For the following question:

“Each team will have 2/3 members and 1 robot allocated by teaching staff to emulate the ‘team work’
situation. The way the team operates is entirely a matter of negotiation between members but you
need to choose a group leader. As a minimum, each team must have a weekly meeting with the
module tutors from week 2 onwards during the timetabled practical workshop session to discuss
respective progress.
The theme for this assignment is:
1. Humanoid Robot as an Assistant Physiotherapist: to research and design Upper Limb or the
Whole-Body Collaborative Rehabilitation Training; and / or Lower Limb Massage with NAO robot.
For example:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2055668319862151
Using the Design Research method that you learnt (Understand-Empathise-Define-Ideate-
Prototype), you will need to conduct research to understand the current healthcare constraints and
then design the innovative humanoid robotics program grounded on the latest and global literature
review on one of the above topics.
All the above are non-trivial and will require 3-5 minutes Human-Robot interactive programs with a
real-world problem for design requirement, e.g. taking input from sensors (tactile, pressure, sonars,
microphones or Infrared), robotic vision (2 cameras for object recognition, localisation or motion
planning) and controlling a variety of physical outputs such as movements, speech, LED animation,
speech, music and robotic movement. The weekly studio should give you practical programming skills,
applied AI guide and a skeleton of code to build on. Feel free to insert creative ideas within the
topics and use your own social imagination to add props, music or dance.

A brief research paper to report and discuss the research and design (R&D) of the topic, and to
showcase the working prototype by attaching a Youtube video link
The total word equivalent is in the order of 3,000 words excluding references. You should also be able
to demonstrate and present your R&D and reflection in the following structure:
❖ Title page contains the following:
▪ Eye-catchy Project topic and the personality of your robot
▪ A link to the 2-3 minutes Youtube video demonstration and GitHub
▪ Group members’ name with respective student numbers
❖ Keywords (3-5 keywords related to your research)
❖ Abstract (100-150 words): Background motivation, problem statement, research aims and
methods, key results and recommendations.
1. Introduction and Literature Review for [Humanoid Robot as an Assistant Physiotherapist] (500-1000 words)
1.1 The Traditional Methods and International Horizon for Robotics Intervention
1.2 Research Problem Statement
2. Design Research Method (300-500 words)
Discussion of the humanoid robot model and how you research and design the project.
Description with some figures or workflow (e.g. flow-chart, use case scenario, Choregraphe
screen shots or etc.) of the running robotic programme.
3. Finding and Reflection (400-800 words)
Implementation discussion with snippet of code and evaluation of the prototype. The list of
technical and ethical issues (at least two) faced while developing the robotic system and the
approaches in which these problems were handled or resolved. Critical Reflection upon
group’s experience of developing the robotic programme with ethical, social, cultural and
legal considerations.
4. Conclusions and Future Work (300-550 words)
The concluding remarks with key results and some recommendations for the future work.
❖ References (full list in Harvard Format) – the word count of this section is excluded”

Whilst taking the above question specifications into consideration, in no more than 200 words please can you write me an entry for ONLY THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIED SECTION BEING ‘1.2 Research Problem Statement’. Please ensure that during the creation of this entry that the tone one would use when answering an important examination question is used and abides by the following: employs a vast range and a superabundant amount of references in accord with one another (embedded and harvard referenced), utilises impressive grammar/ demonstrates an astonishing linguistic prowess, shows extensive research that is abundant in detail and illustrates amazing attention to detail, is both concise and insightful, demonstrates excellent reflection, showcases linguistic elegance of a publishable quality, and finally has embedded harvard references and a separate references section

Given that the following is what I’ve written so far, whilst abiding by all the aforementioned specifics, please write me a final paragraph that continues on from this: The convergence of humanoid robotics and other comparable mediums, united with rehabilitative physiotherapeutic regimens embodies a revolutionary reconfiguration- reconceptualising remedial frontiers, and the delivery of healthcare. Nonetheless, the incipient realm of this field teems with multifaceted complexities, mandating an assiduous scholarly inquisition of its operational feasibility, clinical effectivity, and ethical conundrums. Faced with a glaring international dearth of physiotherapeutic practitioners (WCPT, 2019), the intensified necessity for humanoid robotic aid is rendered ever more paramount than before. The assignment of humanoid robotics as an appendage to physiotherapists, taking Aldebaran’s NAO as a pertinent exemplar, culminates in pivotal considerations: Can these ingenious personifications of amalgamated science and technology mirror the intricacy-enveloped therapy customarily orchestrated by professional clinicians? How do patients perceive mechanical touch when juxtaposed with empathetic and compassionate human contact (Silver, et al., 2020)?
In the nascent intersection or robotics and rehabilitative care, humanoid automatons are tasked with bridging the gaping divide between preprogrammed movements and individualistic patient therapeutic exigencies- a nexus where technical variability and human volatility coalesce (Veerbeek, et al., 2017). The unification of robotic sensorimotor proficiencies with the distinctive imperatives of personalised rehabilitation embodies a formidable research endeavour, necessitating the construction of advanced and accommodating algorithms that can modulate therapeutic procedures dynamically, in synchronisation with patient progress (Dipietro, et al., 2017; Encarnação & Azevedo, 2013). This intricate equilibrium hinges upon the robot’s acuity in the cognizance and interpretation of feedback by means of a repertoire of sensors, engineered to capture subtleties of human physiology and emotion with unwavering precision in order to ascertain remedial actions are not only efficacious, but finely attuned to feedback from patients (Scherer, et al., 2015; Amirabdollahian, et al., 2013; Calderita, et al., 2014).