skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Blossom: A Handcrafted Open-Source Robot

Published:13 March 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Blossom is an open-source social robotics platform responding to three challenges in human-robot interaction (HRI) research: (1) Designing, manufacturing, and programming social robots requires a high level of technical knowledge; (2) social robot designs are fixed in appearance and movement capabilities, making them hard to adapt to a specific application; and (3) the use of rigid mechanisms and hard outer shells limits the robots’ expressive capabilities. Addressing these challenges, Blossom aims at three design objectives: accessibility, flexibility, and expressiveness. The robot’s mechanism can be quickly assembled and partially extended by end-users. Blossom’s appearance is open-ended through handcrafted fabric exteriors created and customized by users. Smooth organic movements are achieved with tensile mechanisms, elastic components, and a soft exterior cover attached loosely to the body. Blossom’s smartphone-based gesture generation requires neither programming nor character animation experience, allowing lay users to create their own behaviors. All elements in the design were conceived with a low barrier-of-entry in mind. The result is an accessible and customizable social robot for researchers. This article details the implementation of Blossom’s design and demonstrates the platform’s potential through four field deployment case studies.

References

  1. Henny Admoni, Caroline Bank, Joshua Tan, Mariya Toneva, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. Robot gaze does not reflexively cue human attention. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Henny Admoni, Bradley Hayes, David Feil-Seifer, Daniel Ullman, and Brian Scassellati. 2013. Are you looking at me?: Perception of robot attention is mediated by gaze type and group size. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 389--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Baris Akgun, Maya Cakmak, Karl Jiang, and Andrea L. Thomaz. 2012. Keyframe-based learning from demonstration. Int. J. Social Rob. 4, 4 (2012), 343--355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Aris Alissandrakis, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Correspondence mapping induced state and action metrics for robotic imitation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 37, 2 (2007), 299--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. ArcBotics. 2016. Hexy the Hexapod. Retrieved from http://arcbotics.com/products/hexy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenna D. Argall, Sonia Chernova, Manuela Veloso, and Brett Browning. 2009. A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Rob. Auton. Syst. 57, 5 (2009), 469--483. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. ASUS. 2018. Zenbo—Your Smart Little Companion. Retrieved from https://zenbo.asus.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ross Atkin. 2018. Smartibot: The world’s first A.I. enabled cardboard robot. Retrieved August 28, 2018 from https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/460355237/smartibot-the-worlds-first-ai-enabled-cardboard-ro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim Baraka, Ana Paiva, and Manuela Veloso. 2016. Expressive lights for revealing mobile service robot state. In Robot 2015: Second Iberian Robotics Conference. Springer, 107--119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Christoph Bartneck, Michel Van Der Hoek, Omar Mubin, and Abdullah Al Mahmud. 2007. Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do!: Switching off a robot. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 217--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Casey C. Bennett and Selma Šabanović. 2014. Deriving minimal features for human-like facial expressions in robotic faces. Int. J. Social Rob. 6, 3 (2014), 367--381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Cynthia L. Breazeal. 2004. Designing Sociable Robots. MIT press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Allison Bruce, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Reid Simmons. 2002. The role of expressiveness and attention in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’02), Vol. 4. IEEE, 4138--4142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Paul Bucci, Xi Laura Cang, Anasazi Valair, David Marino, Lucia Tseng, Merel Jung, Jussi Rantala, Oliver S. Schneider, and Karon E. MacLean. 2017. Sketching CuddleBits: Coupled prototyping of body and behaviour for an affective robot pet. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3681--3692. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Reinhard Budde, Karlheinz Kautz, Karin Kuhlenkamp, and Heinz Züllighoven. 1992. Prototyping. In Prototyping. Springer, 33--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoang-Long Cao, Greet Van de Perre, Ramona Simut, Cristina Pop, Andreea Peca, Dirk Lefeber, and Bram Vanderborght. 2014. Enhancing My Keepon robot: A simple and low-cost solution for robot platform in human-robot interaction studies. In 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’14). IEEE, 555--560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Ginevra Castellano, André Pereira, Iolanda Leite, Ana Paiva, and Peter W. McOwan. 2009. Detecting user engagement with a robot companion using task and social interaction-based features. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. ACM, 119--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Caitlyn Clabaugh and Maja J. Matarić. 2016. Exploring elicitation frequency of learning-sensitive information by a robotic tutor for interactive personalization. In 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’16). IEEE, 968--973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Anki Corporation. 2017. Meet Cozmo. Retrieved August 28, 2018 from https://www.anki.com/en-us/cozmo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Christopher Crick, Graylin Jay, Sarah Osentoski, Benjamin Pitzer, and Odest Chadwicke Jenkins. 2017. Rosbridge: ROS for non-ROS users. In Robotics Research. Springer, 493--504.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. John Crinnion. 1991. Evolutionary Systems Development: A Practical Guide to the Use of Prototyping within a Structured Systems Methodology. Pitman London. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Victor C. Dibia, Maryam Ashoori, Aaron Cox, and Justin D. Weisz. 2017. Tjbot: An open source DIY cardboard robot for programming cognitive systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 381--384. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Carl F. DiSalvo, Francine Gemperle, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sara Kiesler. 2002. All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’02). ACM Press, New York, New York, 321--326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Naomi T. Fitter, Yasmin Chowdhury, Elizabeth Cha, Leila Takayama, and Maja J. Matarić. 2018. Evaluating the effects of personalized appearance on telepresence robots for education. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 109--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Neil Fraser. 2015. Ten things we’ve learned from Blockly. In Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond). IEEE, 49--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Willow Garage. 2011. Turtlebot. Retrieved from http://turtlebot.com/last visited, 11--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. V. Scott Gordon and James M. Bieman. 1995. Rapid prototyping: Lessons learned. IEEE Software 12, 1 (1995), 85--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kristof Goris, Jelle Saldien, Bram Vanderborght, and Dirk Lefeber. 2011. How to achieve the huggable behavior of the social robot Probo. A reflection on the actuators. Mechatron. 21, 3 (2011), 490--500.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. David Gouaillier, Vincent Hugel, Pierre Blazevic, Chris Kilner, Jerome Monceaux, Pascal Lafourcade, Brice Marnier, Julien Serre, and Bruno Maisonnier. 2009. Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. September 2015 (2009), 769--774. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Rodolphe Hasselvander. 2017. Buddy: The Companion Robot Accessible to Everyone. Retrieved August 28, 2018 from http://www.bluefrogrobotics.com/en/buddy-your-companion-robot/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Guy Hoffman. 2012. Dumb robots, smart phones: A case study of music listening companionship. In RO-MAN, 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 358--363.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Guy Hoffman. 2016. OpenWoZ: A runtime-configurable Wizard-of-Oz framework for human-robot interaction. In 2016 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Guy Hoffman and Wendy Ju. 2014. Designing robots with movement in mind. J. Human-Robot Interact. 3, 1 (2014), 89--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Honda. 2018. Honda 3E. Retrieved from https://global.honda/innovation/CES/2018.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Dominique Hunziker, Mohanarajah Gajamohan, Markus Waibel, and Raffaello D’Andrea. 2013. Rapyuta: The roboearth cloud engine. In ICRA. Citeseer, 438--444.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Inc Jibo. 2015. Jibo. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from https://www.jibo.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jinyung Jung, Seok-Hyung Bae, Joon Hyub Lee, and Myung-Suk Kim. 2013. Make it move: A movement design method of simple standing products based on systematic mapping of torso movements 8 product messages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1279--1288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Alisa Kalegina, Grace Schroeder, Aidan Allchin, Keara Berlin, and Maya Cakmak. 2018. Characterizing the design space of rendered robot faces. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 96--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Michelle Karg, Ali-Akbar Samadani, Rob Gorbet, Kolja Kühnlenz, Jesse Hoey, and Dana Kulić. 2013. Body movements for affective expression: A survey of automatic recognition and generation. IEEE Trans. Affective Comput. 4, 4 (2013), 341--359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jun Kato, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Takeo Igarashi. 2012. Phybots: A toolkit for making robotic things. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, 248--257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Hideki Kozima, Marek P. Michalowski, and Cocoro Nakagawa. 2009. Keepon. Int. J. Social Rob. 1, 1 (2009), 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Hideki Kozima, Cocoro Nakagawa, and Yuriko Yasuda. 2005. Interactive robots for communication-care: A case-study in autism therapy. In IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN’05). IEEE, 341--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Jason Kulk, James Welsh, et al. 2008. A low power walk for the NAO robot. In Proceedings of the 2008 Australasian Conference on Robotics 8 Automation (ACRA’08), J. Kim and R. Mahony, Eds. 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Gael Langevin. 2017. InMoov open-source 3D printed life-size robot. Retrieved August 28, 2018 from http://inmoov.fr/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Matthieu Lapeyre, Pierre Rouanet, Jonathan Grizou, Steve Nguyen, Fabien Depraetre, Alexandre Le Falher, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2014. Poppy project: Open-source fabrication of 3D printed humanoid robot for science, education and art. In Digital Intelligence 2014. 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. John Lasseter. 1987. Principles of traditional animation applied to 3D computer animation. In ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics, Vol. 21. ACM, 35--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. David Ledo, Steven Houben, Jo Vermeulen, Nicolai Marquardt, Lora Oehlberg, and Saul Greenberg. 2018. Evaluation strategies for HCI toolkit research. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Min Kyung Lee, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Paul Rybski, John Antanitis, and Sarun Savetsila. 2012. Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 319--326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Iolanda Leite, Marissa McCoy, Monika Lohani, Daniel Ullman, Nicole Salomons, Charlene Stokes, Susan Rivers, and Brian Scassellati. 2015. Emotional storytelling in the classroom: Individual versus group interaction between children and robots. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 75--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Daniel Leyzberg, Samuel Spaulding, and Brian Scassellati. 2014. Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 423--430. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. LG. 2018. LG Exploring New Commercial Opportunities with Expanding Robot Portfolio. Retrieved from http://www.lg.com/au/ces2018/lg-exploring-new-commercial-opportunities-with-expanding-robot-portfolio.jsp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Giorgio Metta, Giulio Sandini, David Vernon, Lorenzo Natale, and Francesco Nori. 2008. The iCub humanoid robot: An open platform for research in embodied cognition. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems. ACM, 50--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Gajamohan Mohanarajah, Dominique Hunziker, Raffaello D’Andrea, and Markus Waibel. 2015. Rapyuta: A cloud robotics platform. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 12, 2 (2015), 481--493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Ken Nakagaki, Artem Dementyev, Sean Follmer, Joseph A. Paradiso, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2016. ChainFORM: A linear integrated modular hardware system for shape changing interfaces. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 87--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Michael I. Norton, Daniel Mochon, and Dan Ariely. 2012. The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. J. Consum. Psychol. 22, 3 (2012), 453--460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Hyunjoo Oh, Mark D. Gross, and Michael Eisenberg. 2015. FoldMecha: Design for linkage-based paper toys. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software 8 Technology. ACM, 91--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Eunil Park and Jaeryoung Lee. 2014. I am a warm robot: The effects of temperature in physical human--robot interaction. Robotica 32, 1 (2014), 133--142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Goren Gordon, Samuel Spaulding, Jacqueline Kory Westlund, Jin Joo Lee, Luke Plummer, Marayna Martinez, Madhurima Das, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2016. Affective personalization of a social robot tutor for children’s second language skills. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Alison Powell. 2012. Democratizing production through open source knowledge: From open software to open hardware. Media, Culture 8 Society 34, 6 (2012), 691--708.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Morgan Quigley, Ken Conley, Brian Gerkey, Josh Faust, Tully Foote, Jeremy Leibs, Rob Wheeler, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2009. ROS: An open-source robot operating system. In ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software, Vol. 3. Kobe, Japan, 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Hayes Solos Raffle, Amanda J. Parkes, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2004. Topobo: A constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 647--654. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Sekou L. Remy and M. Brian Blake. 2011. Distributed service-oriented robotics. IEEE Internet Comput. 2 (2011), 70--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, et al. 2009. Scratch: Programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (2009), 60--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Tiago Ribeiro and Ana Paiva. 2012. The illusion of robotic life: Principles and practices of animation for robots. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 383--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. SoftBank Robotics. 2014. Pepper, the humanoid robot from SoftBank Robotics. Retrieved August 18, 2018 from https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/robots/pepper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Daniela Rus and Michael T. Tolley. 2015. Design, fabrication and control of soft robots. Nat. 521, 7553 (2015), 467.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Nicole Salomons, Michael van der Linden, Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, and Brian Scassellati. 2018. Humans conform to robots: Disambiguating trust, truth, and conformity. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 187--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Joe Saunders, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kheng Lee Koay, Nathan Burke, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2016. “Teach me--show me”—End-user personalization of a smart home and companion robot. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 46, 1 (2016), 27--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Adam Michael Setapen. 2012. Creating Robotic Characters for Long-term Interaction. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Syamimi Shamsuddin, Hanafiah Yussof, Luthffi Ismail, Fazah Akhtar Hanapiah, Salina Mohamed, Hanizah Ali Piah, and Nur Ismarrubie Zahari. 2012. Initial response of autistic children in human-robot interaction therapy with humanoid robot NAO. In IEEE 8th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications (CSPA’12). IEEE, 188--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Elaine Short, Katelyn Swift-Spong, Jillian Greczek, Aditi Ramachandran, Alexandru Litoiu, Elena Corina Grigore, David Feil-Seifer, Samuel Shuster, Jin Joo Lee, Shaobo Huang, et al. 2014. How to train your DragonBot: Socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play. In 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’14). IEEE, 924--929.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Abhishek Singh. 2016. Peeqo—The GIF Bot. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from https://imgur.com/a/ue4Ax.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Ronit Slyper, Guy Hoffman, and Ariel Shamir. 2015. Mirror puppeteering: Animating toy robots in front of a webcam. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 241--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Michael Suguitan and Guy Hoffman. 2018. Blossom Public Repository. Retrieved from https://github.com/hrc2/blossom-public.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Yuan Sun and S. Shyam Sundar. 2016. Psychological importance of human agency: How self-assembly affects user experience of robots. In The 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 189--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. JaYoung Sung, Rebecca E. Grinter, and Henrik I. Christensen. 2009. Pimp my Roomba: Designing for personalization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 193--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Haodan Tan, John Tiab, Selma Šabanović, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. Happy moves, sad grooves: Using theories of biological motion and affect to design shape-changing interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 1282--1293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Russell Toris, Julius Kammerl, David V. Lu, Jihoon Lee, Odest Chadwicke Jenkins, Sarah Osentoski, Mitchell Wills, and Sonia Chernova. 2015. Robot web tools: Efficient messaging for cloud robotics. In IROS. 4530--4537.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Albert van Breemen, Xue Yan, and Bernt Meerbeek. 2005. iCat: An animated user-interface robot with personality. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, 143--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Cesar Vandevelde, Francis Wyffels, Bram Vanderborght, and Jelle Saldien. 2017. Do-it-yourself design for social robots: An open-source hardware platform to encourage innovation. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag. 24, 1 (2017), 86--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Kazuyoshi Wada and Takanori Shibata. 2007. Living with seal robots—Its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Trans. Rob. 23, 5 (2007), 972--980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Ryan Wistort and Cynthia Breazeal. 2009. TOFU: A socially expressive robot character for child interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 292--293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Yunbo Zhang, Wei Gao, Luis Paredes, and Karthik Ramani. 2016. CardBoardiZer: Creatively customize, articulate and fold 3D mesh models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 897--907. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Blossom: A Handcrafted Open-Source Robot

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
        ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction  Volume 8, Issue 1
        March 2019
        102 pages
        EISSN:2573-9522
        DOI:10.1145/3317963
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 13 March 2019
        • Accepted: 1 January 2019
        • Revised: 1 December 2018
        • Received: 1 September 2018
        Published in thri Volume 8, Issue 1

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format