The final publication is available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7333658/

Social Acceptance of a Childcare Support Robot System*
Masahiro Shiomi, Member, IEEE and Norihiro Hagita, Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper investigates people’s social acceptanceof a childcare support robot system and compares their attitudes
to two childcare technologies: anesthesia during labor and baby
food (processed food and formula milk), which includes
powdered milk and instant food for babies and toddlers. To
investigate their social acceptance, we developed scales fromthree points of view: safety and trustworthy, diligence, anddecreasing workload. For this paper, our participants werecomprised of 412 people located through a web-based survey
and 14 people who experienced the prototype of our childcare
support robot system. They answered questionnaires about our
three developed scales and an intention to use scale to investigate
their social acceptance toward childcare support technologies.
The web-based survey results indicate that our system’s concept
was evaluated lower than current childcare support technologies,
but people who experienced our system prototype evaluated ithigher than those who filled out web-based surveys.

support systems, even though researchers have mainly focusedon measuring the social acceptance of robot systems withelderly people [1] [10].

I. INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we investigate through questionnaires thesocial acceptance of people toward childcare support robot
systems from various viewpoints. First we interviewed
childcare workers at nursery schools to identify their needs.
Based on these interview results, we developed a prototype ofa childcare support system that records and indexes children’s
daily activities using such sensor information as the positionsof children (Fig. 1) and a robot to entertain them whenchildcare workers are too busy. We also developed scales toinvestigate attitudes toward childcare support technologies tocompare the social acceptance of new technologies andexisting technologies. We identified participant perceptions bycomparing several technologies and unveiled the essential
factors that increase social acceptance.

Low worldwide birthrates are critical problems indeveloped countries, which are rapidly becoming extremely
old societies. To increase birthrates, societal childcare support
is essential. We believe that robotics can support childcare
workers, but recent robotics research works mainly focus on
the support of the elderly people [1] [2] [3] to solve theapproaching aging society problem; childcare support using
robotics technologies has received relatively less focus. We
believe that childcare support must be considered equally (ormore) critical as elderly care to realize the sustainable future
development of social structures.

To evaluate the validity of our developed scales and toinvestigate the social acceptance of a childcare support robot
system, we conducted two kinds of experiments: a web-based
survey and a field trial. The former investigated the validity ofour developed scales and compared social acceptance between
our childcare support robot system and two existing childcare
support technologies: anesthesia during labor and baby food,
which includes powdered milk and instant baby food. The
latter investigated whether the experiences of using ourchildcare support robot system increased people’s social
acceptance of it.

Several robotics researchers have started to develop
robotics systems for nursery schools or kindergartens. For
example, sensor networks or wearable sensors recognize
children behaviors in kindergarten environments [4] [5].
Hieida et al. developed a social robot that physically interacts
with children in a kindergarten [6]. Fink et al. investigated theeffectiveness of a robotic toy box that motivates young
children to pick up their toys [7]. Tanaka et al. proposed a carereceiving robot to support education [8].
However, the above research focused less on childcare
support from the viewpoints of childcare workers, even though
they contributed to the understanding of children’s behaviors.
Shiomi et al. investigated the importance of a childcare support
robot system, but their system remains in a preliminary stage[9]. To realize a childcare support system, we must investigate
the needs of childcare workers and construct a way toobjectively measure the social acceptance of such systems. But
such research works are also less focused on similar childcare*Resrach supported by the Strategic Information and Communications R& D Promotion Programme (SCOPE) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Communications (132107010)

A

B

B

A
C

C

Figure 1. Intelligent playroom and sensors attached to ceilingII. DESIGN OF CHILDCARE SUPPORT SYSTEM
A. Interviews with childcare workers at nursery schools
What kinds of childcare support do childcare workers
need? We interviewed 26 teachers at three nursery schools,

M. Shiomi and N. Hagita are with ATR, Kyoto, 6190288, Japan. (e-mail:{ m-shiomi, hagita}@atr.jp).

The final publication is available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7333658/

explained the purpose of this research, and asked them whatkinds of support they want for their work.
We identified two kinds of needs for childcare support.
One is to help with their paperwork, including recordingchildren’s activities at nursery schools. They are interested insuch sensor data as recorded and provided by cameras or
human tracking systems because such information would be
helpful when they observe children’s daily activities. Even if
they cannot directly monitor children’s activity when they are
too busy, the system can show what the children are doing.
Note that some nursery schools are already using cameras torecord daily activities for security purposes, but such systems
have not been expanded to support office functions. Of course,
some negative responses are related to the dependence on thesystem; childcare workers expressed concerns about the longterm ramifications. A few teachers worried that reliance onsuch systems might reduce the amount of proper care andattention from teachers about childcare.
The next need we identified concerns entertaining children
and keeping them occupied. Our participating childcare
workers reported that even if a system can entertain children
for just a few minutes, they might benefit during hectic times.
Childcare workers seemed to imagine such robots as
intelligent toys. Already several intelligent toys that resemble
smartphones are used to entertain children. This influences theuse of robots for childcare support. Several childcare workers
expressed reservations about using such robots due to privacy
concerns, similar to using sensor data to record children’s daily
activities.
B. System overview
Based on the above interviews, we set two design policies
for our childcare support robot system. The first supports
office works, especially recording and indexing children’s
daily activity in schools. We believe that the completely
autonomous indexing of children’s daily activities is difficult
due to the limitations of current technologies, but indexingsome of data and recording most of the data will benefit
paperwork. The second design policy uses a robot to entertain
children. Even though children might only pay attention to therobot for a few minutes, childcare workers might benefit
during busy situations, such as changing diapers.
To prove our concept, we built a prototype of an intelligent
playroom (Fig. 1) in which we placed toys and books. 15 depth
sensors were put in the ceiling to track people in theenvironment [11]. We also installed 32 microphones to record
the sound of the children and the parents in the room (Fig. 1,
right). The room was about 40 m2, big enough to accommodate
more than 10 people. Since the system remains underdevelopment, it only records positions, videos, and sounds;
indexing children's activities is future work.
We also installed a ball-type toy robot named Sphero toinvestigate how children interact with it. The robot was teleoperated in some pre-defined behaviors, i.e., the Wizard of Oz
style [12]. We defined the behaviors to tempt children to chasethe robot, which eluded them. Thus, the robot briefly entertains
the children.

III. EXPERIMENT I: WEB-BASED EVALUATION
We conducted an experiment by a web-based survey ofpeople’s perception of a robot system that performs childcare
support. We evaluated the validity of our developed scales thatmeasured the attitudes of childcare support technologies.
A. Hypothesis and predictions
Even though social robots are slowly spreading into theworld, childcare support robotics technology remains
relatively unknown for ordinary people. Such new concepts or
technologies basically suffer from lower social acceptancethan current technologies. For example, even thoughprocessed baby food or formula milk is commonly used in theworld, its social acceptance fell when new technologies wereintroduced in Japan. The reasons for the low social acceptanceof new technologies are complicated because most people
have no experience using them, and so they cannot imagine
whether they are safe and/or beneficial. Using such newtechnologies might not be accepted by conservative people;
others might feel that people who use them are irresponsible.
For example, anesthesia during labor is a recent technologythat supports parents and childcare contexts in Japan. One
research work investigated its social acceptance and thereasons why mothers choose anesthesia during labor [13].
Based on these considerations, we expect people to have
low social acceptance of childcare support robot systems
because they are not very common in the world and they havenever used them. Even though our hypothesis assumes
negative results for current childcare support robot systems,
investigating such impressions is crucial to understanding thecurrent situations for such systems. Therefore we made thefollowing hypothesis:
Prediction 1: People will have lower social acceptance fora childcare support robot system than current childcare support
technologies.
B. Participants
Our survey included 412 Japanese people (405 females and7 males), half of whom have preschool children, and the rest
are licensed to work in nursery schools.
C. Procedure
In our online survey, participants answered questionnaires
about three kinds of childcare support technologies: anesthesia
during labor, baby food, and childcare support robot systems.
For each technology, we briefly explained the meaning of ourthree examples: e.g., “baby food includes powdered milk andinstant baby food.” For the childcare support robot system, weprepared two images to explain our two concepts because thissystem is newer for participants than anesthesia during laborand baby food.
D. Measurements
We measured intention to use because in studies of theacceptance of new technologies [14] and social robots [15][16], it is modeled and indicates social acceptance. We applied
three kinds of scales to investigate more detailed attitudes
about childcare support technologies: safety, diligence, andworkload. In this research, we prepared different kinds of

The final publication is available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7333658/

childcare support technologies and added a short description
to each questionnaire aspect, depending on the technologies,
e.g., “if you or your partner has a baby” or “if you or yourpartner becomes parents.”
1) Intention to use
For this measurement, we adapted three items from
Heerink et al. [1], including, “I’m planning to use a childcare
support robot system for the next few days.”2) Safety and trustworthy
In the childcare context, the safety and trustworthiness ofa technology are considered essential factors by ordinary
people. For example, in a baby food context, parents believe
such processed food is healthy and safe for their children; thesefeelings of safety and trustworthy are needed to disseminate atechnology into the world. Therefore, we constructed a scale
to investigate the safety and trustworthy of our childcare
support technologies by three distinct items of trustworthiness,cleanness and safety, and anxiety. Note that X changes
depending on the following conditions: anesthesia duringlabor, baby food, or a childcare support robot system.
-

If I give birth or become a parent, I will trust using X.

-

Using X will make childbirth (anesthesia during labor) or
parenting (baby food, or a childcare support robot system)
safe and sanitary.

-

Using X will decrease my anxiety about childbirth orparenting.

3) Diligence
We believe that diligence is one essential factor forchildcare support technologies. If parents feel that using themis not diligent, or if they are concerned that their friends orfamily might react negatively, they might avoid suchtechnologies. Note that we avoid discussing which views are
better for childcare because that debate depends on manyfactors. Therefore we measured the feelings of diligence about
new technology in this research context by constructing a scale
to investigate the diligence of childcare support technologies
that accept the labor related to childcare and the feelings of thesurrounding people by five distinct items. A higher value inthis scale indicates negative attitudes about a technology from
diligence viewpoints, unlike other scales.
-

If I am a parent, the non-use of X is quite natural.

-

Using X negatively affects parents.

-

Since I think that mothers should experience natural
childbirth (anesthesia during labor) or parenting (babyfood, or a childcare support robot system), X should not be
used.

-

Since diligence during childbirth or parenting increases
affection for children, X should not be used.

-

Using X will make negative impressions on others.

4) Decreasing workload
One reason for using childcare support technologies is todecrease the parental workload. Baby food decreases theparental burden and provides nutrition to children. Since
anesthesia during labor also decreases the maternal physicalload and pain in childbirth, protecting the physical welfare ofmothers after childbirth is important. Therefore, weconstructed a scale to investigate the decreasing workload ofchildcare support technologies, positive effects on theirchildren, and convenience by four distinct items:-

The use of X will decrease the physical load in childbirth(anesthesia during labor) or parenting (baby food, or achildcare support robot system).

-Parents should use X to decrease the load of childbirth orparenting.

-Decreasing the load on parents who use X will benefit
children.

-Since X will be convenient, it will decrease my load inchildbirth or parenting.

5) Reliability of measurements
The reliability levels of intention to use and the proposed
scales were tested with Cronbach’s alpha statistics, and theresults for each fell within a solid range: α =0.96, 0.95, and0.97 for intention to use about anesthesia during labor, baby
food, and childcare support robot, α =0.80, 0.82, and 0.87 forsafety and trustworthy about anesthesia during labor, baby
food, and childcare support robot, α =0.90, 0.91, and 0.88 fordiligence about anesthesia during labor, baby food, andchildcare support robot, and α =0.80, 0.84 and 0.87 fordecreasing workload about anesthesia during labor, baby food,and childcare support robot. Since the scales are generally
considered reliable if Cronbach’s exceeds 0.80, we believe that
our measurements are all reliable.
E. Results
1) Verification of hypothesis
Figure 2 shows the results of each scale among theconditions. We conducted a one-factor within subject
ANOVA for each scale.
For intention to use, we found a significant difference
among the conditions (F (2, 410) = 165.57, p<.001, partialη2=.287). Multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni method
revealed significant differences: baby food > anesthesia duringlabor (p < .001) and baby food > childcare support robot (p< .001). A significant trend was found between anesthesia
during labor and childcare support robot (p = .072)
For safety and trustworthy, we found a significant
difference among the conditions (F (2, 410) = 84.82, p<.001,
partial η2=.171). Multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni
method revealed significant differences: baby food >anesthesia during labor (p < .001), baby food > childcare
support robot (p < .001), and anesthesia during labor >childcare support robot (p < .001).
For diligence, we found a significant difference among theconditions (F (2, 410) = 202.87, p<.001, partial η2=.330).
Multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni method revealed
significant differences: baby food > childcare support robot (p< .001) and anesthesia during labor > childcare support robot(p < .001). No significant difference was found between baby
food and anesthesia during labor (p =.954),

The final publication is available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7333658/

For decreasing workload, we found a significant
difference among the conditions (F (2, 410) = 130.98, p<.001,
partial η2=.242). Multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni
method revealed significant differences: baby food >anesthesia during labor (p < .001), baby food > childcare
support robot (p < .001), and anesthesia during labor >childcare support robot (p < .001).
These results show that people have lower social
acceptance for childcare support robot systems (without
intention to use anesthesia during labor) than current childcare
support technologies, i.e., baby food and anesthesia duringlabor. Therefore, prediction 1 was supported.

7

+

***

*** ****** ***+ : p < .10*** : p < .001

***

***

***

*** ***

6

4. Decreasing workload

43.651**-.162**-**: p<.01
TABLE II.
Variables
1. Intention to use

CORRELATIONS OF BABY FOOD
1

2

3

4

-

-

-

-

2. Safety and trustworthy.744**---

3. Diligence-.401**-.352**-****

4. Decreasing workload

.507

.526

-.422

**

-

**: p<.01
TABLE III.

CORRELATIONS OF CHILDCARE SUPPORT ROBOT

Variables

1

2

3

4

1. Intention to use

-

-

-

-

.768**

-

-

-

-

-

-.102**-

2. Safety and trustworthy

5.499****

3. Diligence-.250

4. Decreasing workload.550**-.261**.665****: p<.012
1

Intention to use

Safety andtrustworthy

Anesthesia during labor

Diligence

Baby foodDecreasing
workloadChildcare support robot

Figure 2. Questionnaire results (averages and standard deviations) of webbased survey

IV. EXPERIMENT II: FIELD EVALUATIONWe also conducted a field study experiment on people’ssocial acceptance perceptions of a robot that performs
childcare support. The difference from our first experiment isthat the participants experienced a prototype of our childcare
robot system before answering questionnaires.

2) Correlations between each scale
To investigate the relationships among the scales, we
calculated their Pearson correlation coefficients (Tables I~III).
In all conditions, the correlations showed similar trends. We
found positive correlation coefficients among intention to use,
safety and trustworthy, and decreasing workload. We also
found negative correlation coefficients between diligence andother scales. The high value of this scale indicates that people
have negative attitudes about childcare support technologies
from diligence viewpoints, and therefore these results might
be appropriate. People with high social acceptance do not havenegative attitudes from a diligence viewpoint.

A. Hypothesis and predictions
As we predicted, people have low social acceptance toward
childcare support robots based on a web-based survey.
However, we expected that actually using a real system would
increase social acceptance. Since our web-based survey did
not investigate experiencing such effects, we conducted a fieldstudy that allowed children and parents to experience ourintelligent playroom and made the following hypothesis:

We also investigated the correlation coefficients amongchildcare technologies. All of the items showed low
correlation (0.2~0.4) except one combination; diligence
between anesthesia during labor and baby food showed a quite
high correlation (0.998). This result indicates that people havequite similar diligence toward anesthesia during labor andbaby food, even though the other scales are significantly
different.

B. Participants
Thirty people (14 parents and 16 preschool children)
participated in our experiments. Parents were paid 4,000 yen(about 32.85 dollar) for their participation. 14 parents (12women and 2 men) answered questionnaires.

TABLE I.

CORRELATIONS OF ANESTHESIA DURING LABOR

Variables
1. Intention to use

1

2

3

4

-

-

-

-

2. Safety and trustworthy.721**---

3. Diligence-.004-.141**--

Prediction 2: People who experience our childcare
support robot system will feel greater social acceptance toward
it than people who did not experience it.

C. Procedure
In the experiment, we asked participants to act freely in theenvironment for two hours. The first hour was used for theacclimatization of the children. In this time period, we
explained the concept of our research and introduced sensing
systems, such as a human tracking system. In the second hour,
we showed the robot and started its tele-operation toinvestigate interactions between children and it. After the twohour sessions, the parents answered questionnaires which
included the developed scales.

The final publication is available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7333658/

D. Measurements
In this experiment, we measured the same four scales ofthe first experiment about a childcare support robot: intention
to use, safety and trustworthy, diligence, and decreasing
workload. We also interviewed the parents to identify whatkinds of childcare support they wanted.

around; parents seemed to realize that it provides properties
that such intelligent toys as smartphones cannot.

E. Results
1) Reliability of measurements
We again tested the reliability levels of the intention to use
and our proposed scales with Cronbach’s alpha statistics, andthe results for each fell within a good range: α =0.78 forintention to use childcare support robotics, α =0.73 for safety
and trustworthy for childcare support robotics, α =0.85 fordiligence about childcare support robotics, and α =0.89 for
decreasing workload about childcare support robotics. Even
though some scales were less than 0.80 but close to it, we
believe that our measurements remain reliable.

4

7
6
5

3
2
1
Intention to use

Safety andtrustworthy
Web-based

Diligence

Decreasing
workload

Field

Figure 3. Questionnaire results (averages and standard deviations) aboutchildcare support robot from web-based survey and field study

2) Verification of hypothesis
We conducted t-tests for each measurement aboutchildcare support robots between a web-based survey and afield study (Fig. 3). For intention to use, the averages were 2.67
(S.D., 1.41) and 4.76 (S.D., 1.13). We found a significant
difference among the conditions (t(424)=-5.50, p<.001 ). For
safety and trustworthy, the averages were 3.08 (S.D., 1.30) and5.00 (S.D., 0.87). We found a significant difference among theconditions (t(424)=-5.50, p<.001 ). For diligence, the averages
were 3.88 (S.D., 1.29) and 2.21 (S.D., 1.07). We found asignificant difference among the conditions (t(424)=4.80,
p<.001 ). For decreasing workload, the averages were 3.66
(S.D., 1.13) and 4.76 (S.D., 1.24). We found a significant
difference among the conditions (t(424)=-3.59, p<.001).
Therefore, prediction 2 was supported.
3) Observed behaviors
During the experiments, the children freely played in theenvironment, basically with their parents, but also with otherchildren or other parents. Parents were talking or caring fortheir children. Thus, they spent two hours in the environment,
similar to usual playrooms.
When the robot is moving around, most of the children
were entertained by it. Toddlers chased the robot and tried tocapture it. Some children interacted with the robot for morethan 30 minutes (Fig. 4). A few children wanted to stay in theenvironment even after the experiment had ended, suggesting
the potential success of an intelligent playroom.
4) Interview results
We interviewed our participants to scrutinize their attitudes
about our childcare support robotics system. All of theparticipants positively evaluated the sensing system becausesuch sensor data will lead to greater understanding ofchildren’s activity, even though they expressed concerned
about the privacy risks of the recorded data. They also
positively evaluated the use of the robot after observing its
interactions with the children because they could easily
imagine scenes where they are too busy to entertain theirchildren or to distract them. The robot interacted with orentertained their children for a few minutes or more by moving

Figure 4. Scene where a child follows a robot in intelligent playroom

V. DISCUSSION
A. Design implications
This study showed that experiencing our prototype
childcare support robot system increased its social acceptance.
Installing such a system in the real world might be an
important future approach. On the other hand, it will bedifficult to transfer such experiences to others. How to increase
the social acceptance of childcare support robotics is an
important question to grow this research field. A long-term
field trial with our system to investigate its effectiveness isneeded as future work.
This study also confirms that people did not have strong
opinions about using childcare support technologies such as
baby food and anesthesia during labor. In particular, anesthesia
during labor seems to be less accepted in Japan; some scales
showed similar low values for childcare support robotics. Thismight indicate the difficulties of introducing and using newtechnologies in childcare contexts in Japan.

The final publication is available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7333658/

One important contribution of this study is that we madescales and experimentally tested their reliability through botha web-based survey and a field study. These scales enablerobotics researchers to investigate social acceptance fromvarious points of view with other kinds of childcare support
robot systems. These scales are also useful to measure thedifferences of social acceptance toward childcare support
technologies among ages, cultures, and so on. Investigating
culture differences would be interesting, especially incountries with positive attitudes to anesthesia during labor.
B. Limitation
Our ability to generalize field trial findings is limited forseveral reasons. First, we did not control well for thecomparison between the web-based survey and the field study,
such as the number of participants and background knowledge.
These differences limit the interpretation of our experimental
results. In particular, for a web-based survey, video stimuli
must be prepared to provide knowledge about childcare
support robotics. Positive bias in the field study might also
exist because people who did not have positive feelings tochildcare support robotics might have low motivation toparticipate in our experiment. The hugely unbalanced gender
representation (almost all women) in our experiments mightalso bias the effects.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper addresses whether people will accept childcare
support robotics from various points of view by comparing
current childcare support technologies through a web-based
survey and a field study. To investigate people’s social
acceptance of childcare support technologies from various
points of view, we developed scales to investigate the essential
factors related to using childcare support technologies fromthree perspectives: safety and trustworthy, diligence, anddecreasing workload. Our experiment results from a webbased survey indicate that people showed lower social
acceptance toward childcare support robotics than current
childcare support technologies (baby food and anesthesia
during labor). However, the experiment results from a fieldsurvey indicate that people who experienced our systemshowed higher social acceptance for childcare support robotics
than people who did not experience it.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the children, parents, and teachers for theirhelpful participation.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

M. Heerink, Ben K., Evers V., and Wielinga B., “The influence ofsocial presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people,”
Journal of Physical Agents, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 33-40, 2008.
M. Shiomi, Iio T., Kamei K., Sharma C., and Hagita N., “Effectivenessof Social Behaviors for Autonomous Wheelchair Robot to Support
Elderly People in Japan,” PLoS One, vol.10, no. 5, pp. e012803, 2015.
H. Robinson, MacDonald B., and Broadbent E., “The Role ofHealthcare Robots for Older People at Home: A Review,” International
Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 575-591, 2014.
M. Srivastava, Muntz R., and Potkonjak M., “Smart kindergarten:
sensor-based wireless networks for smart developmental problem-

solving environments,” The 7th Annual International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking, 2001, pp. 132-138.
[5] I. Hwang, Jang H., Nachman L., and Song J., “Exploring inter-childbehavioral relativity in a shared social environment: a field study in akindergarten,” in Proceedings of the 12th ACM International
Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 2010, pp. 271-280.
[6] C. Hieida, Abe K., Attamimi M., Shimotomai T., Nagai T., and Omori
T., “Physical embodied communication between robots and children:
An approach for relationship building by holding hands,” in Intelligent
Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), 2014 IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on, 2014, pp. 3291-3298.
[7] J. Fink, et. al., “Which robot behavior can motivate children to tidy up
their toys?: design and evaluation of “ranger,” in Proceedings of the2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction,
Bielefeld, Germany, 2014, pp. 439-446.
[8] F. Tanaka, and Matsuzoe S., “Children teach a care-receiving robot topromote their learning: Field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary
learning,” Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012.
[9] M. Shiomi, and Hagita N., “Preliminary investigation of supportingchild-care at an intelligent playroom,” The Second International
Conference on Human-agent Interaction, 2014, pp. 157-160.
[10] Y. Iwamura, Shiomi M., Kanda T., Ishiguro H., and Hagita N., “Doelderly people prefer a conversational humanoid as a shopping assistantpartner in supermarkets?” in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2011 6th
ACM/IEEE International Conference on, 2011, pp. 449-457.
[11] D. Brscic, Kanda T., Ikeda T., and Miyashita T., “Person Tracking in
Large Public Spaces Using 3-D Range Sensors,” Human-Machine
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 522-534, 2013.
[12] N. Dahlbäck, Jönsson A., and Ahrenberg L., “Wizard of Oz studies:
why and how,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference onIntelligent User Interfaces, Orlando, Florida, USA, 1993, pp. 193-200.
[13] E. Bussche, Crombez G., Eccleston C., and Sullivan M. J., “Whywomen prefer epidural analgesia during childbirth: the role of beliefs
about epidural analgesia and pain catastrophizing,” European Journalof Pain, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 275-282, 2007.
[14] F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: systemcharacteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts,” International
Journal of Man-machine Studies, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 475-487, 1993.
[15] M. K. Lee, Kiesler S., Forlizzi J., Srinivasa S., and Rybski P.,“Gracefully mitigating breakdowns in robotic services,” in HumanRobot Interaction (HRI), 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on, 2010, pp. 203-210.
[16] A. Weiss, et. al., “Robots asking for directions: the willingness ofpassers-by to support robots,” in Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEEInternational Conference on Human-robot Interaction, Osaka, Japan,
2010, pp. 23-30.