CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Ethics and Social Impacts of AINeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics

A taxonomy of ethical, legal and social implications of wearable robots: an expert perspective

Open access
Kapeller, Alexandra, Felzmann, Heike, Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard, Hughes, Ann-Marie·2020·Science and Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-020-00268-4PMC PMC7755623
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Wearable robots and exoskeletons are relatively new technologies designed for assisting and augmenting human motor functions. Due to their different possible design applications and their intimate connection to the human body, they come with specific ethical, legal, and social issues (ELS), which have not been much explored in the recent ELS literature. This paper draws on expert consultations and a literature review to provide a taxonomy of the most important ethical, legal, and social issues of wearable robots. These issues are categorized in (1) wearable robots and the self, (2) wearable robots and the other, and (3) wearable robots in society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-020-00268-4

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are concerns about the potential for robots to be used for harmful purposes, such as military applications or surveillance.

    “There are also concerns about the potential for robots to be used for harmful purposes, such as military applications or surveillance [61] .”

    From Artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in advanced robotics, a review (2023) · cites this paper as [61]

    In Results (‘Wearable Robots in Society’), the paper raises concerns about harmful dual uses of wearable robots, including movement between civilian and military uses. It also says wearable robots may intensify workplace surveillance. The claim broadens these concerns to robots generally; the Introduction states that military applications were excluded from the paper’s assessment. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Aas S Wasserman D Brain-computer interfaces and disability: Extending embodiment, reducing stigma? Journal of Medical Ethics 2016 42 1 37 40 10.1136/medethics-2015-102807 26336895 · DOI
  2. Amoroso D Tamburrini G The ethical and legal case against autonomy in weapons systems Global Jurist 2018 10.1515/gj-2017-0012 · DOI
  3. Arneson R What’ s wrong with exploitation? Ethics 1981 91 2 202 227 10.1086/292224 · DOI
  4. Arneson R Exploitation, domination, competitive markets, and unfair division Southern Journal of Philosophy 2016 54 9 30 10.1111/sjp.12182 · DOI
  5. Baier A Trust and antitrust Ethics 1986 96 2 231 260 10.1086/292745 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Barfield W Williams A Cyborgs and enhancement technology Philosophies 2017 2 4 4 10.3390/philosophies2010004 · DOI
  7. Beauchamp TL Childress JF Principles of biomedical ethics 2012 7 New York City Oxford University Press
  8. Bergamasco M Herr H Siciliano B Khatib O Human–robot augmentation Springer handbook of robotics 2016 2 Cham Springer 1875 1906
  9. Bissolotti L Nicoli F Picozzi M Domestic use of the exoskeleton for gait training in patients with spinal cord injuries: Ethical dilemmas in clinical practice Frontiers in Neuroscience 2018 12 FEB 1 5 10.3389/fnins.2018.00078 29497359 PMC5818425 · DOI
  10. Borenstein J Wagner AR Howard A Overtrust of pediatric health-care robots: a preliminary survey of parent perspectives IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 2018 25 1 46 54 10.1109/MRA.2017.2778743 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Borning A Borning A Friedman B Friedman B Kahn JPH Kahn JPH Designing for human values in an urban simulation system: Value sensitive design and participatory design The Eighth Biennial Participatory Design Conference 2004 39 1 4
  12. Breen JS The exoskeleton generation—Disability redux Disability and Society 2015 30 10 1568 1572 10.1080/09687599.2015.1085200 · DOI
  13. Bulboacă AE Bolboacă SD Bulboacă AC Ethical considerations in providing an upper limb exoskeleton device for stroke patients Medical Hypotheses 2017 101 61 64 10.1016/j.mehy.2017.02.016 28351495 · DOI
  14. Contreras-Vidal JL Kilicarslan A Huang H Grossman RG Human-centered design of wearable neuroprostheses and exoskeletons AI Magazine 2015 10.1609/aimag.v36i4.2613 · DOI
  15. Cornwall W In pursuit of the perfect power suit Science 2015 350 6258 270 273 10.1126/science.350.6258.270 26472891 · DOI
  16. Dollar AM Herr H Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: Challenges and state-of-the-art IEEE Transactions on Robotics 2008 24 1 144 158 10.1109/TRO.2008.915453 · DOI
  17. Fosch Villaronga E Golia A Robots, standards and the law: Rivalries between private standards and public policymaking for robot governance Computer Law and Security Review 2019 35 2 129 144 10.1016/j.clsr.2018.12.009 · DOI
  18. Fosch-Villaronga E Robots, healthcare, and the law. Regulating automation in personal care 2019 Abingdon Routledge
  19. Fosch-Villaronga, E., Felzmann, H., Pierce, R. L., De Conca, S., De Groot, A., Ponce Del Castillo, A., & Robbins, S. (2018). ‘Nothing comes between my robot and me’: Privacy and human–robot interaction in robotised healthcare. In: R. Leenes, R. van Brakel, S. Gutwirth, & P. De Hert (Eds.), Data protection and privacy: The internet of bodies. 10.5040/9781509926237.ch-004. · DOI
  20. Fosch-Villaronga E Heldeweg MA “Regulation, I presume?” Said the robot. Towards an iterative regulatory process for robot governance SSRN Electronic Journal 2018 1 1 10.2139/ssrn.3194497 · DOI
  21. Fosch-Villaronga E Millard C Cloud robotics law and regulation cloud robotics law and regulation. Challenges in the governance of complex and dynamic cyber-physical ecosystems Robotics and Autonomous Systems 2019 119 77 91 10.13140/RG.2.2.32883.17446 · DOI
  22. Fosch-Villaronga E Özcan B The progressive intertwinement between design, human needs and the regulation of care technology: the case of lower-limb exoskeletons International Journal of Social Robotics 2019 10.1007/s12369-019-00537-8 · DOI
  23. Grand View Research. (2020). Exoskeleton market size worth $4.2 billion by 2027|CAAGR: 2266.33%. San Francisco. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-exoskeleton-market.
  24. Greenbaum D Ethical, legal and social concerns relating to exoskeletons ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 2015 45 3 234 239 10.1145/2874239.2874272 · DOI
  25. Greenbaum D Exoskeleton progress yields slippery slope Science 2015 350 6265 1176 10.1126/science.350.6265.1176-a 26785467 · DOI
  26. Hajer M Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void Policy Sciences 2003 36 175 10.1023/A:1024834510939 · DOI
  27. Herr H Exoskeletons and orthoses: classification, design challenges and future directions Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2009 6 1 21 10.1186/1743-0003-6-21 19538735 PMC2708185 · DOI
  28. Howell A Neuroscience and war: Human enhancement, soldier rehabilitation, and the ethical limits of dual-use frameworks Millennium: Journal of International Studies 2017 45 2 133 150 10.1177/0305829816672930 · DOI
  29. Jones K Trust as an affective attitude Ethics 2016 107 1 4 25 10.1086/233694 · DOI
  30. Kittay EF Love’s labor: Essays on women, equality and dependency Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency 2013 10.4324/9781315021218 · DOI
  31. Klein E Nam CS Neuroethics and brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) Brain-Computer Interfaces 2016 3 3 123 125 10.1080/2326263X.2016.1210989 · DOI
  32. Lin P Ethical blowback from emerging technologies Journal of Military Ethics 2010 9 4 313 331 10.1080/15027570.2010.536401 · DOI
  33. Lokhorst, G. J., & van den Hoven, J. (2011). Responsibility for military robots. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 145–155).
  34. Lucas GR Legal and ethical precepts governing emerging military technologies: Research and use Amsterdam Law Forum 2014 6 1 23 34 10.37974/ALF.263 · DOI
  35. Luna F Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2009 2 1 121 139 10.3138/ijfab.2.1.121 · DOI
  36. Luna F Identifying and evaluating layers of vulnerability—A way forward Developing World Bioethics 2019 19 2 86 95 10.1111/dewb.12206 30058768 PMC6353708 · DOI
  37. Luna F Vanderpoel S Not the usual suspects: Addressing layers of vulnerability Bioethics 2013 27 6 325 332 10.1111/bioe.12035 23718852 · DOI
  38. Mackenzie C Rogers W Dodds S Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy 2014 Oxford Oxford University Press
  39. Mann, S. (2012). Wearable computing. In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human––Computer interaction (2nd ed.). Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/wearable-computing.
  40. Meyer JT Schrade SO Lambercy O Gassert R User-centered Design and Evaluation of Physical Interfaces for an Exoskeleton for Paraplegic Users. 2019 10.1109/icorr.2019.8779527 31374786 · DOI
  41. Morante S Victores JG Balaguer C Cryptobotics: Why robots need cyber safety Frontiers in Robotics and AI 2015 10.3389/frobt.2015.00023 · DOI
  42. Murata K Adams AA Fukuta Y Orito Y Arias-Oliva M Pelegrin-Borondo J From a science fiction to reality: Cyborg ethics in Japan ORBIT Journal 2017 1 2 245 251 10.29297/orbit.v1i2.42 · DOI
  43. Murray CD Fox J Body image and prosthesis satisfaction in the lower limb amputee Disability and Rehabilitation 2002 24 17 925 931 10.1080/09638280210150014 12519488 · DOI
  44. Nagenborg M Capurro R Weber J Pingel C Ethical regulations on robotics in Europe AI & SOCIETY 2008 22 3 349 366 10.1007/s00146-007-0153-y · DOI
  45. Nakar S Weinberger S Greenbaum D Legal and social implications of predictive brain machine interfaces: Duty of care, negligence, and criminal responsibility AJOB Neuroscience 2015 6 4 40 42 10.1080/21507740.2015.1094558 · DOI
  46. Nyholm S Attributing agency to automated systems: reflections loci Science and Engineering Ethics 2018 24 4 1201 1219 10.1007/s11948-017-9943-x 28721641 PMC6097047 · DOI · Paper page
  47. O’Neill O Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Autonomy and trust in bioethics Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2002 10.1017/cbo9780511606250 · DOI
  48. Parens E Authenticity and ambivalence: Toward understanding the enhancement debate The Hastings Center Report 2005 10.2307/3528804 16092400 · DOI
  49. Parens, E. (2014). Shaping our selves: On technology, flourishing, and a habit of thinking. Shaping our selves: On technology, flourishing, and a habit of thinking. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190211745.001.0001. · DOI
  50. Pedersen I Mirrlees T Exoskeletons, transhumanism, and culture: performing superhuman feats IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 2017 36 1 37 45 10.1109/MTS.2017.2670224 · DOI
  51. Pons JL Rehabilitation exoskeletal robotics IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 2010 29 3 57 63 10.1109/MEMB.2010.936548 20659858 · DOI
  52. Power V de Eyto A Hartigan B Ortiz J O’Sullivan LW Application of a user-centered design approach to the development of XoSoft—A lower body soft exoskeleton Biosystems and Biorobotics 2019 10.1007/978-3-030-01887-0_9 · DOI
  53. Sadowski J Exoskeletons in a disabilities context: The need for social and ethical research Journal of Responsible Innovation 2014 1 2 214 219 10.1080/23299460.2014.918727 · DOI
  54. Shakespeare T Iezzoni LI Groce NE Disability and the training of health professionals Lancet 2009 374 9704 1815 1816 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62050-X 19957403 · DOI
  55. Shakespeare T Watson N Is a four-limb exoskeleton a step in the wrong direction? The Lancet Neurology 2019 18 12 1071 1072 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30352-7 31587954 · DOI
  56. Sharkey A Autonomous weapons systems, killer robots and human dignity Ethics and Information Technology 2019 21 2 75 87 10.1007/s10676-018-9494-0 · DOI
  57. Söderström S Ytterhus B The use and non-use of assistive technologies from the world of information and communication technology by visually impaired young people: A walk on the tightrope of peer inclusion Disability & Society 2010 25 3 303 315 10.1080/09687591003701215 · DOI
  58. Søraa RA Fosch-Villaronga E Exoskeletons for all: The interplay between exoskeletons, inclusion, gender, and intersectionality Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 2020 11 1 217 227 10.1515/pjbr-2020-0036 · DOI
  59. Sparrow R Robots and respect: Assessing the case against autonomous weapon systems Ethics and International Affairs 2016 30 1 93 116 10.1017/S0892679415000647 · DOI
  60. Stahl BC Coeckelbergh M Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation Robotics and Autonomous Systems 2016 86 152 161 10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Vrousalis N Exploitation, vulnerability, and social domination Philosophy & Public Affairs 2013 41 2 131 157 10.1111/papa.12013 · DOI
  62. Vrousalis N Exploitation: A primer Philosophy Compass 2018 13 2 e12486 10.1111/phc3.12486 · DOI
  63. Wang Y Cheng H Hou L c2AIDER: A cognitive cloud exoskeleton system and its applications Cognitive Computation and Systems 2019 1 2 33 39 10.1049/ccs.2018.0012 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kapeller, A., Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., & Hughes, A.-M.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Kapeller, Alexandra
ORCID
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-09-29
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
3229-3247
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
DOI
10.1007/s11948-020-00268-4
PMC
PMC7755623
OpenAlex
W3090965164
Cited by
58
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12
FWCI
8.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Cooperation in Science and Technology (CA16116)
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (707404)
  • Linköping University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Keywords
wearable robotics, exoskeleton, ethical, legal and social implications, human-robot interaction, self and other, expert consultation
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Morals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review