Rehabilitation and Health Care Robotics 53.3 Aids for People with Disabilities 1235 53.3 Aids for People with Disabilities 53.3.1 Grand Challenges impairments related to aging will make the latter focus and Enabling Technologies increasingly important.Research has been limited to the mobility focus due to the difficulty of designing and de- Enabling technologies assist people with disabilities to veloping intrinsically safe robots that can coexist with achieve a quality of life on a par with able-bodied indi- people and exhibit a certain amount of autonomy while viduals through increased functional independence.The performing useful work.Robots today therefore rely on main issue with most such technologies is that disabil-user vigilance and explicit control to be safe.If the user ity has a highly individualized impact:a solution for does not have the cognitive capacity to evaluate a robot's one person will not work for someone else,even if their safety situation or the ability to communicate efficiently, disabilities appear clinically similar.The more a dis-then the positive value of a function-enhancing robot is ability impacts function,the more costly the technical nullified by the harm that it could inflict on the user intervention tends to be,since the consumer market or bystanders.Coupled with the fact that the design cannot benefit from economies of scale if each solu-of interfaces to personal robots is still in its infancy, tion must be individualized.As an extreme example,an a challenge for robotic aid developers is a significant electric wheelchair with individualized padding,motor-improvement in intrinsic safety without a decrease in ized recliner,and customized joystick control costs as function(strength,speed,etc.)from what is typical today much as a mass-produced mid-sized automobile,but has in industrial robotics. a fraction of the electronics.robustness,and functions. A grand challenge for assistive,enabling technologies is Disabilities and Functional Limitations art to find a means to make mass-personalization possible, Served by Robotic Aids m as it has been in the automotive industry,for example. Assistive robots have been designed for people who have One component is designer focus.If we can re-badge become severely disabled as a result of,for example, assistive technology as design for well-being products,muscular dystrophy or a high-level SCI,for children w the change in focus from firing people to improving who have cerebral palsy (CP),and more generally for their quality of life will have the effect of mainstream- anyone who lacks the ability to manipulate household ing disability itself so that manufacturers of consumer objects.A market research study conducted ten years ago equipment tend to develop products that can explicitly specifically for rehabilitation robotics clients conserva- accommodate a much wider range of functional abilities tively projected a US market of 100000 people [53.1081. and therefore provide benefit to a larger,overall less- With the incidence of disability increasing exponen- able,consumer base.As the average age of the baby tially,and the niches that robots can fill in rehabilitation boomers climbs into retirement years with significant applications multiplying with advances in robotics and disposable income,this segment will compel the market rehabilitation science,it is clear that the market for into providing better solutions to their well-being needs. rehabilitation robotics can only continue to increase. Another grand challenge is robotic autonomy.Es- pecially for persons with reduced communication, Human-Robot Interface Design physical,and/or cognitive abilities,a rehabilitation robot for Assistive Robots will need to have sensory (e.g.,vision,auditory)and A fundamental difference between using industrial and motor capabilities,combined with its own software pro- assistive robots is the interface required to command, cessing capabilities(also termed artificial intelligence), control,and ultimately benefit from them.An industrial that make it a sufficiently safe and capable system to robot commonly has a combination of a manual con- coexist with and benefit humans.This challenge will to troller and a programming language interface to allow an some extent be dependent on continuing increases in operator to teach a robot where to go and to enter the spe- computer processing power,but also specifically depen-cific motion,grasping,tool changing,and error-recovery dent on the algorithmic developments that issue from steps it must follow repeatedly in its factory automation the community of robotics researchers. scenario.A rehabilitation robot,on the other hand,typi- Research on robotic aids has so far primarily targeted cally has three main differences and challenges:(1)the persons with mobility and manipulation limitations, operator is not by definition a roboticist or engineer,so rather than children and adults with cognitive impair- the interface must make accessible all the functions of ments.However,increases in the prevalence of cognitive the robot to allow its user to complete the required tasks:Rehabilitation and Health Care Robotics 53.3 Aids for People with Disabilities 1235 53.3 Aids for People with Disabilities 53.3.1 Grand Challenges and Enabling Technologies Enabling technologies assist people with disabilities to achieve a quality of life on a par with able-bodied indi￾viduals through increased functional independence. The main issue with most such technologies is that disabil￾ity has a highly individualized impact: a solution for one person will not work for someone else, even if their disabilities appear clinically similar. The more a dis￾ability impacts function, the more costly the technical intervention tends to be, since the consumer market cannot benefit from economies of scale if each solu￾tion must be individualized. As an extreme example, an electric wheelchair with individualized padding, motor￾ized recliner, and customized joystick control costs as much as a mass-produced mid-sized automobile, but has a fraction of the electronics, robustness, and functions. A grand challenge for assistive, enabling technologies is to find a means to make mass-personalization possible, as it has been in the automotive industry, for example. One component is designer focus. If we can re-badge assistive technology as design for well-being products, the change in focus from fixing people to improving their quality of life will have the effect of mainstream￾ing disability itself so that manufacturers of consumer equipment tend to develop products that can explicitly accommodate a much wider range of functional abilities and therefore provide benefit to a larger, overall less￾able, consumer base. As the average age of the baby boomers climbs into retirement years with significant disposable income, this segment will compel the market into providing better solutions to their well-being needs. Another grand challenge is robotic autonomy. Es￾pecially for persons with reduced communication, physical, and/or cognitive abilities, a rehabilitation robot will need to have sensory (e.g., vision, auditory) and motor capabilities, combined with its own software pro￾cessing capabilities (also termed artificial intelligence), that make it a sufficiently safe and capable system to coexist with and benefit humans. This challenge will to some extent be dependent on continuing increases in computer processing power, but also specifically depen￾dent on the algorithmic developments that issue from the community of robotics researchers. Research on robotic aids has so far primarily targeted persons with mobility and manipulation limitations, rather than children and adults with cognitive impair￾ments. However, increases in the prevalence of cognitive impairments related to aging will make the latter focus increasingly important. Research has been limited to the mobility focus due to the difficulty of designing and de￾veloping intrinsically safe robots that can coexist with people and exhibit a certain amount of autonomy while performing useful work. Robots today therefore rely on user vigilance and explicit control to be safe. If the user does not have the cognitive capacity to evaluate a robot’s safety situation or the ability to communicate efficiently, then the positive value of a function-enhancing robot is nullified by the harm that it could inflict on the user or bystanders. Coupled with the fact that the design of interfaces to personal robots is still in its infancy, a challenge for robotic aid developers is a significant improvement in intrinsic safety without a decrease in function (strength, speed, etc.) from what is typical today in industrial robotics. Disabilities and Functional Limitations Served by Robotic Aids Assistive robots have been designed for people who have become severely disabled as a result of, for example, muscular dystrophy or a high-level SCI, for children who have cerebral palsy (CP), and more generally for anyone who lacks the ability to manipulate household objects. A market research study conducted ten years ago specifically for rehabilitation robotics clients conserva￾tively projected a US market of 100 000 people [53.108]. With the incidence of disability increasing exponen￾tially, and the niches that robots can fill in rehabilitation applications multiplying with advances in robotics and rehabilitation science, it is clear that the market for rehabilitation robotics can only continue to increase. Human–Robot Interface Design for Assistive Robots A fundamental difference between using industrial and assistive robots is the interface required to command, control, and ultimately benefit from them. An industrial robot commonly has a combination of a manual con￾troller and a programming language interface to allow an operator to teach a robot where to go and to enter the spe￾cific motion, grasping, tool changing, and error-recovery steps it must follow repeatedly in its factory automation scenario. A rehabilitation robot, on the other hand, typi￾cally has three main differences and challenges: (1) the operator is not by definition a roboticist or engineer, so the interface must make accessible all the functions of the robot to allow its user to complete the required tasks; Part F 53.3