Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mini: A New Social Robot for the Elderly

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

Abstract

The unceasing aging of the population is leading to new problems in developed countries. Robots represent an opportunity to extend the period of independent living of the elderly as well as to ameliorate their economic burden and social problems. We present a new social robot, Mini, specifically designed to assist and accompany the elderly in their daily life either at home or in a nursing facility. Based on the results of several meetings with experts in this field, we have built a robot able to provide services in the areas of safety, entertainment, personal assistance and stimulation. Mini supports elders and caregivers in cognitive and mental tasks. We present the robot platform and describe the software architecture, particularly focussing on the human–robot interaction. We give in detail how the robot operates and the interrelation of the different modules of the robot in a real use case. In the last part of the paper, we evaluated how users perceive the robot. Participants reported interesting results in terms of usability, appearance, and satisfaction. This paper describes all aspects of the design and development of a new social robot that can be used by other researchers who face the multiple challenges of creating a new robotic platform for older people.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.care-o-bot.de.

  2. http://kompai.com.

  3. http://movecare-project.di.unimi.it.

  4. http://www.giraff.org.

  5. https://aibo.sony.jp/en.

  6. https://bit.ly/2J54j9j.

  7. https://bit.ly/2Yauoeh.

  8. https://bit.ly/2fLFqAs.

  9. https://intel.ly/2LXfCnM.

  10. https://bit.ly/2kMi1lX.

  11. https://intel.ly/2JPauiv.

  12. https://ubuntu.com.

References

  1. Abdollahi H, Mollahosseini A, Lane JT, Mahoor MH (2017) A pilot study on using an intelligent life-like robot as a companion for elderly individuals with dementia and depression. In: 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th international conference on humanoid robotics (humanoids). IEEE, New York, pp 541–546

  2. Agrigoroaie R, Ferland F, Tapus A (2016) The Enrichme project: lessons learnt from a first interaction with the elderly. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 735–745

  3. Alonso-Martín F, Castro-González A, Malfaz M, Castillo JC, Salichs MA (2017) Identification and distance estimation of users and objects by means of electronic beacons in social robotics. Expert Syst Appl 86:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alonso-Martín F, Salichs MA (2011) Integration of a voice recognition system in a social robot. Cybern Syst Int J 42(4):215–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Amirabdollahian F, op den Akker R, Bedaf S, Bormann R, Draper H, Evers V, Pérez JG, Gelderblom GJ, Ruiz CG, Hewson D et al (2013) Assistive technology design and development for acceptable robotics companions for ageing years. Paladyn J Behav Robot 4(2):94–112

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barco A, Albo-Canals J, Garriga C (2014) Engagement based on a customization of an IPOD-LEGO robot for a long-term interaction for an educational purpose. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’14. ACM, New York, pp 124–125. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2563697

  7. Bradwell HL, Edwards KJ, Winnington R, Thill S, Jones RB (2019) Companion robots for older people: importance of user-centred design demonstrated through observations and focus groups comparing preferences of older people and roboticists in south west England. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H et al (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Casey D, Felzmann H, Pegman G, Kouroupetroglou C, Murphy K, Koumpis A, Whelan S (2016) What people with dementia want: designing MARIO an acceptable robot companion. In: International conference on computers helping people with special needs. Springer, Berlin, pp 318–325

  10. Castillo JC, Cáceres-Domínguez D, Alonso-Martín F, Castro-González Á, Salichs MÁ (2017) Dynamic gesture recognition for social robots. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 495–505

  11. Chang WL, Šabanovic S, Huber L (2013) Use of seal-like robot Paro in sensory group therapy for older adults with dementia. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, New York, pp 101–102

  12. de Graaf MM, Allouch SB, Klamer T (2015) Sharing a life with Harvey: exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Comput Hum Behav 43:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Eftring H, Frennert S (2016) Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Z Gerontol Geriatr 49(4):274–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fasola J, Matarić MJ (2013) A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. J Hum Robot Interact 2(2):3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fernandez-Rodicio E, Castro-Gonzalez A, Castillo JC, Alonso-Martin F, Salichs MA (2018) Composable multimodal dialogues based on communicative acts. In: Ge SS, Cabibihan JJ, Salichs MA, Broadbent E, He H, Wagner AR, Castro-Gonzalez A (eds) Social robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 139–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.029 (Assistance and service robotics in a human environment)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Furuta Y, Kanoh M, Shimizu T, Shimizu M, Nakamura T (2012) Subjective evaluation of use of babyloid for doll therapy. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE). IEEE, New York, pp 1–4

  18. Georgiadis D, Christophorou C, Kleanthous S, Andreou P, Santos L, Christodoulou E, Samaras G (2016) A robotic cloud ecosystem for elderly care and ageing well: the GrowMeuP approach. In: XIV Mediterranean conference on medical and biological engineering and computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 919–924

  19. González-Díaz S, Velázquez Navarro E, Alonso-Martín F, Castro-Gonzalez A, Castillo J, Malfaz M, Salichs M (2019) Social robot Mini as information and entertainment platform. In: Medina FT, Garcia OR (eds) Actas de las Jornadas Nacionales de Robótica. Spanish national robotics conference, pp 92–97

  20. Graham J (2017) The disabled and the elderly are facing a big problem: Not enough aides. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-disabled-and-the-elderly-are-facing-a-big-problem-not-enough-aides/2017/04/21/5846f576-237f-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.886d720950bc

  21. Guo S, Xu H, Thalmann NM, Yao J (2017) Customization and fabrication of the appearance for humanoid robot. Vis Comput 33(1):63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-016-1329-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Haring KS, Watanabe K, Mougenot C (2013) The influence of robot appearance on assessment. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 131–132 . https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483536

  23. Harlow HF (1958) The nature of love. Am Psychol 13(12):673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kay T (2017) Human resource requirements for meeting the needs of ageing societies. Asia Pac Popul J 32(1):51–73

    Google Scholar 

  25. Klein B, Cook G (2012) Emotional robotics in elder care—a comparison of findings in the UK and Germany. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 108–117

  26. Knowles B, Hanson VL (2018) The wisdom of older technology (non)users. Commun ACM 61(3):72–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3179995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kramer SC, Friedmann E, Bernstein PL (2009) Comparison of the effect of human interaction, animal-assisted therapy, and AIBO-assisted therapy on long-term care residents with dementia. Anthrozoös 22(1):43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lewis L, Metzler T, Cook L (2016) An autonomous robot-to-group exercise coach at a senior living community: a study in human–robot interaction. Int J Artif Life Res (IJALR) 6(2):44–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis L, Metzler T, Cook L (2016) Evaluating human–robot interaction using a robot exercise instructor at a senior living community. In: Kubota N, Kiguchi K, Liu H, Obo T (eds) Intelligent robotics and applications, vol 9835. Springer, Cham, pp 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43518-3_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Martín F, Agüero C, Cañas JM, Abella G, Benítez R, Rivero S, Valenti M, Martínez-Martín P (2013) Robots in therapy for dementia patients. J Phys Agents 7(1):48–55

    Google Scholar 

  31. Marx MS, Cohen-Mansfield J, Regier NG, Dakheel-Ali M, Srihari A, Thein K (2010) The impact of different dog-related stimuli on engagement of persons with dementia. Am J Alzheimer’s Dis Other Dement 25(1):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Perula-Martinez R, Salichs E, Encinar IP, Castro-Gonzalez A, Salichs M (2015) Improving the expressiveness of a social robot through luminous devices. In: HRI’15 extended abstracts, Portland, pp 5–6

  33. Pineau J, Montemerlo M, Pollack M, Roy N, Thrun S (2003) Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: challenges and results. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):271–281

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Pollack ME, Brown L, Colbry D, Orosz C, Peintner B, Ramakrishnan S, Engberg S, Matthews JT, Dunbar-Jacob J, McCarthy CE et al (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI workshop on automation as eldercare, pp 85–91

  35. Portugal D, Alvito P, Christodoulou E, Samaras G, Dias J (2019) A study on the deployment of a service robot in an elderly care center. Int J Social Robot 11(2):317–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Quigley M, Conley K, Gerkey B, Faust J, Foote T, Leibs J, Wheeler R, Ng AY (2009) ROS: an open-source robot operating system. In: ICRA workshop on open source software, vol 3, Kobe, p 5

  37. Salichs MA, Barber R, Khamis AM, Malfaz M, Gorostiza JF, Pacheco R, Rivas R, Corrales A, Delgado E, Garcia D (2006) Maggie: a robotic platform for human–robot social interaction. In: 2006 IEEE conference on robotics, automation and mechatronics, pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMECH.2006.252754

  38. Salichs MA, Encinar IP, Salichs E, Castro-González Á, Malfaz M (2016) Study of scenarios and technical requirements of a social assistive robot for Alzheimer’s disease patients and their caregivers. Int J Soc Robot 8(1):85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0319-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scheil-Adlung X (2015) Long-term care protection for older persons: a review of coverage deficits in 46 countries. In: Extension of social security-working paper no. 50. International Labour Office, Geneva

  40. Scheutz M (2011) 13 the inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics, p 205

  41. Schillinger P, Kohlbrecher S, von Stryk O (2016) Human–robot collaborative high-level control with an application to rescue robotics. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Stockholm

  42. Sherry L (1996) Willis: everyday problem solving. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW (eds) Handbook of the psychology of aging, 4th edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 287–307

    Google Scholar 

  43. Smith DBD (1990) Human factors and aging: an overview of research needs and application opportunities. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergonom Soc 32(5):509–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089003200502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stiehl WD, Lee JK, Toscano RL, Breazeal C (2008) The huggable: a platform for research in robotic companions for eldercare. In: AAAI fall symposium: AI in eldercare: new solutions to old problems, pp 109–115

  45. Sung HC, Chang SM, Chin MY, Lee WL (2015) Robot-assisted therapy for improving social interactions and activity participation among institutionalized older adults: a pilot study. Asia Pac Psychiatry 7(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tapus A, Tapus C, Matarić MJ (2009) Music therapist robot for individuals with cognitive impairments. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot–interaction, HRI’09. ACM, New York, pp 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514184

  47. Tapus A, Vieru AM (2013) Robot cognitive stimulation for the elderly. In: International work-conference on the interplay between natural and artificial computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 94–102

  48. Velazquez Navarro E, Gonzalez-Diaz S, Alonso-Martin F, Castillo J, Castro-Gonzalez A, Malfaz M, Salichs M (2019) Social robot Mini as a platform for developing multimodal interaction games. In: Medina FT, Garcia OR (eds) Actas de las Jornadas Nacionales de Robótica. Spanish National Robotics Conference, pp 214–220

  49. Viola P, Jones MJ (2004) Robust real-time face detection. Int J Comput Vis 57(2):137–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yang CY, Lu MJ, Tseng SH, Fu LC (2017) A companion robot for daily care of elders based on homeostasis. In: 2017 56th annual conference of the society of instrument and control engineers of Japan (SICE). IEEE, New York, pp 1401–1406

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Systems Engineering and Automation, Robotics Lab, Carlos III University of Madrid Avda. Universidad 30, 28911, Leganés, Madrid, Spain

    Miguel A. Salichs, Álvaro Castro-González, Esther Salichs, Enrique Fernández-Rodicio, Marcos Maroto-Gómez, Juan José Gamboa-Montero, Sara Marques-Villarroya, José Carlos Castillo, Fernando Alonso-Martín & Maria Malfaz

Authors
  1. Miguel A. Salichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Álvaro Castro-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esther Salichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Enrique Fernández-Rodicio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcos Maroto-Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juan José Gamboa-Montero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sara Marques-Villarroya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. José Carlos Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fernando Alonso-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maria Malfaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Álvaro Castro-González.

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.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the projects: Development of social robots to help seniors with cognitive impairment (ROBSEN), funded by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad; and Robots Sociales para Estimulación Física, Cognitiva y Afectiva de Mayores (ROSES), funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades.

Numerical Results

Numerical Results

Table 2 contains the numerical results of the preliminary evaluation of Mini in terms of usability, appearance, and satisfaction.

Table 2 Preliminary results from the users answers
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salichs, M.A., Castro-González, Á., Salichs, E. et al. Mini: A New Social Robot for the Elderly. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 1231–1249 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00687-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00687-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation