review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0346-y
10. Ben-Ari, M. & Mondada, F. (2017). Elements of Robotic, Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62533-1.
11. Blease, C., Locher, C., Leon-Carlyle, M. & Doraiswamy M. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: Qualitative findings from a global physician survey. Digital Health. 6, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207620968355.
12. Bostrom, N. (2018). Süper zekâ yapay zekâ uygulamaları tehlikeler ve stratejiler. (F. B. Aydar, Trans.). Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. (Orginal work published 2014).
13. Breazal, C. (2003). Toward sociable robots, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1
14. Breazeal C., Dautenhahn K., Kanda T. (2016) Social Robotics. In: Siciliano B., Khatib O. (eds) Springer Handbook of Robotics (pp. 1935-1972). Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_72.
15. Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627-52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958.
16. Cabibihan, J.J., Javed, H., Ang, M. & Aljunied, S. M. (2013). Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 593-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0202-2.
17. Cao, W., Song, W., Li, X., Zheng, S., Zhang, G., Wu, Y., He, S., Zhu, H. & Chen, J. (2019) Interaction with social robots: improving gaze toward face but not necessarily joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1503. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01503.
18. Carlson, Z., Lemmon, L., Higgins, M., Frank, D., Shahrezaie, R. S. & Feil-Seifer, D. (2019). Perceived mistreatment and emotional capability following aggressive treatment of robots and computers. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11, 727-739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00599-8.
19. Cifuentes, C.A., Pinto, M.J., Céspedes, & Munera, M. (2020). Social robots in therapy and care. Current Robotics Reports, 1, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00009-2.
20. Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). You, robot: on the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI & Society, 26, 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0289-z.
21. Costescu, C. A., Vanderborght, B. & David, D. O. (2014). The effects of robot-enhanced psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 18(2), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000007.
22. Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466.
23. Çelebi, V. & İnal, A. (2019). Yapay zeka bağlamında etik problemi [Problem Of Ethics In The Context Of Artifıcial Intelligence]. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(66), 651-661. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3614
24. da Silva, J. G. G., Kavanagh, D. J., Belpaeme, T., Taylor, L., Beeson, K., & Andrade, J. (2018). Experiences of a motivational interview delivered by a robot: qualitative study. Journal Of Medical Internet Research, 20(5), e116. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7737.
25. Damiano, L., & Dumouchel, P. (2018). Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468.
26. Damiano, L., & Dumouchel, P. (2020). Emotions in relation. Epistemological and ethical scaffolding for mixed human–robot social ecologies. HUMANA & MENTE Journal of Philosophical Studies, 13(37), 181-206.
27. Damiano, L., Dumouchel, P. & Lehmann, H. (2015). Towards human–robot affective co-evolution overcoming oppositions in constructing emotions and empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0258-7.
28. Darling, K., Nandy, P. & Breazeal, C. (2015). Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction, 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 770-775. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333675.
29. Dautenhahn, K. (1995). Getting to know each other—Artificial social intelligence for autonomous robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 16(2–4), 333-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8890(95)00054-2.
30. David, D.O., Costescu, C.A., Matu, S., Szentagotai, A. & Dobrean, A. (2018). Developing joint attention for children with autism in robot-enhanced therapy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10, 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0457-0.
31. de Graaf, M. M. A., Allouch, S. B., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017).Why would i use this in my home? a model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human-Computer Interaction, 34(2), 115-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1312406.
32. Dennis, M.J. (2022). Social robots and digital well-being: How to design future artificial agents. Mind & Society, 21, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-021-00281-5.
33. DiSalvo, C.F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J. & Kiesler, S. (2002). All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing İnteractive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1145/778712.778756
34. Dobra, A. (2014). General classification of robots. Size criteria. 23rd International Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region (RAAD), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/RAAD.2014.7002249.
35. Doğan, M. (2020). Yapay zeka ve bilinç problemi: Yapay bilincin imkanına dair bir tartışma, yapay bir ben mümkün mü? [The problem of artificial intelligence and consciousnes: A discussion of the possibility of artificial consciousness, is an artificial self possible?] Çizgi Kitabevi Yayınları.
36. Doraiswamy, P.M., Blease, C. & Bodner, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: Insights from a global physician survey. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 102:101753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2019.101753.
37. Dökmen, Ü. (1987). Empati kurma becerisi ile sosyometrik statü arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between the ability to empathize and sociometric status]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 1 (20), 183-207. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/794432
38. Dökmen, Ü. (2005). Sanatta ve günlük yaşamda iletişim çatışmaları ve empati [Communication conflicts and empathy in art and daily life]. Sistem Yayıncılık.
39. Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 31, 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3
40. Eliçin, Ö. (2016). Otizmi olan bireylerin eğitimlerinde robot kullanılarak yürütülen araştırmaların gözden geçirilmesi [Review of the research conducted using robots in education of individuals with autism]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(2), 231-253. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/264322
41. Faber, F., Bennewitz, M., Eppner, C., Gorog, A., Gonsior, C., Joho, D., Schreiber, M. & Behnke, S. (2009). The humanoid museum tour guide Robotinho, The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 891-896, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326326.
42. Fan, S. (2010). Önemli sorular yapay zeka yerimizi alacak mı? 21. yüzyıl için bir rehber. (İ. G. Çıgay, Trans.). Hep Kitap, (Original work published 2019).
43. Fiske, A., Henningsen, P. ve Buyx, A. (2019). Your robot therapist will see you now: ethical implications of embodied artificial intelligence in psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/13216.
44. Fitzpatrick, K.K., Darcy, A. & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785.
45. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I. & Dautenhahn, K. (2003), A survey of socially interactive robots, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42 (3), 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X.
46. Gates, W., & Bill, I. I. I. (2007). A robot in every home. Scientific American, 296(1), 58-65.
47. Gelin R. (2019) NAO. In: Goswami A., Vadakkepat P. (eds) Humanoid Robotics: A Reference (pp. 147-168). Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6046-2_14.
48. Gürgöze, G. & Türkoğlu, İ. (2019). Kullanım alanlarına göre robot sistemlerinin sınıflandırılması [Classification of robot systems according to application areas]. Fırat Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 31(1), 53-66. http://dergi.firat.edu.tr/index.php/mbd/article/view/673High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (2019). A definition of AI: Main capabilities and scientific disciplines. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/definition-artificial-intelligence-main-capabilities-and-scientific-disciplines
49. Huijnen, C.A.G.J., Lexis, M.A.S., Jansens, R. & de Witte, L.P. (2016). Mapping robots to therapy and educational objectives for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(6), 2100-2114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2740-6.
50. Hung, L., Liu, C., Woldum, E., Au-Yeung, A., Berndt, A., Wallsworth, C., Horne, N., Gregorio, M., Mann, J. & Chaudhury, H. (2019). The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 19(232). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1244-6.
51. Iacono, I., Lehmann, H., Marti, P., Robins B. & Dautenhahn, K. (2011). Robots as social mediators for children with Autism - A preliminary analysis comparing two different robotic platforms, IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL), 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1109/DEVLRN.2011.6037322.
52. Inkster, B., Sarda, S. & Subramanian, V. (2018). An empathy-driven, conversational artificial intelligence agent (wysa) for digital mental well-being: real-world data evaluation mixed-methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, 6 (11). https://doi.org/10.2196/12106.
53. Insel, T. R. (2018). Digital phenotyping: a global tool for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 276-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20550.
54. International Federation of Robotics (2020a)Executive Summary World Robotics 2020 Industrial Robots. https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/Presentation_WR_2020.pdf. See also: https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/Presentation_WR_2020.pdf.
55. International Federation of Robotics (2020b)Executive Summary World Robotics 2020 Service Robots, https://ifr.org/img/worldrobotics/Executive_Summary_WR_2020_Service_Robots.pdf. See also: https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/Presentation_WR_2020.pdf.
56. Jain, S. H., Powers, B. W., Hawkins, J. B. & Brownstein, J. S. (2015). The digital phenotype. Nature Biotechnology, 33(5), 462-463. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3223.
57. James, J., Watson, C. I. & MacDonald, B. (2018). Artificial empathy in social robots: an analysis of emotions in speech, 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 632-637, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525652.
58. Kabacińska, K., Prescott, T.J. & Robillard, J.M. (2021). Socially Assistive Robots as Mental Health Interventions for Children: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 919-935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00679-0.
59. Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Shen, S. (2017). NOC NOC, who's there? A new ontological category (NOC) for social robots. In N. Budwig, E. Turiel, & P. D. Zelazo (Eds.), New perspectives on human development (pp. 106–122). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316282755.008.
60. Kangal, Z. T. (2021). Yapay zeka ve ceza hukuku. On İki Levha Yayınları.
61. Kerruish, E. (2021). Assembling human empathy towards care robots: The human labor of robot sociality. Emotion, Space and Society, 41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100840.
62. Kim, E.S., Berkovits, L.D., Bernier, E.P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul, R. & Scassellati, B. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1038-1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1645-2.
63. Kozima, H., Nakagawa, C., & Yano, H. (2004). Can a robot empathize with people? Artificial Life and Robotics, 8(1), 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10015-004-0293-9.
64. Küster, D., Swiderska, A. & Gunkel, D. (2019). I saw it on YouTube! How online videos shape perceptions of mind, morality, and fears about robots. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3312-3331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820954199.
65. Kyriakopoulos, K. J. & Loizou, S. G. (2015). Robotik: Robotiğin Temeli ve Robotların Geleceği. (P. Demircioğlu, İ. Böğrekçi, Trans.). (S. Tarhan, M. M. Özgüven, Trans. Eds.) In Bilgi Teknolojilerinin Tarımda Kullanımı (pp. 103-117). TC Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı.
66. Lambert, A., Norouzi, N., Bruder, G. & Welch, G. (2020). A systematic review of ten years of research on human interaction with social robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36 (19), 1804-1817. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1801172.
67. Lee, E. E., Torous, J., De Choudhury, M., Depp, C. A., Graham, S. A., Kim, H. C., Paulus, M. P., Krystal, J. H. & Jeste, D. V. (2021). Artificial Intelligence for Mental Health Care: Clinical Applications, Barriers, Facilitators, and Artificial Wisdom. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 6(9), 856-864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2021.02.001
68. Leite, I., Castellano, G., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2014). Empathic robots for long-term interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(3), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0227-1.
69. Lim, A. & Okuno, H.G. (2015). A Recipe for Empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0262-y.
70. Lin, P., Jenkins, R. & Abney, K. (2017). Robot ethics 2.0 from autonomous cars to artificial ıntelligence. Oxford University Press.
71. Lovejoy, C.A. (2019). Technology and mental health: the role of artificial intelligence. European Psychiatry, 55, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.08.004.
72. Luxton, D. D. (2014). Artificial intelligence in psychological practice: current and future applications and implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(5), 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034559.
73. Lytridis, C., Bazinas, C., Kaburlasos, V. G., Vassileva-Aleksandrova, V., Youssfi, M., Mestari, M., Ferelis, V., Jaki, A. (2019). Social robots as cyber-physical actors in entertainment and education. International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), pp. 1-6, https://doi.org/10.23919/SOFTCOM.2019.8903630.
74. Mathur, M. B. & Reichling, D. B. (2016). Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition, 146, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.008.
75. Mattiassi, A.D.A., Sarrica, M., Cavallo, F., Fortunati, L. (2019) Degrees of empathy: humans’ empathy toward humans, animals, robots and objects. In: N. Casiddu, C. Porfirione, A. Monteriù, F. Cavallo (eds). Ambient assisted living. ForItAAL 2017. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (pp. 101-113). 540. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04672-9_7.
76. McCharty, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N. & Shannon, C. E. (2006). A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence august 31, 1955. AI Magazine, 27, 12-14. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904.
77. McCorduck, P. (2004). Machines who think: a personal ınquiry into the history and prospects of artificial ıntelligence. Massachusetts A K Peters, Ltd. Mende, M., Scott, M. L. & van Doorn, J. (2019). Service robots rising: how humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718822827.
78. Montag, C., Sinderman, C., Baumeister, H. (2020). Digital phenotyping in psychological and medical sciences: a reflection about necessary prerequisites to reduce harm and increase benefits. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.013.
79. Moshe, I., Terhorst, Y., Asare, K. O., Sander, L. B., Ferreira, D., Baumeister, H., Mohr, D. C. & Pulkki-Rabac, L. (2021). Predicting symptoms of depression and anxiety using smartphone and wearable data. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 625247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.625247.
80. Moyle, W., Cooke, M., Beattie, E., Jones, C., Klein, B., Cook, G. & Gray, C. (2013). Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39(5), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20130313-03.
81. Nakanishi, J., Kuramoto, I., Baba, J., Ogawa, K., Yoshikawa, Y. & Ishiguro, H. (2020). Continuous hospitality with social robots at a hotel. Sipringer Nature Applied Science, 2, 452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2192-7.
82. Niculescu, A., van Dijk, B., Nijholt, A., Li, H., & See, S. L. (2013). Making social robots more attractive: The effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0171-x.
83. Niemelä M., Heikkilä P., Lammi H., Oksman V. (2019). A social robot in a shopping mall: studies on acceptance and stakeholder expectations. In: Korn O. (eds) Social Robots: Technological, Societal and Ethical Aspects of Human-Robot Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction Series (pp. 119-144). Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17107-0_7.
84. Nilsson, N.J. (2019). Yapay zeka geçmişi ve geleceği. (M. Doğan, Trans.). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, (Original work published 2010).
85. Nomura T. (2019) Empathy as signalling feedback between humanoid robots and humans. In: Goswami A., Vadakkepat P. (eds) Humanoid Robotics: A Reference (pp. 119-144). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6046-2_133.
86. Nyholm, S. (2020). Humans and Robots Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism. Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd.
87. Özdemir, S. & Bülbül, I. A. (2017). Ortak dikkat becerileri ve otizm spektrum bozukluğu [Joint attention and autism spectrum disorders]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 195-220. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.327398.
88. Parisi, D. (2014). Future Robots Towards a robotic science of human beings, John Benjamins Publishing Co.
89. Pavia, A., Dias, J., Aylett, R. Sobreperez, P., Woods, S., Zoll, C. & Hall, L. (2004). Caring for agents and agents that care: building empathic relations with synthetic agents. Proceedings AAMAS, 194–201. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1373479 Pennisi, P., Tonacci, A. Tartarisco, G., Billeci, L., Ruta, L., Gangemi, S. & Pioggia, G. (2015). Autism and social robotics: A systematic review. Autism Research, 9 (2), 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1527.
90. Petersen, S., Houston, S., Qin, H., Tague, C. & Studley J. (2017). The utilization of robotic pets in dementia care. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 55(2), 569-574. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160703.
91. Rabbi, M., Philyaw-Kotov, M., Lee, J., Mansour, A., Dent, L., Wang, X. ve diğerleri. (2017). SARA: A mobile app to engage users in health data collection. ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, 781-789. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123024.3125611.
92. Rabbitt, S.M., Kazdin, A.E. & Scassellati, B. (2015). Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clinical Psychology Review, 35, 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.07.001. Raptopoulou, A., Komnidis, A., Bamidis, P. D. & Astaras, A. (2021). Human–robot interaction for social skill development in children with ASD: A literature review. Healthcare Technology Letters, 8(4), 90-96. https://doi.org/10.1049/htl2.12013.
93. Riek, L. D., & Robinson, P. (2008). Real-time empathy: Facial mimicry on a robot. In Workshop on Affective Interaction in Natural Environments (AFFINE) at the International ACM Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 08). https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.219.4749&rep=rep1&type=pdf
94. Riek, L. D., Rabinowitch, T. C., Chakrabarti, B., & Robinson, P. (2009). How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, 245-246. https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514158.
95. Riek, L.D., Paul, P.C. & Robinson, P. (2010). When my robot smiles at me: Enabling human-robot rapport via real-time head gesture mimicry. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 3, 99-108 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-009-0028-2.
96. Robaczewski, A., Bouchard, J., Bouchard, K. & Gaboury, S. (2021). Socially Assistive Robots: The Specific Case of the NAO. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 795-831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00664-7.
97. Robinson, N. L. & Kavanagh, D. J. (2021). A social robot to deliver a psychotherapeutic treatment: Qualitative responses by participants in a randomized controlled trial and future design recommendations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102700.
98. Robinson, N.L., Cottier, T.V. & Kavanagh, D.J. (2019). Psychosocial health ınterventions by social robots: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(5):e13203. https://doi.org/10.2196/13203.
99. Rogers, C. (1983). Empatik olmak değeri anlaşılmamış bir varoluş şeklidir. (F. Akkoyun, Trans.). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 1 (16), 103-124. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/auebfd/issue/48533/616198
100. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., Krämer, N. C., Hoffmann, L., Sobieraj, S., & Eimler, S. C. (2013). An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0173-8.
101. Russel, S.J. & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial ıntelligence a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Inc.
102. Sarrica, M., Brondi, S. & Fortunati, L. (2020), How many facets does a “social robot” have? A review of scientific and popular definitions online, Information Technology & People, 33(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2018-0203.
103. Say, C. (2018). 50 soruda yapay zeka [Artificial intelligence in 50 questions]. 3. Baskı, Bilim ve Gelecek Kitaplığı.
104. Scassellati B. (2007) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. In: Thrun S., Brooks R., Durrant-Whyte H. (eds) Robotics Research. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics (pp. 552-563).28. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48113-3_47.
105. Scassellati, B., Admoni, H. & Matarić, M. (2012). Robots for use in autism research. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering. 14, 275-94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150036.
106. Schmetkamp, S. (2020). Understanding A.I. - can and should we empathize with robots?. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11, 881-897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00473-x.
107. Scoglio, A.A., Reilly, E.D., Gorman, J.A. & Drebing, C.E. (2019). Use of social robots in mental health and well-being research: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(7), e13322. https://doi.org/10.2196/13322.
108. Seo, S. H., Geiskkovitch, D., Nakane, M., King, C., & Young, J. E. (2015). Poor thing! Would you feel sorry for a simulated robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696471.
109. Severinson-Eklundh, K., Green, A. & Hüttenrauch, H. (2003). Social and collaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00377-9
110. Severson, R. L. & Carlson, S. M. (2010. Behaving as or behaving as if? Children’s conceptions of personified robots and the emergence of a new ontological category. Neural Networks, 23(8-9), 1099-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2010.08.014.
111. Shen, Z. & Wu, Y. (2016). Investigation of Practical Use of Humanoid Robots in Elderly Care Centres. HAI '16: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction October, 63-66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2974804.2980485.
112. Sheridan, T. B. (2020). A review of recent research in social robotics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.01.003
113. Shibata, T. (2004). An overview of human interactive robots for psychological enrichment, in Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(11), 1749-1758, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.835383.
114. Stephan, A. (2015). Empathy for artificial agents. . International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0260-0.
115. Suzuki, Y., Galli, L., Ikeda, A., Itakura, S. & Kitazaki, M. (2015). Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Scientific Reports, 5, 15924. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15924.
116. Tapus, A., & Mataric, M. J. (2007). Emulating empathy in socially assistive robotics. AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration For Socially Assistive Robotics, 93-96. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-07/SS07-07-020.pdf
117. Turkle, S. (2010). In good company?, in Wilks Y. (Ed) Close Engagements with Artificial Companions, p. 3–10, Benjamins.
118. Turkle, S. (2018). Empathy machines: forgetting the body. In: Vaia Tsolas and Christine Anzieu-Premmereur (Eds.) A psychoanalytic exploration of the body in today’s world on body (pp. 17-27).Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisi (2021). Ulusal Yapay Zeka Stratejisi [2021-2025] https://cbddo.gov.tr/SharedFolderServer/Genel/File/TR-UlusalYZekaStratejisi2021-2025.pdf
119. Twomey, C., O'Reilly, G. & Meyer, B. (2017). Effectiveness of an individually-tailored computerised CBT programme (Deprexis) for depression: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 256: 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.06.081.
120. van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., van der Ven, S. & Leseman, P. (2019). Social Robots for Language Learning: A Review. Review of Educational Researches, 89(2), 259-295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286.
121. van Ruiten, A. M., Haitas, D., Bingley, P., Hoonhout, H. C. M., Meerbeek, B. W., Terken & J. M. B. (2007). Attitude of Elderly Towards a Robotic Game and Train Buddy: Assessment of Empathy and Objective Control. Paper presented at the PhD Consortium on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interfaces – ACII. http://www.di.uniba.it/intint/DC-ACII07/VanRuiten.pdf
122. Vandenbos, G. R. (2020). APA yaşam boyu gelişim psikolojisi sözlüğü. (T. G. Şendil & Ş. S. Karakelle, Trans. Eds.). Nobel Yayınevi.
123. Vanderborght, B., Simut, R., Saldien, J., Pop, C., Rusu, A. S., Pintea, S., Lefeber, D., & David, D. O. (2012). Using the social robot Probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 13(3), 348-372. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.3.02van
124. Wada, K., Shibata, T., Musha, T. & Kimura, S. (2008). Robot therapy for elders affected by dementia, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 27(4), 53-60, https://doi.org/10.1109/MEMB.2008.919496.
125. Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T. & Tanie, K. (2004). Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center, in Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(11), 1780-1788, https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.835378.
126. Wainer, J., Robins, B., Amirabdollahian, F. & Dautenhahn, K. (2014). Using the Humanoid Robot KASPAR to Autonomously Play Triadic Games and Facilitate Collaborative Play Among Children With Autism. in IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 6(3), 183-199, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2303116.
127. Walters, M.L., Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R. & Koay, K. L. (2008). Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots, 24, 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9058-3.
128. Wang, X., Shen, J. & Chen, Q. (2021). How PARO can help older people in elderly care facilities: A systematic review of RCT. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.12327.
129. Weir, K. (2018) The dawn of social robots. https://www.apa .org/monitor/2018/01/cover-social-robots.
130. Westerman, D., Cross, A. C. & Lindmark, P. G. (2019). I believe in a thing called bot: Perceptions of the humanness of “chatbots”. Communication Studies, 70, 3, 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1557233.
131. Whitby, B. (2005). Yapay zekâ. (Ç. Karabağlı). İletişim Yayınları, (Original work published 1988).
132. Woo, H., LeTendre, G. K., Pham-Shouse, T. & Xiong, Y. (2021). The use of social robots in classrooms: A review of field-based studies, Educational Research Review, 33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100388.
133. Wood, L.J., Zaraki, A., Robins, B. & Dautenhahn, K. (2021). Developing kaspar: A humanoid robot for children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 491-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00563-6.
134. Yaman, Y., & Şişman, B. (2019). Robot assistants in education of children with autism: interaction between the robot and the child. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.472009.
135. Yan, H., Ang, M.H. Jr & Poo, A.N. (2014), A survey on perception methods for human-robot interaction in social robots, International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 85-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0199-6.
136. Yin, J., Wang, S., Guo, W. & Shao, M. (2021). More than appearance: the uncanny valley effect changes with a robot’s mental capacity. Current Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02298-y.
137. Yonck, R. (2019). Makinenin kalbi yapay duygusal zekâ dünyasında geleceğimiz. (T. Gönekçin, Trans.). Paloma Yayınları.
138. Zhang, D., Shen, J., Li, S. Gao, K. & Gu, R. (2021). I, robot: depression plays different roles in human–human and human–robot interactions. Translational Psychiatry, 11, 438 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01567-5.
139. Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K. & Bartneck, C. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 347-360 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6