Skip to main content
Log in

A Study on the Deployment of a Service Robot in an Elderly Care Center

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we address the implementation and deployment of a service robot platform for interaction with the elderly in the context of a collaborative European initiative. Specifically, we overview the development of the robot system architecture and components, focusing on the graceful integration of a set of interoperable intelligent services towards advanced human–robot interaction. The service robot targets older people with light physical or psychological issues, delivering several different functionalities, and putting itself at their service. We describe the initial validation tests in a semi-controlled scenario, as well as the deployment of the robotic platform during a week-long pilot in an end user environment. The main challenges and the outcome of the experimental tests with the mobile robot platform are discussed, and results show generally positive reactions from the care center residents, which have provided their valuable feedback on the usability, appearance, interaction and satisfaction of the robot, yielding important lessons that were learned while performing the pilot.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://mrl.isr.uc.pt/projects/socialrobot.

  2. http://www.giraffplus.eu.

  3. http://www.robot-era.eu.

  4. http://hobbit.acin.tuwien.ac.at.

  5. http://www.enrichme.eu.

  6. http://www.growmeup.eu.

  7. http://www.socrates-project.eu.

  8. http://www.radio-project.eu.

  9. http://strands.acin.tuwien.ac.at.

  10. http://miraculous-life.eu.

  11. http://cogniwin.eu.

  12. http://doremi-fp7.eu.

  13. For more details on the SoCoNet, please visit: http://www.citard-serv.com/products-soconet.php.

  14. In ROS, a service is the way of implementing a synchronized request–reply communication. A providing ROS node (application) offers a service, and a client calls the service by sending the request message and awaiting the reply.

  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If2FRVdR0K0&hd=1.

References

  1. European Commission (2015) The 2015 Ageing Report: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies, Joint Report prepared by the European Commission (DG ECFIN) and the Economic Policy Committee (AWG), Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Brussels, Belgium

  2. Portugal D, Trindade P, Christodoulou E, Samaras G, Dias J (2015) On the development of a service robot for social interaction with the elderly. In: Proceeedings of the IET international conference on technologies for active and assisted living (TechAAL 2015), Kingston, London, UK

  3. Hagen C (1998) The rancho levels of cognitive functioning (revised), 3rd Edn. http://blogs.shu.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/369/files/2013/11/Rancho-Level1.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2018

  4. Breazeal C (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Roy N, Baltus G, Fox D, Gemperle F, Goetz J, Hirsch T, Margaritis D, Montemerlo M, Pineau J, Schulte J, Thrun S (2000) Towards personal service robots for the elderly. In: Workshop on interactive robots and entertainment (WIRE 2000), Pittsburgh, PA, USA

  7. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K (2004) Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. Proc IEEE 92(11):1780–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodrich MA, Schults AC (2007) Human–robot interaction: a survey. Found Trends Hum–Comput Interact 1(3):203–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sales FF, Portugal D, Rocha RP (2014) Real-time people detection and mapping system for a mobile robot using a RGB-D sensor. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on informatics in control, automation and robotics (ICINCO 2014), Vienna, Austria

  10. Marder-Eppstein E, Berger E, Foote T, Gerkey B, Konolige K (2010) The office marathon: robust navigation in an indoor office environment. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2010), Anchorage, Alaska, pp 300–307

  11. Garzo A, Martinez L, Isken M, Lowet D, Remazeilles A (2012) User studies of a mobile assistance robot for supporting elderly: methodology and results. In: Workshop on assistance and service robotics in a human environment, international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2012), Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal

  12. Dixon C, Webster M, Saunders J, Fisher M, Dautenhahn K (2014) The fridge door is open—temporal verification of a robotic assistant’s behaviours. Advances in autonomous robotics systems, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Vol. 8717, pp 97–108

  13. Schiffer S, Ferrein A, Lakemeyer G (2012) CAESAR: an intelligent domestic service robot. In: Intelligent service robotics 5(4), pp 259–273. Springer

  14. Chen TL, Ciocarlie M, Cousins S, Grice P, Hawkins K, Hsiao K, Kemp CC, King C, Lazewatsky DA, Leeper A, Nguyen H, Paepcke A, Pantofaru C, Smart WD, Takayama L (2013) Robots for humanity: using assistive robots to empower people with disabilities. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 20(1):30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Badii A, Etxeberria I, Huijnen C, Maseda M, Dittenberger S, Hochgatterer A, Thiemert D, Rigaud AS (2009) CompanionAble–mobile robot companion and smart home system for people with mild cognitive impairment. J Nutr Health Aging 13(Suppl. 1):S113

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coradeschi S et al (2014) GiraffPlus: a system for monitoring activities and physiological parameters and promoting social interaction for elderly. Human–computer systems interaction: backgrounds and applications 3, advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer, vol. 300, pp 261–271

  17. Saunders J, Burke N, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K (2014) A user friendly robot architecture for re-ablement and co-learning in a sensorised home. Assistive technology: from research to practice, assistive technology research series. IOS Press, vol. 33, pp 49–58

  18. Esposito R, Cavallo F, Dario P, Marcellini F, Bevilacqua R, Felici E (2014) Robot-era project: preliminary results of robotic service in smart environments with elderly people. AAL Forum, Bucharest, Romania

  19. Nani M, Caleb-Solly P, Dogramadzi S, Fear T, van den Heuvel H (2010) MOBISERV: an integrated intelligent home environment for the provision of health, nutrition and mobility services to the elderly. In: Proceedings of 4th companion robotics workshop, Brussels

  20. Fischinger D, Einramhof P, Papoutsakis K, Wohlkinger W, Mayer P, Panek P, Hofmann S, Koertner T, Weiss A, Argyros A, Vincze M (2016) Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: first prototype and lessons learned. Robot Auton Syst 75:60–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Breazeal C, Scassellati B (2000) Infant-like social interactions between a robot and a human caregiver. Adapt Behav 8(1):49–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hirsch T, Forlizzi J, Hyder E, Goetz J, Kurtz C, Strobac J (2000) The ELDer project: social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies. In: Proceedings of the conference on universal usability (CUU ’00), pp 72–79

  23. Sixsmith A, Gutman G (2013) Technologies for active aging. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frennert S, Östlund B, Eftring H (2012) Would Granny let an assistive robot into her home? Social robotics, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Vol. 7621, pp 128–137

  27. Krishnan RH, Pugazhenthi S (2014) Mobility assistive devices and self-transfer robotic systems for elderly, a review. Intell Serv Robot 7(1):37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Palopoli L (2015) Navigation assistance and guidance of older adults across complex public spaces: the DALi approach. Intell Serv Robot 8(2):77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Santos L, Portugal D, Christodoulou E, Samaras G, Alvito P, Dias J (2014) Personalizable ICT-based service provision: the SocialRobot solution. In: Proceedings of the AmI 2014 international workshop on intelligent environments supporting healthcare and well-being (WISHWell 2014), Eindhoven, The Netherlands

  30. Quigley M, Conley K, Gerkey B, Faust J, Foote T, Leibs J, Wheeler R, Ng A (2009) ROS: an open-source robot operating system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2009), Workshop on Open Source Software, Kobe, Japan

  31. Alvito P, Marques C, Carriço P, Freire J (2014) A robotic platform for the social robot project. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 2014), Workshop on interactive robots for aging and/or impaired people, Edinburgh

  32. Social Robot Project D1.1: specification of user needs and requirements. http://mrl.isr.uc.pt/projects/socialrobot/index.php?Itemid=73. Accessed 28 May 2018

  33. Social Robot Project D2.1: Overall system architecture design. http://mrl.isr.uc.pt/projects/socialrobot/index.php?Itemid=73. Accessed 28 May 2018

  34. Randelli G, Bonanni TM, Iocchi L, Nardi D (2012) Knowledge acquisition through human-robot multimodal interaction. Intell Serv Robot 6(1):19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grisetti G, Stachniss C, Burgard W (2007) Improved techniques for grid mapping with rao-blackwellized particle filters. IEEE Trans Robot 23(1):34–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fox D, Burgard W, Thrun S (1997) The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance. IEEE Robot Autom 4(1):23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gerkey B, Konolige KK (2008) Planning and control in unstructured terrain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2008), workshop on path planning on costmaps, Pasadena, CA, USA

  38. Thrun S, Burgard W, Fox D (2005) Probabilistic robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Portugal D, Pippin C, Rocha RP, Christensen HH (2014) Finding optimal routes for multi-robot patrolling in generic graphs. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2014), Chicago

  40. Viola P, Jones M (2001) Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR 2001). IEEE, vol. 1

  41. Eyben F, Wöllmer M, Schuller BB (2009) openEAR—introducing the Munich open-source emotion and affect recognition toolkit. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction and workshops (ACII 2009), Amsterdam, Holland, pp 576–581

  42. Ben Moussa M, Kasap Z, Thalmann NM, Chandramouli K, Mirza S, Zhang Q, Izquierdo E, Biperis I, Daras P (2010) Towards an expressive virtual tutor: an implementation of a virtual tutor based on an empirical study of non-verbal behaviour. In: Proceedings of of the 2010 ACM workshop on surreal media and virtual cloning (SMVC 2010), Florence, Italy, pp 39–44

  43. Portugal D, Santos L, Alvito P, Dias J, Samaras G, Christodoulou E (2015) SocialRobot: an interactive mobile robot for elderly home care. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/SICE international symposium on system integration (SII 2015), Nagoya, Japan

  44. Machado Santos J, Portugal D, Rocha RP (2013) An evaluation of 2D SLAM techniques available in robot operating system. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international symposium on safety, security, and rescue robotics (SSRR 2013), Linköping, Sweden

  45. Nourbakhsh IR, Kunz C, Willeke T (2003) The mobot museum robot installations: a five year experiment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2003), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp 3636–3641

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the SocialRobot Project, funded under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP), Marie Curie Programme 2011 by the European Commission, under Grant Agreement 285870. The authors would like to sincerely thank the Zuyderland Hoogstaete care center team in Sittard (The Netherlands), especially Roy Beumers, Leon van de Weem, Rachelle Wintjens and Cindy Wings, as well as the remaining researchers involved in the SocialRobot Project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Portugal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: User questionnaires (English version)

Appendix A: User questionnaires (English version)

Social robot questionnaire

(to be handed out after a user interacts with the robot)

  1. (1)

    Please let us know your role (senior, visitor, caregiver, other): ________

Please, provide below answers from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).

Usability

  1. 2.

    I believe that the robot is useful. _________

  2. 3.

    The robot is easy to use. _________

  3. 4.

    I felt very confident using the robot. _________

  4. 5.

    I believe that the robot could help me be more effective in carrying out my daily activities. _________

  5. 6.

    I believe that the robot could save me time when I use it. _________

  6. 7.

    I believe that the robot could meet my needs. _________

  7. 8.

    I learned to use the robot quickly. _________

  8. 9.

    The robot is simple to use. _________

  9. 10.

    The robot could make me feel more motivated to carry out my daily activities/tasks. _________

  10. 11.

    The robot could help me be more active (i.e., participate in more activities, be more socially active). _________

  11. 12.

    The robot could help me be more independent / autonomous. _________

  12. 13.

    The robot could help to reduce the demand for care from my carergivers. _________

  13. 14.

    The robot makes me feel happier than when I am alone. _________

  14. 15.

    The robot makes me feel less concerned, worried or preoccupied. _________

Robot appearance and interaction

  1. 16.

    Please rate the humanity of the robot. Machine-Like (1) to Human-Like (10). _________

  2. 17.

    Please rate the animacy of the robot. Stagnant (1) to Lively (10). _________

  3. 18.

    Please rate the likeability of the robot. Unfriendly (1) to Friendly (10). _________

  4. 19.

    Please rate the perceived intelligence of the robot. Incompetent (1) to Intelligent (10). _________

  5. 20.

    Please rate the perceived safety of the robot. Unsafe (1) to Safe (10). _________

Satisfaction

  1. 21.

    I am satisfied with the robot. _________

  2. 22.

    I would recommend the robot to a friend. _________

  3. 23.

    The robot is fun. _________

  4. 24.

    The robot is not invasive. _________

  5. 25.

    The robot is respectful of my wishes, preferences, and private data. _________

  6. 26.

    The robot performed well during the demonstration. _________

Qualitative questions

  1. 27.

    Please name 1 or 2 things that you liked the most about the robot: _________

  2. 28.

    Please name 1 or 2 things that you liked the least about the robot: _________

  3. 29.

    Please name 1 or 2 things that you would you like to have on the robot, which was not there: _________

  4. 30.

    Please name 1 or 2 things that could help you in your daily life, in the current state of the robot: _________

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Portugal, D., Alvito, P., Christodoulou, E. et al. A Study on the Deployment of a Service Robot in an Elderly Care Center. Int J of Soc Robotics 11, 317–341 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0492-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0492-5

Keywords

Navigation