This is the result of session 4 in my course on Social Robot Design (2025/2026). The content of this session was mainly about the different types of embodiment that robots can have, what embodiments are used in social robot research, and how we can design a tool and think about how to design embodiments.
This was done with:
- Liz van Ginderen (s27349745)
- Anna Hornman (s3056600)
- Oyindrila Sen Gupta (s3697762)
- Sarah Mans (s2306379)
Social Robotics: Embodiment, Design, and Prototyping Tools
1. State of the Art in Social Robot Research
You might have been considering a number of application areas for social robotics since the start of this course. We have shown examples in education, healthcare, the hospitality sector, etc. Very often research (or simple experiments in the wild) are carried out by hardware that happens to be available, rather than hardware that is specifically designed for a purpose (hence you see research with Pepper the librarian, Pepper the trainer and Pepper the educator).
Is NAO/Pepper Still Dominant?
Research has been done with different types of robots, Nao and Pepper being very popular, but in certain sectors, such as elderly care, less focus on those types of robots is placed, but robots like the seal are more prominent.
Studies using NAO or Pepper:1 2 3 4
Studies using Pepper, Spritebot, and Anki Cozmo:5
Studies not using NAO or Pepper:6 7
Miroka robot:8
2. Freedom of Embodiment
What would happen when you have total freedom over the embodiment you choose? When you have total freedom in your robot it opens up a lot of new possibilities such as more specialized robots. Maybe a robot dog with fluffy ears but powerful motors, or something more grounded in fantasy like a fairy-like robot. It opens up new possibilities in the embodiment of the robot and therefore the scenario you can act out.
The aspects that would make it (un)suitable are related to size, form and friendliness. You wouldn’t use a big human-sized robot as a tabletop teaching assistant for example.
3. Morphological Matrix of Available Robots
| Animal-ish shaped | Human shaped | Human size | Non-human/non-animal shaped | Smaller size | White plastic | Other colour/material | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal-ish shaped | — | — | Jurassic Park / theme park robots | — | iCat, seal, MiRo, Spritebot, Mini, Maggie | MiRo | iCat (black & white fluffy), seal (white fluffy), Spritebot (colourful feathers) |
| Human shaped | Miroka | — | Any humanoid (1X, Tesla, Unitree) | — | NAO | Pepper, NAO | Miroka (orange plastic) |
| Human size | — | — | — | — | — | Pepper | Miroka |
| Non-human/non-animal shaped | — | — | — | IDo | Anki Cozmo | IDo | iCat |
| Smaller size | iCat, seal, MiRo, Spritebot, Mini, Maggie | NAO | — | Anki Cozmo | — | NAO, MiRo | iCat |
4. Design Tools for Novel Robot Embodiment Prototyping
Some state of the art approaches in design tools to shape expressiveness for robotics are highlighted below. This includes movement analysis, biomimetic approaches as well as 3D animation tools. Another approach is called Makey Makey prototyping where users create tangible user interfaces using everyday objects.
State of the Art
OPSORO9
An open platform for the design of social robot embodiments for face-to-face communication. The platform consists of a set of modules that each implement a different facial feature. It also has the electronics to drive the module and sensor, a software environment to program the features and a methodology.
Shaping Expressiveness in Robotics10
It introduces a design method to support engineers to build expressive robotic arms. Consists of interactive workshops that included dancing so that designers understood the full range of motion. It helps to bridge the gap between human intent and robot expressiveness.
Makey Makey Prototype11
Makey Makey is a commercially available invention kit that functions as a human-computer interface device, enabling conductive everyday objects (such as fruit, water, graphite, or conductive dough) to serve as input controls. It does this by detecting when a tiny electrical circuit closes. When a user touches a conductive object while maintaining contact with the ground wire, the circuit closes and the board transmits a standard keyboard or mouse event to the connected computer via USB.
As a design research tool, Makey Makey supports rapid physical prototyping of novel interfaces prior to electronic fabrication. Designers can sketch interaction layouts on paper using conductive media (e.g., graphite pencil) and test them in software environments immediately. Its low technical barrier facilitates participatory design methods, allowing non-specialist stakeholders to engage in the prototyping process without programming knowledge.
Our Own Design Tools
Dreamworld
Dreamworld is a game where you can personalize a character in freeform using generative AI. Like drawing a skeleton, and prompt AI to complete the picture. You can change the colors or shape very easily and intuitively, allowing for rapid prototyping. The characters are also interactive which helps the design process. This is good for iterative design.
Card Game
A card game where every card asks a question about how your robot would show emotions/interact with something/react to something/etc. An example would be: ‘How does your social robot show joy?’ Or ‘How does your robots’ look connect to their task?’
References
Abdi et al. (2021) — NAO/Pepper in assistive robotics. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7860159/ ↩︎
Belpaeme et al. (2018) — Social robots in education. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954 ↩︎
Serholt et al. (2020) — Robot tutors and interaction quality. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10447318.2020.1801172 ↩︎
ACM HRI — Pepper-based interaction study. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-981-95-2398-6_18 ↩︎
Broadbent et al. (2019) — Pepper, Spritebot and Anki Cozmo comparison. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.00312 ↩︎
Heerink et al. (2013) — Social robots for elderly care. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y ↩︎
Broekens, Heerink & Rosendal (2009) — Assistive social robots in elderly care. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/4729554/broekens_heerink_rosendal_2009-libre.pdf ↩︎
ACM (2025) — Miroka robot. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-981-95-2398-6_4 ↩︎
Vanderborght et al. (2016) — OPSORO: An open platform for the design of social robot embodiments for face-to-face communication. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7451764 ↩︎
Wallkötter et al. (2025) — Shaping Expressiveness in Robotics: The Role of Design Tools in Crafting Embodied Robot Movements. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.04137 ↩︎
Jacoby & Silver (2012) — Makey Makey: Improvising Tangible and Nature-Based User Interfaces. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2148131.2148219 ↩︎