# Considerations for Developing Robot-Assisted Crisis De-Escalation Practices
## 4 Integrating the De-Escalation Process into Human-Robot Interactions
### Assessment: Sensing the Environment and Knowing When to Intervene  
We described assessment as ongoing throughout the de-escalation process. Humans are constantly making \"assessments\" of their environments, continually sensing and processing information which subsequently informs their actions. When engaged in de-escalation, a specific frame is applied such that crisis responders are intentionally attuned to information that will guide de-escalation intervention (e.g., whether the individual's agitation appears to be increasing or decreasing, whether the immediate physical environment and social context contain elements that could exacerbate agitation). Humans are naturally equipped with several modes through which they can sense information as part of their \"assessment\", including sight, hearing, touch, olfaction, taste, vestibular (movement and balance), proprioception (where body parts are in relation to one another), and interception (sense of the internal state of the body, both consciously and subconsciously). Robots must be equipped with the hardware and software necessary to sense information relevant to the tasks required of them. Determining which types of information robots must be able to sense for de-escalation is one of the first design challenges. Broadly, robots should be able to sense information to determine whether the environment is secure (i.e., free of bystanders, potential weapons, etc.) and to assess the level of agitation and its trajectory on a moment-to-moment basis. Developing robots with functionality for the first is a simpler task as it does not have same social processing requirements as the latter two. For human-human interactions, the assessment component of de-escalation comprises \"assessing the aggressor's emotional state or situation\", \"observing and recognizing known warning signs of aggression\", \"using all five senses to assess the situation\", \"judging the anticipated trajectory of the situation in the context of the individual using existing knowledge\", and \"knowing when to intervene\" [12] (p. 15). These descriptions reflect part of the challenge in translating de-escalation practices into robots. For example, humans experienced in dealing with agitated individuals may have an intuitive sense of what it means to assess the aggressor's emotional state or situation and its implications for de-escalation. In contrast, robots do not have innate emotion detection or built-in capacities for empathy or \"theory of mind\" [17; 18] to rely upon in making such behavioural calculations. Furthermore, efforts to build robots or AI systems that can estimate emotional state based on text, acoustical properties of speech, and visual appearance have yet to reach the level of performance associated with humans viewing other humans. Some of the other descriptions are even less helpful. \"Knowing when to intervene\" is a complex process of being attuned to agitated individuals. It involves making decisions about when to intervene in response to the unique context and circumstances, as opposed to applying a blanket rule. It may also serve as a reminder of the \"window of opportunity\" to intervene prior to escalation to more serious agitation, aggression, or violence. \"Knowing when to intervene\", however, offers little in the way of informing the type of behaviours robots should be attuned to or as a policy to guide their actions. The escalation of agitation and aggression has been described as occurring on a continuum. Models of this process typically depict escalation in three phases: (1) trigger/activation phase; (2) escalation phase; and (3) crisis phase. In the trigger phase, a catalyst event that induces stress begins the escalation process [19]. In the escalation phase, anxiety and agitation grow, evoking angry emotions [20]. In the crisis phase, the individual experiences a loss of self-control and may act violently towards others [19]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [21] describe two additional phases in their \"assault cycle\" model: recovery and post-crisis depression.