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 (e.g. flow-chart, use case scenario, Choregraphe
screen shots or etc.) of the running robotic programme.
3. Finding and Reflection (400-800 words)
Implementation discussion with snippet of code and evaluation of the prototype. 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”

Whilst taking the above question specifications into consideration with labelled sections, please can you write me an entry for ONLY THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIED SECTION BEING ‘1. Introduction and Literature Review for [Humanoid Robot as an Assistant Physiotherapist]’. Please ensure that during the creation of this entry that the tone one would use when answering an important examination question is used and abides by the following: 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. IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS REQUEST MUST BE A CONTINUATION OF THE FOLLOWING (the following of which is what I have produced pertaining to ‘1. Introduction and Literature Review for [Humanoid Robot as an Assistant Physiotherapist]’): “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. Irrespective of the indispensability of physiotherapeutic practices, it often finds itself incessantly grappling with inherent 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.
In continuation of the scintillating premise elucidated heretofore, and as previously alluded to in the abstract, 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)."