For the following question:

“Each team will have 2/3 members and 1 robot allocated by teaching staff to emulate the ‘team work’
situation. The way the team operates is entirely a matter of negotiation between members but you
need to choose a group leader. As a minimum, each team must have a weekly meeting with the
module tutors from week 2 onwards during the timetabled practical workshop session to discuss
respective progress.
The theme for this assignment is:
1. Humanoid Robot as an Assistant Physiotherapist: to research and design Upper Limb or the
Whole-Body Collaborative Rehabilitation Training; and / or Lower Limb Massage with NAO robot.
For example:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2055668319862151
Using the Design Research method that you learnt (Understand-Empathise-Define-Ideate-
Prototype), you will need to conduct research to understand the current healthcare constraints and
then design the innovative humanoid robotics program grounded on the latest and global literature
review on one of the above topics.
All the above are non-trivial and will require 3-5 minutes Human-Robot interactive programs with a
real-world problem for design requirement, e.g. taking input from sensors (tactile, pressure, sonars,
microphones or Infrared), robotic vision (2 cameras for object recognition, localisation or motion
planning) and controlling a variety of physical outputs such as movements, speech, LED animation,
speech, music and robotic movement. The weekly studio should give you practical programming skills,
applied AI guide and a skeleton of code to build on. Feel free to insert creative ideas within the
topics and use your own social imagination to add props, music or dance.

A brief research paper to report and discuss the research and design (R&D) of the topic, and to
showcase the working prototype by attaching a Youtube video link
The total word equivalent is in the order of 3,000 words excluding references. You should also be able
to demonstrate and present your R&D and reflection in the following structure:
❖ Title page contains the following:
▪ Eye-catchy Project topic and the personality of your robot
▪ A link to the 2-3 minutes Youtube video demonstration and GitHub
▪ Group members’ name with respective student numbers
❖ Keywords (3-5 keywords related to your research)
❖ Abstract (100-150 words): Background motivation, problem statement, research aims and
methods, key results and recommendations.
1. Introduction and Literature Review for [Humanoid Robot as an Assistant Physiotherapist] (500-1000 words)
1.1 The Traditional Methods and International Horizon for Robotics Intervention
1.2 Research Problem Statement
2. Design Research Method (300-500 words)
Discussion of the humanoid robot model and how you research and design the project.
Description with some figures or workflow (Choregraphe
screen shots or etc.) of the running robotic programme.
3. Finding and Reflection (400-800 words)
Implementation discussion, The list of
technical and ethical issues (at least two) faced while developing the robotic system and the
approaches in which these problems were handled or resolved. Critical Reflection upon
group’s experience of developing the robotic programme with ethical, social, cultural and
legal considerations.
4. Conclusions and Future Work (300-550 words)
The concluding remarks with key results and some recommendations for the future work.
❖ References (full list in Harvard Format) – the word count of this section is excluded”

Given that whatever is incapsulated below in speechmarks is my answer to this question, please ensure you take this into consideration when formulating the conclusion: "Abstract – 
Upon dissecting the impediments within the healthcare system via an exhaustive scrutinization of scholarly sources, my team and I have formulated and conceptualised a strategy to concomitantly diminish the already laborious strain on physiotherapists and synonymous healthcare workers alike, whilst abetting physiotherapy rehabilitation practices. This pioneering approach capitalises on the assortment of sensory faculties humanoid robots, specifically the NAO  robot, accommodate- including tactile, pressure, sonar, microphone, and infrared sensors- in concert with vision systems for object recognition and motion planning. 
Through the incorporation of the Design Research methodology (encompassing and embodying specifically the sequential phases being, ‘Understand, Empathise, Define, Ideate, and Prototype’), in tandem with innumerable hours’ worth of studio sessions spent arduously refining our iterative prototyping and Choregraphe proficiencies, our complete framework assimilates insights garnered from an intensive global literature review of great scope to meticulously sculpt the programmes design to what we unanimously determined was fitting. Informed by an empathetic understanding of patient requirements, we commenced with the purpose of catapulting the best interests of users to the forefront of our initiative. Our preliminary investigation has yielded noteworthy findings, indicating a substantial augmentation in patient engagement and nascent effectivity. The combination of the aforementioned aptitudes that the NAO robot boasts, warrants to foster the establishment of an assistive tool that bolsters versatility and efficacy- prognosticating a significant metamorphosis in therapy protocols. The research treatise provided herein, supplemented by an illustrative exposition on YouTube; the quintessence of our inventive efforts is captured- endeavours that are poised to become a cornerstone for ensuing progress in rehabilitative robotic technologies.

1.	Introduction – 
In the ether of physical rehabilitation, the integration of humanoid robotics as adjunct assistants exhibits the transformative potentiality to alleviate healthcare constraints- coupled with the daunting adversities the accelerating pace of aging populations globally exerts on healthcare systems, innovative approaches to physiotherapy are irrefutably necessitated. Notwithstanding the indispensability of physiotherapeutic practices, it often finds itself incessantly grappling with restrictions attributable to resource scarcity, namely a disparity in patient-to-therapist ratios, which is further exacerbated by the somatic cumulative fatigue exacted on practitioners across recurrent sessions (Dautenhahn & Werry, 2005). Humanoid robots, such as NAO, herald a prospective pathway to supplement the ubiquitous delivery of efficacious and consistent therapeutic interventions; within this promising context, this study purports to focus on both the utilisation of the NAO robot for the amelioration of the recovery process for those with limb mobility impairments, alongside the systematic investigation of the prevalent restraints within conventional rehabilitation modalities whilst ascertaining the function humanoid robots may serve in the process.
 
1.1 Literature Review & The Traditional  Methods and International Horizon for Robotics Intervention – 
In continuation of the scintillating premise elucidated heretofore, and as previously alluded to in the abstract, the dawn of the 21st century has begotten a transformative era for physiotherapy, with conventional, ‘hands-on’ techniques being incrementally complemented by humanoid robotics and other tantamount mediums of auxiliary technology. These orthodox procedures, by nature being labour-intensive, frequently entail manual therapies delivered by physiotherapists inclusive of massages, stretches, and reconstructive exercises for the betterment of patient mobility, and holistic bodily potency and functionality (Krebs, et al., 2003; O'Sullivan & Schmitz, 2007). The primary merits of these customary therapeutic rehabilitative modalities reside in the bespoke nurtured patient-practitioner rapport, and the perspicaciously adept evaluation via physiotherapists concerning both tissue impedance along with patient feedback throughout the duration of the remedial treatment (Jones, 2006). In light of these developments, the explication of humanoid robotic applications in physiotherapy beckons a comprehensive review of the current literature to unfurl a taxonomy of extant methodologies and the frontiers of robotic intervention. Embellished by the notion that the rote, repetitive, and structured fabric of physiotherapeutic procedures is amenable to mechanisation (Krebs, et al., 2018), the valiant NAO humanoid robot stands at the vanguard of this therapeutic odyssey, its intrinsic competency to deliver indefatigable, exact, and individualised care denoting a considerable enhancement in catering to the rehabilitative exigencies of those that are beset by limb mobility limitations (Gassert & Dietz, 2018).
The perspicacious exploration into the orthodox channels on the subject of rehabilitation unveils a mosaic where the manual ministrations of physiotherapists remain the fulcrum of therapeutic engagement, albeit encumbered by the innate frailties pertaining to humanoid demonstrated endurance, and the necessitated prerequisites of a global demographic metamorphosis. As the pendulum of healthcare imperatives oscillates with amplifying extent, the dialogue gravitates toward the ingenious assimilation of humanoid robotics as salient participants to expedite physiotherapeutic modus operandi. The inherent adaptability of humanoid robots, their burgeoning autonomy buttressed by artificial intelligence, in conjunction with their proviso for both motoric involvement and sensory feedback bespeak their prospective function as integral intermediaries that can facilitate, replicate, and magnify therapeutic stratagems that are propounded by their respective human counterparts (Dautenhahn & Werry, 2005; Johnson, et al., 2014).
Amidst the ambit of medical/ physiotherapeutic apparatus refinement, a cornucopia of varying countries have begun championing the inception of innovative resolutions to traverse the particularised constraints integral to their corresponding healthcare dilemmas. In light of the relentlessly swelling geriatric populace, as formerly noted, paired with the necessity for the effective administration and economisation of health-related expenses, the pertinence of these technologies is at an unprecedented zenith. Echoing sentiments expressed earlier; Japan has systematically displayed laudable foresight in the proactive amalgamation of humanoid robotic technology into the operational fabric of its healthcare milieus. With the illustrious pantheon of robotic applications, conceived by the visionary minds at Cyberdyne, the HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb) robot stands out as a paradigmatic instance of applied humanoid robotics, substantially aiding, and propelling the rehabilitative and ambulatory capabilities for those that exhibit varying degrees of motor control diminution and limb functionality restrictions- advantages of which are recognised by our collaborative humanoid robot assistance physiotherapist project that via our pursuits, we are eager to see emulated and established on a more universal front. The application of this Cyberdyne devised exoskeletal contrivances in question have showcased promising advances, serving to not only reinforce patients beset by muscular debilitation, but also endorsing recuperative measures for those that are recovering from strokes and enduring spinal cord attributed afflictions (Suzuki, et al., 2015; Demura, et al., 2015; Dario, et al., 2012).
Irrespective of the emergence of auspicious prospects engendered by these automated mechanisms, a discernible breadth of scepticism continues in its manifestation. Critics have universally and understandably voiced their concerns concerning indiscriminate dependency on techno-centric resolutions, underscoring the risks of attenuating interpersonal engagement, in addition to the latent obfuscation of the hitherto sacrosanct patient-practitioner dynamic- a linchpin of customary physiotherapeutic practice (Dautenhahn, 2007; Turkle, 2011). Concomitantly, academic circles have articulated trepidations pertaining to the possible diminishment of the intuitive and empathic characteristics germane to human nurturance, facets that could prove inimitable via mechanisation (Goetz, et al., 2008; Sparrow & Sparrow, 2006). They are insistent upon the methodologically rigorous scrutinization of the employment of humanoid robotics and anything analogous, to ascertain the effectivity, and socio-ethical ramifications of the supplantation of human hands for mechanical ones. Nevertheless, pertinent empirical evidence increasingly substantiates the efficacy of humanoid robotic methodologies with research inquiries by (Mehrholz, et al., 2018) and (Lo, et al., 2010) being a testament to this proclamation where they highlight the robots’ enhancement of accelerated convalescence and meticulous adherence to therapeutic protocols. This assertion is corroborated by systematic appraisals that posit rehabilitative robotic therapies as synergistic interventions capable of augmenting traditional practices rather than supplanting them (Bertani, et al., 2017; Prange, et al., 2006; Nourouzi-Gheidari, et al., 2012).

	1.2 Research Problem Statement – 
The convergence of humanoid robotics and other comparable mediums, united with rehabilitative physiotherapeutic regimens embodies a revolutionary reconfiguration- reconceptualising remedial frontiers, and the delivery of healthcare. Nonetheless, the incipient realm of this field teems with multifaceted complexities, mandating an assiduous scholarly inquisition of its operational feasibility, clinical effectivity, and ethical conundrums. Faced with a glaring international dearth of physiotherapeutic practitioners (WCPT, 2019), the intensified necessity for humanoid robotic aid is rendered ever more paramount than before. The assignment of humanoid robotics as an appendage to physiotherapists, taking Aldebaran’s NAO as a pertinent exemplar, culminates in pivotal considerations: Can these ingenious personifications of amalgamated science and technology mirror the intricacy-enveloped therapy customarily orchestrated by professional clinicians? How do patients perceive mechanical touch when juxtaposed with empathetic and compassionate human contact (Silver, et al., 2020)?
In the nascent intersection or robotics and rehabilitative care, humanoid automatons are tasked with bridging the gaping divide between preprogrammed movements and individualistic patient therapeutic exigencies- a nexus where technical variability and human volatility coalesce (Veerbeek, et al., 2017). The unification of robotic sensorimotor proficiencies with the distinctive imperatives of personalised rehabilitation embodies a formidable research endeavour, necessitating the construction of advanced and accommodating algorithms that can modulate therapeutic procedures dynamically, in synchronisation with patient progress (Dipietro, et al., 2017; Encarnação & Azevedo, 2013). This intricate equilibrium hinges upon the robot’s acuity in the cognizance and interpretation of feedback by means of a repertoire of sensors, engineered to capture subtleties of human physiology and emotion with unwavering precision in order to ascertain remedial actions are not only efficacious, but finely attuned to feedback from patients (Scherer, et al., 2015; Amirabdollahian, et al., 2013; Calderita, et al., 2014). 
Furthermore, the ethical implications of the conjunction of humanoid robotics (NAO being an exemplary medium) in concert with the sensitive domain of rehabilitative physiotherapy assume centre stage. The momentous juncture of a non-human construct, conceivably imbued with synthetic empathy, thrusts upon us critical interrogatives vis-à-vis the sacrosanctity of patient autonomy and the authenticity of the formed therapeutic alliance (Bryson, 2020; Vallor, 2016). Ethical stewardship mandates stringent policies and AI governance frameworks, guaranteeing that such automatons function within the confines of ethical precepts and safeguarding patients from a spectrum of potential psychological and physical adversity (Basl, 2014; Borenstein & Arkin, 2016). The genesis of humanoid robotics in the sphere of psychotherapeutics is contingent on its astute congruence with the intrinsic essence of caregiving- an endeavour that is not merely technological but is indelibly enmeshed amid the convoluted lattice of human ethos, cultural contexts, and social mores (Coenen, 2016; Misselhorn, et al., 2013). Preserving the fidelity of this nuanced equipoise stands as an indispensable and exhaustive scholarly obligation, demanding the choreography of a masterful synthesis of carefully constructed interventions with the essential dogmas of patient-oriented care (Johansson-Pajala, 2020). 

2.	Design Research Method – 

In the formulation of a humanoid robotic physiotherapeutic aide, our methodology employs an exhaustive Design Research Methodology (DRM), harmonising the prowess of revolutionarily innovative technology in conjunction with the nuanced demands of therapeutic effectiveness. Our investigation process is methodologically orchestrated, commencing with a comprehensive critique of prevalent robotic frameworks, featuring an empathic analysis of the NAO humanoid automaton by virtue of its dexterity in its facilitation of human-robot interactions. In the course of our scholarly inquiry, we conduct a thorough assessment of its sensorimotor faculties, melding touch, pressure, and sound sensory systems, fundamental for devising interventions paralleling the adaptive responses of an actual bona fide physiotherapist (Gouaillier, et al., 2008; Belpaeme, et al., 2012). The foundational ‘Understand’ phase carries out thorough literature reviews, synthesising studies across disciplines to probe physiotherapeutic prerequisites and the technological status quo. ‘Empathise’ delves further, gleaning perspectives from patient experiences and professional feedback to discern specific complexities and requirements. The subsequent ‘Define’ phase distils understanding into tangible design criteria, giving rise to the ‘Ideate’ stage, where inventive approaches arise within technical, ethical, and regulatory parameters. Proceeding to the conclusive juncture being ‘Prototype,’ we collaboratively utilised sophisticated mediums, inclusive of Choregraphe to define the NAO’s behaviours and validate our conceptualisation through contrived patient-robot interaction vignettes. Our design undergoes successive iterations of appraisal and amelioration, culminating in a programme that exemplifies a nuanced amalgamation of a proficient technological aptitude, and therapeutic congruity. 

Illustrated on the next page are screenshots of the work-flow sequence that I developed on Aldebaran’s Choregraphe software to programme the NAO robot’s behaviourisms to mimic accordingly those of which would be executed by a rehabilitative physiotherapeutic assistant in order to achieve its purported function: 

3.	Finding and Reflection – 
Implementation Discussion – 
The phased integration of the NAO humanoid robot (primarily focussed on limb rehabilitation) into the exploratory role as an adjunct rehabilitative physiotherapy practitioner within clinical settings constituted a series of refined adaptations, assiduously aligning the contours of technological execution with the demands of therapeutic success. During all phases of conception and implementation, the aforesaid team members and I espoused a human-centric methodology. Within the confines of our university, scrupulous analysis entailed the utilisation of the NAO robot, proficiently programmed to administer bodily rehabilitation regimens, bolstered by the unification of sensory feedback to yield real time adaptability- resultantly with convenience and competence being advantageous bi-products of humanoid robotic deployment. The on-site callous validation process comprised of the deployment of the NAO humanoid robot, of which was collaboratively intricately programmed and coded through the employment of Aldebaran’s exclusive Choregraphe software,  to conduct limb recuperation regimens, augmented by the convergence of sensory feedback systems (encapsulating tactile, pressure, sonar, microphone, and infrared sensors) for dynamic adjustability (Gupta & Zhang, 2021).
	
	Technical and Ethical Issues with their respective Resolutions – 
Whilst pioneering the development of a humanoid mechanism envisioned to undertake the responsibilities of an assistant physiotherapist, we were confronted with a plethora of conundrums, salient to accentuating technical and ethical quandaries. Affirming that the NAO’s tactile and pressure sensors yielded precise data was of utmost importance and warranted meticulous configuration, an indispensable measure underscored by (Smith, 2020), synergised with one of our primary objectives of certifying precision, and safe physical interactions between the humanoid robot and patients through diligent sensor integration as detailed by (Zhang, et al., 2020). The blueprint for the establishment of fluid interplay between humanoid robots and their corresponding human counterparts comprised a vicious cycle of iterative testing and refinement, leveraging ourselves as a team for simulation modes of rudimentary patient interactions, which thereby amplified the robot’s responsiveness (Johnson & Anderson, 2021).
Behavioural synchronisation within Aldebaran’s Choregraphe software revolves around the elaborate coordination of a multitude of timelines and boxes denoting distinct behaviours or motion sequences. When programming the NAO robot, particularly for delicate undertakings akin to rehabilitative physiotherapeutic assistance, the synchrony of motion and interaction behaviours is of the essence. A complication commonly manifests during the endeavour to cohesively interweave a sequence of movements, gestures, and sensory feedback manoeuvres such that they transition from one action to the next are both anthropomorphic and seamless. Choregraphe is dependent on a developer-oriented visual drag-and-drop interface which, notwithstanding its user-centricity, has the potential to conceal the sophistication of temporally contingent interactions involving the NAO’s actuators and sensors, especially to novices as we were formerly, when we embarked on this venture through the application and comprehension of Choregraphe. With regards to the vitality of the synchrony of kinematic behaviours and interactivity routines, an additional significant technical blockade materialised, the dilemma in question, being the loss of balance and subsequent and seemingly recurring falls experienced by the NAO robot. At the outset, my contributions were instrumental in the discovery that the default motion algorithms ingrained within the Choregraphe framework failed to appropriately account for the sophisticated balance dynamics necessary for smooth walking on surfaces characterised by any degree of uneven terrain. Through our combined efforts, we enacted the purposeful repositioning of the centre of mass in the programmed architecture of the robot’s digital blueprints via Choregraphe, engendering superior postural stability for the NAO. We operationalised this by way of the diminution of the centre of gravity within the Choregraphe interface, thus attaining a more stable locomotive rhythm (Kajita, et al., 2003).	
Concurrent with the technological considerations the incorporation of humanoid robots inside the context of physiotherapy precipitates, it would be imprudent to omit the unneglectable tapestry of ethical intricacies this implementation carries; ethical deliberations of which mandate scrupulous governance with the aim of ensuring the welfare of patients and fruitful therapeutic achievements. The trajectory toward the integration of the NAO automaton as a rehabilitative physiotherapeutic facilitator into clinical practice draws forth ethical issues surrounding patient autonomy, privacy, and not to mention the looming peril of care becoming devoid of personal engagement- rendering the patient-practitioner relationship dispassionately detached. Autonomy within the healthcare milieu articulates the notion that patients, predicated on informed understanding, inherently possess the prerogative to deliberate on and consent to their respective course of treatment (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). The advent of an anthropoid humanoid robot carried with it the spectre of impinging upon patient autonomy, the automaton’s advisements bearing the possibility of being mistaken by patients for imperious commands, deeming the NAO’s guidance as conclusive, thus inadvertently imperilling the integrity of patient volitional autonomous decision-making. As a palliative measure to alleviate such concerns, our approach instituted a protocol whereby any initial exchanges between the NAO and patients were prefaced by unequivocal verbal and written elucidations concerning the robot’s ancillary function, reinforcing the patient’s autonomy to either voluntarily dismiss or take heed of any automated guidance. 
With ethical implications in the spotlight, privacy concerns present themselves with the prospect of the robot [that harnesses inputs from numerous sensors and cameras, necessitating rigorous data protection countermeasures] amassing sensitive patient health information; the maladministration of which may precipitate breaches of confidentiality (Mittelstadt, et al., 2016; Van-Wynsberghe, 2013). As an appropriate response to these concerns, the adoption of impermeable and robust encryption methods, the adherence to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other parallel privacy standards, and conformity of stringent data storage safeguards to ensure the safety of the harvested information, warrants primary focus (Hoofnagle, et al., 2019; Westin, 2003)."

Whilst taking the above question specifications and my answer into consideration, please can you write me an entry for ONLY THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIED SECTION BEING in 200 words at most ‘4. Conclusions and Future Work’. Please ensure that during the creation of this entry the following applies: that the tone one would use when answering an important examination question is used and abides by the following: employs a vast range of references (embedded and harvard referenced) utilises impressive grammar/ demonstrates an astonishing linguistic prowess, shows extensive research that is abundant in detail and illustrates amazing attention to detail, is both concise and insightful, demonstrates excellent reflection, showcases linguistic elegance of a publishable quality, and finally has embedded harvard references and a separate references section