Social Robots, Brain Machine Interfaces and Neuro/Cognitive Enhancers: Three Emerging Science and Technology Products through the Lens of Technology Acceptance Theories, Models and？Frameworks
Social robotics, brain machine interfaces and neuro and cognitive enhancement products are three emerging science and technology products with wide-reaching impact for disabled and non-disabled people. Acceptance of ideas and products depend on multiple parameters and many models have been developed to predict product acceptance. We investigated which frequently employed technology acceptance models (consumer theory, innovation diffusion model, theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behaviour, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, technology of acceptance model, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology UTAUT and UTAUT2) are employed in the social robotics, brain machine interfaces and neuro and cognitive enhancement product literature and which of the core measures used in the technology acceptance models are implicit or explicit engaged with in the literature.
References
[1]
Sekiyama, K.; Fukuda, T. Toward Social Robotics. In Proceedings of AAAI 1997 Fall Symposium Series, Socially Intelligent Agents, Providence, Rhode Island, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–10 November 1997; AAAI Press: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 118–124. Available online: http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/1997/FS-97-02/FS97-02-028.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2013).
[2]
Dautenhahn, K.; Billard, A. Studying Robot Social Cognition within A Developmental Psychology Framework. In Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Advanced Mobile Robots (Eurobot’99), Zurich, Switzerland, 6–8 September 1999; IEEE: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 187–194.
[3]
Giron-Sierra, J.M.; Halawa, S.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, J.R.; Alcaide, S. A Social Robotics Experimental Project. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Kansas City, MO, USA, 18–21 October 2000; pp. 1–18.
[4]
Restivo, S. Bringing up and Booting up: Social Theory and the Emergence of Socially Intelligent Robots. In Proceedings of 2001 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tuscon, AZ, USA, 7–10 October 2001; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 2110–2117.
[5]
Fong, T.; Nourbakhsh, I.; Dautenhahn, K. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2003, 42, 143–166, doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X.
[6]
Saunders, J.; Nehaniv, C.L.; Dautenhahn, K. An Experimental Comparison of Imitation Paradigms Used in Social Robotics. In Proceedings of RO-MAN 2004—The 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan, 20–22 September 2004; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 691–696.
[7]
Dautenhahn, K.; Woods, S.; Kaouri, C.; Walters, M.L.; Kheng, L.K.; Werry, I. What is A Robot Companion––Friend, Assistant or Butler? In Proceedings of 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2–6 August 2005; pp. 1192–1197.
[8]
Sparrow, R.; Sparrow, L. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach. 2006, 16, 141–161, doi:10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6.
[9]
Tapus, A.; Mataric, M.J.; Scasselati, B. Socially assistive robotics [Grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot. Automat. 2007, 14, 35–42.
[10]
Turkle, S. Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interact. Stud. 2007, 8, 501–517.
[11]
Ham, J.; Bokhorst, R.; Cuijpers, R.; van der Pol, D.; Cabibihan, J.J. Making Robots Persuasive: The Influence of Combining Persuasive Strategies (Gazing and Gestures) by A Storytelling Robot on Its Persuasive Power. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robotics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–25 November 2011; Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 71–83.
[12]
Dougherty, E.G.; Scharfe, H. Initial Formation of Trust: Designing an Interaction with Geminoid-DK to Promote a Positive Attitude for Cooperation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robotics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–25 November 2011; Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 95–103.
[13]
Fink, J.; Bauwens, V.; Mubin, O.; Kaplan, F.; Dillenbourg, P. People’s Perception of Domestic Service Robots: Same Household, Same Opinion? In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robotics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–25 November 2011; Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 204–213.
[14]
Ferguson, M.; Webb, N.; Strzalkowski, T. Nelson: A Low-Cost Social Robot for Research and Education. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, TX, USA, 9–12 March 2011; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 225–229.
[15]
Gruebler, A.; Berenz, V.; Suzuki, K. Coaching Robot Behavior Using Continuous Physiological Affective Feedback. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), Bled, Slovenia, 26–28 October 2011; pp. 466–471.
[16]
Prado, J.A.; Simplicio, C.; Lori, N.F.; Dias, J. Visuo-auditory multimodal emotional structure to improve human-robot-interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2012, 4, 29–51, doi:10.1007/s12369-011-0134-7.
[17]
Donoghue, J.P. Bridging the brain to the world: A perspective on neural interface systems. Neuron 2008, 60, 511–521, doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.037.
[18]
Brain Machine Interface: BMI (Cyborg Soldiers), 2008. Available online: http://www.staticbrain.com/archive/brain-machine-interface-bmi-cyborg-soldiers/ (accessed on 30 March 2013).
[19]
Rudolph, A. Military: Brain machine could benefit millions. Nature 2003, 424, 369–369, doi:10.1038/424369b.
Pratt School of Engineering Duke University Darpa to Support Development of Human Brain-Machine Interface, Available online: http://www.pratt.duke.edu/pratt_press/web.php?sid=4&iid=2 (accessed on 30 January 2013).
Guenther, F.H.; Brumberg, J.S.; Wright, E.J.; Nieto-Castanon, A.; Tourville, J.A.; Panko, M.; Law, R.; Siebert, S.A.; Bartels, J.L.; Andreasen, D.S. A wireless brain-machine interface for real-time speech synthesis. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e8218, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008218.
[28]
Menon, C.; de Negueruela, C.; Millán, J.R.; Tonet, O.; Carpi, F.; Broschart, M.; Ferrez, P.; Buttfield, A.; Tecchio, F.; Sepulveda, F. Prospects of brain-machine interfaces for space system control. Acta Astronaut. 2009, 64, 448–456, doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.09.008.
Mahmoudi, B.; Sanchez, J.C. A symbiotic brain-machine interface through value-based decision making. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e14760, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014760.
[31]
Martin, A.R.; Sankar, T.; Lipsman, N.; Lozano, A.M. Brain-machine interfaces for motor control: A guide for neuroscience clinicians. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 2012, 39, 11–22.
[32]
Shyamkumar, P.; Oh, S.; Banerjee, N.; Varadan, V.K. A wearable remote brain machine interface using smartphones and the mobile network. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2013, 85, 11–16, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AST.85.11.
[33]
Tamburrini, G. Brain to computer communication: Ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2009, 2, 137–149, doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1.
[34]
Velliste, M.; Perel, S.; Spalding, M.C.; Whitford, A.S.; Schwartz, A.B. Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature 2008, 453, 1098–1101, doi:10.1038/nature06996.
[35]
Gilja, V.; Chestek, C.A.; Diester, I.; Henderson, J.M.; Deisseroth, K.; Shenoy, K.V. Challenges and opportunities for next-generation intracortically based neural prostheses. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2011, 58, 1891–1899, doi:10.1109/TBME.2011.2107553.
[36]
Mason, S.G.; Jackson, M.M.M.; Birch, G.E. A general framework for characterizing studies of brain interface technology. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2005, 33, 1653–1670, doi:10.1007/s10439-005-7706-3.
[37]
Wolpaw, J.R.; Birbaumer, N.; McFarland, D.J.; Pfurtscheller, G.; Vaughan, T.M. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113, 767–791, doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3.
Clausen, J. Man, machine and in between. Nature 2009, 457, 1080–1081, doi:10.1038/4571080a.
[40]
Clausen, J. Conceptual and ethical issues with brain-hardware interfaces. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2011, 24, 495–501.
[41]
Diep, L.; Wolbring, G. Who needs to fit in? Who gets to stand out? Communication technologies including brain-machine interfaces revealed from the perspectives of special education school teachers through an ableism lens. Educ. Sci. 2013, 3, 30–49, doi:10.3390/educsci3010030.
[42]
Lewens, T. The risks of progress: Precaution and the case of human enhancement. J. Risk Res. 2010, 13, 207–216, doi:10.1080/13669870903126242.
[43]
Coenen, C.; Schuijff, M.; Smits, M.; Klaassen, P.; Hennen, L.; Rader, M.; Wolbring, G. Human Enhancement Study. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2009/417483/IPOL-JOIN_ET(2009)417483_EN.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2013).
[44]
Gunson, D. Cognitive enhancement, analogical reasoning and social justice. J. Int. Biotechnol. Law 2009, 6, 133–149, doi:10.1515/JIBL.2009.19.
[45]
Buchanan, A. Moral status and human enhancement. Philos. Public Aff. 2009, 37, 346–381, doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01166.x.
[46]
Riis, J.; Simmons, J.P.; Goodwin, G.P. Preferences for enhancement pharmaceuticals: The reluctance to enhance fundamental traits. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 35, 495–508, doi:10.1086/588746.
[47]
Beck, S. Enhancement as a legal challenge. J. Int. Biotechnol. Law 2007, 4, 75–81.
[48]
Irish Council for Bioethics. Human Enhancement: Making People Better or Making Better People? Irish Council for Bioethics 2007, Available online: http://www.bioethics.ie/uploads/docs/Humanenh.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2013).
[49]
Tomasini, F. Imagining human enhancement: Whose future, which rationality? Theor. Med. Bioeth. 2007, 28, 497–507, doi:10.1007/s11017-007-9055-8.
[50]
Williams, A.E. Good, Better, Best: The Human Quest for Enhancement Summary Report of An Invitational Workshop Convened by the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program American Association for the Advancement of Science 1–2 June 2006, Available online: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/human_enhancement/pdfs/HESummaryReport.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2013).
[51]
Rothman, S.R.D. The Pursuit of Perfection: The Promise and Perils of Medical Enhancement; Pantheon Books: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
[52]
Baylis, F.; Robert, J.S. The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies. Bioethics 2004, 18, 1–26.
[53]
Caplan, A.E.C. Is it ethical to use enhancement technologies to make us better than well? PLoS Med. 2004, 1, e52, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0010052.
[54]
Farah, M.; Illes, J.; Cook-Deegan, R.; Gardner, H.; Kandel, E.; King, P.; Parens, E.; Sahakian, B.; Wolpe, P.R. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004, 5, 421–425.
[55]
Khushf, G. Systems theory and the ethics of human enhancement—A framework for NBIC convergence. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2004, 1013, 124–149, doi:10.1196/annals.1305.007.
[56]
Brodey, W.M.; Lindgren, N. Human enhancement––Beyond machine age. IEEE Spectr. 1968, 5, 79–93, doi:10.1109/MSPEC.1968.5214775.
[57]
President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness; US Government: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
[58]
Wolbring, G. HTA Initiative #23: The Triangle of Enhancement Medicine, Disabled People, and the Concept of Health: A New Challenge for HTA, Health Research, and Health Policy; Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR): Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2005.
[59]
Wolbring, G. The Unenhanced Underclass. In Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement; Wilsdon, J.M.P., Ed.; Demos Institute: London, UK, 2006.
[60]
Wolbring, G. Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2008, 21, 25–40, doi:10.1080/13511610802002189.
[61]
Wolbring, G. Ableism, Enhancement Medicine and the Techno Poor Disabled. In Unnatural Selection: The Challenges of Engineering Tomorrow’s People; Healey, P., Rayner, S., Eds.; Earthscan-Routledge: Florence, SC, USA, 2008.
[62]
Wolbring, G. Nanotechnology and the Transhumanization of Health, Medicine, and Rehabilitation. In Controversies in Science and Technology Volume 3: From Evolution to Energy; Kleinmann, D.L., Delborne, J., Cloud-Hansen, K., Handelsman, J., Eds.; Mary Ann Liebert: New Rochelle, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 290–303.
[63]
Savulescu, J. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2005, 10, 36–39, doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62202-X.
[64]
Savulescu, J.; Kahane, G. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 2009, 23, 274–290, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00687.x.
[65]
Harris, J. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2007.
[66]
Harris, J. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People (New in Paper); Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2010.
[67]
Harris, J. Taking the “Human” out of human rights. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 2011, 20, 9–20, doi:10.1017/S0963180109990570.
[68]
Harris, J. Sparrows, hedgehogs and castrati: Reflections on gender and enhancement. J. Med. Ethics 2011, 37, 262–266.
[69]
Forlini, C. Examining Discourses on the Ethics and Public Understanding of Cognitive Enhancement with Methylphenidate. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2009.
[70]
Racine, E.; Forlini, C. Expectations regarding cognitive enhancement create substantial challenges. J. Med. Ethics 2009, 35, 469–470, doi:10.1136/jme.2009.030460.
[71]
Bostrom, N.; Roache, R. Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement and the public interest. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Justice 2010, 2, 68–84.
[72]
Outram, S.M.; Racine, E. Developing public health approaches to cognitive enhancement: An analysis of current reports. Public Health Ethics 2011, 4, doi:10.1093/phe/phr006.
[73]
Partridge, B.J.; Bell, S.K.; Lucke, J.C.; Yeates, S.; Hall, W.D. Smart drugs “As common as coffee”: Media hype about neuroenhancement. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e28416, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028416.
[74]
Franke, A.G.; Bonertz, C.; Christmann, M.; Engeser, S.; Lieb, K. Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in users and nonusers of stimulants for cognitive enhancement: A pilot study. AJOB Prim. Res. 2012, 3, 48–57.
[75]
Sarewitz, D.; Karas, T.H. Policy Implications of Technologies for Cognitive Enhancement. In Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential, and Problems; Giordano, J., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 267–285.
[76]
Lucke, J.C. Empirical research on attitudes toward cognitive enhancement is essential to inform policy and practice guidelines. AJOB Prim. Res. 2012, 3, 58–60, doi:10.1080/21507716.2011.645268.
[77]
Wolbring, G. Is there an end to out-able? Is there an end to the rat race for abilities? J. Media Cult. 2008, 11. Available online: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/57 (accessed 30 March 2013).
[78]
Wolbring, G. Therapeutic, enhancement enabling, assistive devices and the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: A missing lens in the enhancement regulation discourse. J. Int. Biotechnol. Law 2009, 6, 193–206.
[79]
Wolbring, G. Therapeutic enhancements and the view of rehabilitation educators. DILEMATA Int. J. Appl. Ethics 2012, 8, 169–183.
[80]
Lyon, R.H. A Sound Guide to Product Acceptance, Available online: http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-4/iss-1/p50.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2013).
[81]
Frewer, L.; Scholderer, J.; Lambert, N. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Issues for the future. Br. Food J. 2003, 105, 714–731, doi:10.1108/00070700310506263.
[82]
Verbeke, W.; Vanhonacker, F.; Frewer, L.J.; Sioen, I.; de Henauw, S.; van Camp, J. Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: Impact on Belgian consumers’ perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 951–967.
[83]
Frewer, L.J.; Howard, C.; Shepherd, R. Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance? Br. Food J. 1995, 97, 31–36, doi:10.1108/00070709510100118.
[84]
Greenhalgh, T.; Robert, G.; Bate, P.; Macfarlane, F.; Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2005.
[85]
Caselli, F.; Ventura, J. A representative consumer theory of distribution. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 909–926, doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.909.
[86]
Diewert, W.E. Hedonic Regressions. A Consumer Theory Approach; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003.
[87]
Kronenberg, T. Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1488–1494, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.002.
[88]
Gualerzi, D. Growth Theory, Structural Dynamics and the Analysis of Consumption. In Structural Dynamics and Economic Growth; Arena, R., Porta, P.L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 181–203.
[89]
Mahajan, V. Models for Innovation Diffusion; Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1985; Volume 48.
[90]
Sultan, F.; Farley, J.U.; Lehmann, D.R. A meta-analysis of applications of diffusion models. J. Mark. Res. 1990, 27, 70–77, doi:10.2307/3172552.
[91]
Lee, T.T. Nurses adoption of technology: Application of Rogers innovation-diffusion model. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2004, 17, 231–238.
[92]
Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
[93]
Fishbein, M. A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebr. Symp. Motiv. 1980, 27, 65–116.
[94]
Sheppard, B.H.; Hartwick, J.; Warshaw, P.R. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 325–343.
[95]
Millstein, S.G. Utility of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior for predicting physician behavior: A prospective analysis. Health Psychol. 1996, 15, 398–402, doi:10.1037/0278-6133.15.5.398.
[96]
Hausenblas, H.A.; Carron, A.V.; Mack, D.E. Application of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1997, 19, 36–51.
[97]
Chang, M.K. Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 1998, 17, 1825–1834, doi:10.1023/A:1005721401993.
[98]
Belleau, B.D.; Summers, T.A.; Xu, Y.; Pinel, R. Theory of reasoned action. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2007, 25, 244–257, doi:10.1177/0887302X07302768.
[99]
Jaccard, J. The reasoned action model directions for future research. Ann. Amer. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 2012, 640, 58–80, doi:10.1177/0002716211426097.
[100]
Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007.
[101]
Barker, M.; Swift, J.A. The application of psychological theory to nutrition behaviour change. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2009, 68, 205–209, doi:10.1017/S0029665109001177.
[102]
Kasper, J.; Koepke, S.; Fischer, K.; Schaeffler, N.; Backhus, I.; Solari, A.; Heesen, C. Applying the theory of planned behaviour to multiple sclerosis patients decisions on disease modifying therapy questionnaire concept and validation. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2012, 12, doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-60.
[103]
Cote, F.; Gagnon, J.; Houme, P.K.; Abdeljelil, A.B.; Gagnon, M.P. Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict nurses’ intention to integrate research evidence into clinical decision-making. J. Adv. Nurs. 2012, 10, 2289–2298.
[104]
Bandura, A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol. Health 1998, 13, 623–649, doi:10.1080/08870449808407422.
[105]
Alkire, S. Subjective quantitative studies of human agency. Soc. Indic. Res. 2005, 74, 217–260, doi:10.1007/s11205-005-6525-0.
[106]
Yoo, S.J.; Han, S.H.; Huang, W.H. The roles of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators in promoting e-learning in the workplace: A case from South Korea. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 942–950, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.015.
[107]
Jang, Y.; Yoo, H. Self-management programs based on the Social Cognitive Theory for Koreans with chronic diseases: A systematic review. Contemp. Nurse 2012, 40, 147–159, doi:10.5172/conu.2012.40.2.147.
[108]
Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 51, 269–290, doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00092.
[109]
Williams, G.C.; Deci, E.L. Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 767–779, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767.
[110]
Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
[111]
Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. 2008, 49, 182–185, doi:10.1037/a0012801.
[112]
Burton, D.; Gillham, A.D.; Hammermeister, J. Competitive engineering: Structural climate modifications to enhance youth athletes’ competitive experience. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2011, 6, 201–218, doi:10.1260/1747-9541.6.2.201.
[113]
Kapp, S.K. Navajo and autism: The beauty of harmony. Disabil. Soc. 2011, 26, 583–595, doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.589192.
[114]
Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory in health care and its relations to motivational interviewing: A few comments. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-24.
[115]
Ng, J.Y.Y.; Ntoumanis, N.; Th？gersen-Ntoumani, C.; Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M.; Duda, J.L.; Williams, G.C. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 7, 325–340, doi:10.1177/1745691612447309.
[116]
Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Motivation, Personality, and Development within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation; Ryan, R.M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 85–107.
[117]
Teixeira, P.J.; Carra？a, E.V.; Markland, D.; Silva, M.N.; Ryan, R.M. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-78.
[118]
Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Boston, MA, USA, 1985.
[119]
Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 173–191, doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173.
[120]
Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS. Q. 1997, 21, 389–400, doi:10.2307/249720.
[121]
Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A. A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges 408. MIS. Q. 2001, 25, 71–102, doi:10.2307/3250959.
[122]
Pavlou, P.A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 101–134.
[123]
King, W.R.; He, J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inform. Management 2006, 43, 740–755, doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
[124]
Terrizzi, S.; Sherer, S.; Meyerhoefer, C.; Scheinberg, M.; Levick, D. Extending the technology acceptance model in healthcare: Identifying the role of trust and shared information. AMCIS Proc. 2012. Paper 19.
[125]
Belanche, D.; Casalo, L.V.; Flavian, C. Integrating trust and personal values into the Technology Acceptance Model: The case of e-government services adoption. Cuad. Econ. Dir. Empres. 2012, 15, 192–204.
[126]
Chang, S.H. The impacts of consumer variety-seeking, interaction of demand and technology acceptance model on self-service technology in baby boomers. Mc.S. Thesis, Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2012.
[127]
Oshlyansky, L.; Cairns, P.; Thimbleby, H. Validating the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Tool Cross-Culturally. In Proceedings of HCI 2007 the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference, Lancaster, UK, 3–7 September 2007; British Computer Society: London, UK, 2007; pp. 83–86.
[128]
Im, I.; Kim, Y.; Han, H.J. The effects of perceived risk and technology type on users’ acceptance of technologies. Inform. Management 2008, 45, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.03.005.
[129]
Van Schaik, P. Unified theory of acceptance and use for websites used by students in higher education. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2009, 40, 229–257, doi:10.2190/EC.40.2.e.
[130]
Im, I.; Hong, S.; Kang, M.S. An international comparison of technology adoption Testing the UTAUT model. Inform. Management 2011, 48, 1–8, doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001.
[131]
Wang, Y.Y.; Townsend, A.; Luse, A.; Mennecke, B. The determinants of acceptance of recommender systems: Applying the UTAUT model. AMCIS Proc. 2012. Paper 2.
[132]
Kidd, T.; Davis, T. A Framework to Analyze Faculty Involvement in Online Teaching Using UTAUT and Dewey’s Theory of Experience. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference; Resta, P., Ed.; AACE: Chesapeake, VA, USA, 2012; pp. 505–510.
[133]
Ifinedo, P. Technology Acceptance by Health Professionals in Canada: An Analysis with a Modified UTAUT Model. In Proceeding of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2012; pp. 2937–2946.
[134]
Oye, N.D.; Iahad, A.; Rahim, N. The history of UTAUT model and its impact on ICT acceptance and usage by academicians. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2012, doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9189-9.
[135]
Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS. Q. 1989, 13, 319–340, doi:10.2307/249008.
[136]
BenMessaoud, C.; Kharrazi, H.; MacDorman, K.F. Facilitators and barriers to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: Contextualizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PloS ONE 2011, 6, e16395, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016395.
[137]
Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D.; DeLone, W.; McLean, E.; Jarvis, C.B.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Chin, W.W. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Inform. Management 2003, 27, 425–478.
[138]
Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS. Q. 2012, 36, 157–178.
[139]
Atif, A.; Richards, D. A technology acceptance model for unit guide information systems. PACIS Proc. 2012. Paper 97.
[140]
Yergens, D.R.J.; Doig, C.J. KSv2: Application for Enhancing Scoping and Systematic Reviews. In Proceeidngs of American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) 2012 Annual Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, 3–7 November 2012.
[141]
Gürk？k, H.; Plass-Oude Bos, D.; Laar, B.; Nijboer, F.; Nijholt, A. User experience evaluation in BCI: Filling the gap. Int. J. Bioelectromagn. 2011, 13, 54–55.
[142]
Plass-Oude Bos, D.; Gürk？k, H.; van de Laar, B.; Nijboer, F.; Nijholt, A. User Experience Evaluation in BCI: Mind the Gap! Int. J. Bioelectromagn. 2011, 13, 48–49.
[143]
Laar, B.; Nijboer, F.; Gürk？k, H.; Plass-Oude Bos, D.; Nijholt, A. User experience evaluation in BCI: Bridge the gap. Int. J. Bioelectromagn. 2011, 13, 157–158.
[144]
Heerink, M.; Kr？se, B.; Evers, V.; Wielinga, B. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 361–375, doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5.
[145]
De Ruyter, B.; Saini, P.; Markopoulos, P.; van Breemen, A. Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interact. Comput. 2005, 17, 522–541, doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.03.003.
[146]
Salvini, P.; Laschi, C.; Dario, P. Design for acceptability: Improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 451–460, doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0079-2.
Broadbent, E.; Stafford, R.; MacDonald, B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 319–330, doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6.
[149]
Mackenzie, R.; Watts, J. Robots, social networking sites and multi-user games: Using new and existing assistive technologies to promote human flourishing. Tizard Learn. Disabil. Rev. 2011, 16, 38–47, doi:10.1108/13595471111185756.
[150]
Young, J.E.; Hawkins, R.; Sharlin, E.; Igarashi, T. Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 95–108, doi:10.1007/s12369-008-0006-y.
[151]
Dai, C.-Y.; Jang, J.-J.; Lee, T.-H.; Chen, Y.-T.; Yuan, Y.-H. Base on Human-Computer Interaction Perspective to Analyze the Factors of Technology Acceptance Model on IRSSP for Taiwan Recommendatory Admission. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Science & Education, Singapore, 3–5 August 2011; IEEE: Paolo Alto, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 149–153.
[152]
Mason, S.G.; Bashashati, A.; Fatourechi, M.; Navarro, K.F.; Birch, G.E. A comprehensive survey of brain interface technology designs. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2007, 35, 137–169, doi:10.1007/s10439-006-9170-0.
[153]
McCullagh, P.J.; Ware, M.; Mulvenna, M.; Lightbody, G.; Nugent, C.D.; McAllister, H.G. Can brain computer interfaces become practical assistive devices in the community? Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2010, 160, 314–318.
[154]
Garipelli, G.; Galan, F.; Chavarriaga, R.; Ferrez, P.W.; Lew, E.; Millan, R. The Use of Brain-Computer Interfacing in Ambient Intelligence. In Constructing Ambient Intelligence; Springer-Heidelberg: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 268–285.
[155]
Ziefle, M.; Schaar, A.K. Gender differences in acceptance and attitudes towards an invasive medical stent. Electron. J. Health Inform. 2011, 6, e13:1–e13:18.
[156]
Carpenter, J.; Davis, J.M.; Erwin-Stewart, N.; Lee, T.R.; Bransford, J.D.; Vye, N. Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 261–265, doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0016-4.
[157]
Hegel, F.; Muhl, C.; Wrede, B.; Hielscher-Fastabend, M.; Sagerer, G. Understanding Social Robots. In Proceedings of the Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer Human Interactions, Cancun, Mexico, 1–7 February 2009; pp. 169–174.
[158]
Moon, A.J.; Danielson, P.; van der Loos, H.F.M. Survey-based discussions on morally contentious applications of interactive robotics. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2012, 4, 77–96.
[159]
Marcos, S.; Gomez-Garcia-Bermejo, J.; Zalama, E. A realistic, virtual head for human-computer interaction. Interact. Comput. 2010, 22, 176–192, doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.12.002.
[160]
Welch, K.C.; Lahiri, U.; Warren, Z.; Sarkar, N. An approach to the design of socially acceptable robots for children with autism spectrum disorders. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 391–403, doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0063-x.
[161]
Park, E.; del Pobil, A.P. Users’ attitudes toward service robots in South Korea. Ind. Robot 2013, 40, 77–87, doi:10.1108/01439911311294273.
[162]
Qianli, X.; Ng, J.; Cheong, Y.L.; Tan, O.; Wong, J.B.; Tay, T.C.; Park, T. The Role of Social Context in Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of 2012 Southeast Asian Network of Ergonomics Societies Conference, Langkawi, Malaysia, 9–12 July 2012; pp. 1–5.
[163]
Donovan, R.J.; Egger, G.; Kapernick, V.; Mendoza, J. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Med. 2002, 32, 269–284, doi:10.2165/00007256-200232040-00005.
Guttmacher, A.E.; McGuire, A.L.; Ponder, B.; Stefansson, K. Personalized genomic information: Preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 161–165.
[166]
Kato, K.; Kano, K.; Shirai, T. Science communication: Significance for genome-based personalized medicine？a view from the Asia-Pacific. Curr. Pharm. 2010, 8, 93–96.
[167]
Keller, M.A.; Gordon, E.S.; Stack, C.B.; Gharani, N.; Sill, C.J.; Schmidlen, T.J.; Joseph, M.; Pallies, J.; Gerry, N.P.; Christman, M.F. Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative？: A prospective study of the utility of personalized medicine. Pers. Med. 2010, 7, 301–317, doi:10.2217/pme.10.13.
[168]
Boone, R.G.; Gordon, J.; Barnes, F.; Fraser-Beekman, S. Factors Impacting Innovation in a Product Development Organization. In Proceedings of 2012 IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information Technology (EIT), Indianapolis, IN, USA, 6–8 May 2012; pp. 1–11.
[169]
Conci, M.; Pianesi, F.; Zancanaro, M. Useful, Social and Enjoyable: Mobile Phone Adoption by Older People. In Human-Computer Interaction––INTERACT 2009; Springer: Uppsala, Sweden, 2009; pp. 63–76.
[170]
Musa, P.F. Making a case for modifying the technology acceptance model to account for limited accessibility in developing countries. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2006, 12, 213–224, doi:10.1002/itdj.20043.
[171]
Salovaara, A.; Tamminen, S. Acceptance or Appropriation? A Design-oriented Critique of Technology Acceptance Models. In Future Interaction Design II; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 157–173.
[172]
Totter, A.; Bonaldi, D.; Majoe, D. A human-Centered Approach to the Design and Evaluation of Wearable Sensors-Framework and Case Study. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Applications, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 26–28 October 2011; IEEE: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 233–241.
[173]
Ziefle, M.; Rocker, C. Human-Centered Design of E-Health Technologies: Concepts, Methods and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2011.
[174]
Van Velsen, L.; van Der Geest, T.; Klaassen, R.; Steehouder, M. User-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: A literature review. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 2008, 23, 261–281.
[175]
Millen, L.; Cobb, S.; Patel, H. Participatory design approach with children with autism. Int. J. Disabil. Hum. Dev. 2011, 10, 289–294.
[176]
Alper, M.; Hourcade, J.P.; Gilutz, S. Interactive Technologies for Children with Special Needs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Bremen, Germany, 12–15 June 2012; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 363–366.
[177]
Hussain, S.; Sanders, E.B.-N. Fusion of horizons: Co-designing with Cambodian children who have prosthetic legs, using generative design tools. CoDesign 2012, 8, 43–79, doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.637113.
