Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41050743›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in robotics and AI2025

Autonomy in socially assistive robotics: a systematic review.

Romain Maure, Barbara Bruno

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Romain MaureSocially Assistive Robotics with Artificial Intelligence Lab, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Barbara BrunoSocially Assistive Robotics with Artificial Intelligence Lab, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Socially assistive robots are increasingly being researched and deployed in various domains such as education, healthcare, service, and even as collaborators in a variety of other workplaces. Similarly, SARs are also expected to interact in a socially acceptable manner with a wide audience, ranging from preschool children to the elderly. This diversity of application domains and target populations raises technical and social challenges that are yet to be overcome. While earlier works relied on the Wizard-of-Oz (WoZ) paradigm to give an illusion of interactivity and intelligence, a transition toward more autonomous robots can be observed. In this article, we present a systematic review, following the PRISMA method, of the last 5 years of Socially Assistive Robotics research, centered around SARs' level of autonomy with a stronger focus on fully and semi-autonomous robots than non-autonomous ones. Specifically, to analyse SARs' level of autonomy, the review identifies which sensing and actuation capabilities of SARs are typically automated and which ones are not, and how these capabilities are automated, with the aim of identifying potential gaps to be explored in future research. The review further explores whether SARs' level of autonomy and capabilities are transparently communicated to the diverse target audiences above described and discusses the potential benefits and drawbacks of such transparency. Finally, with the aim of providing a more holistic view of SARs' characteristics and application domains, the review also reports the embodiment and commonly envisioned role of SARs, as well as their interventions' size, length and environment.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencehuman-robot interactionlevel of autonomyrobot teleoperationsocially assistive roboticssystematic reviewtransparencyWizard of Oz

Identifiers

PMID41050743
PMCPMC12491022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.