Autonomous Robots

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 657–678 | Cite as

An autonomous robotic exercise tutor for elderly people

  • Binnur GörerEmail author
  • Albert Ali Salah
  • H. Levent Akın


Ambient assisted living proposes to utilize technological solutions to sustain the well being of elderly people. In accordance with the vision of successful aging, we describe in this study an autonomous robotic exercise tutor for elderly people. The robot learns a set of physical exercises from a human demonstrator in an imitation framework, and performs these motions in an exercise scenario, while monitoring the elderly person to provide verbal feedback. We developed an exercise program in collaboration with a nursing home, and tested our system in a real world scenario with visitors of a day care center, over multiple sessions. We provide a detailed description of the system implementation, as well as our observations for the exercise program. For the study held in the day care center, video annotations and user self-assessments are evaluated to measure the overall performance of the system and to validate our approach. The analysis revealed that elderly people can successfully exercise with the assistance of the robot, while staying engaged with the system over multiple sessions.


Robotic exercise tutor Elderly-robot interaction Imitation Gesture Gerontechnology 



We are grateful to Okan Aşık for his comments on this work and his help with the observational studies. We further thank İbrahim Özcan for his help with the annotations. This work is supported in part by Boğaziçi University Research Fund through project 13A01P3.


  1. Bainbridge, W. A., Hart, J, Kim, E. S. & Scassellati, B. (2008). The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In: The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 701–706.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, P., Spooner, T., Dhabolt, J., & Leighton, J. (2009). Instructional gaming methods and apparatus. Patent, A1, 20090176581.Google Scholar
  3. Billard, A., Calinon, S., Dillmann, R. & Schaal, S. (2008). Robot programming by demonstration. In: Springer handbook of robotics, Springer, pp. 1371–1394.Google Scholar
  4. Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: A review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, D. A. (2012). Quantifying upper-arm rehabilitation metrics for children through interaction with a humanoid robot. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Colombo, R., Pisano, F., Mazzone, A., Delconte, C., Micera, S., Carrozza, M., et al. (2007). Design strategies to improve patient motivation during robot-aided rehabilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 4(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L. & Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1192–1197.Google Scholar
  8. Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2009a). Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. In Universal access in human-computer interaction (pp. 39–48). Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2009b). More than a servant: Self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, 53, pp. 136–140.Google Scholar
  10. Fasola, J., & Mataric, M. (2012). Using socially assistive human-robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(8), 2512–2526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fasola, J., & Mataric, M. (2013). A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2(2), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fasola, J., & Matarić, M. J. (2013). A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2(2), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feil-Seifer, D. & Mataric, M. (2005). Defining socially assistive robotics. In: 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR, pp. 465–468.Google Scholar
  14. Feil-Seifer, D., & Mataric, M. (2011). Socially assistive robotics. Robotics Automation Magazine, IEEE, 18(1), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gadde, P., Kharrazi, H., Patel, H., & MacDorman, K. F. (2011). Toward monitoring and increasing exercise adherence in older adults by robotic intervention: A proof of concept study. Journal of Robotics, 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giuliani, M., Scopelliti, M., & Fornara, F. (2005). Elderly people at home: technological help in everyday activities. In: IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, pp. 365–370.Google Scholar
  17. Görer, B., Salah, A. A. & Akın, H. L. (2013). A robotic fitness coach for the elderly. In: Ambient Intelligence, Springer, pp. 124–139.Google Scholar
  18. Heerink, M. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social robots by aging adults. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B., et al. (2008). The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2), 33–40.Google Scholar
  20. Hu, K., Ott, C., & Lee, D. (2014). Online human walking imitation in task and joint space based on quadratic programming. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3458–3464.Google Scholar
  21. Kidd, C. & Breazeal, C. (2004). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vol. 4, pp. 3559–3564.Google Scholar
  22. Klamer, T. & Allouch, S. B. (2010). Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. In: 4th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  23. Koenemann, J., Burget, F. & Bennewitz, M. (2014). Real-time imitation of human whole-body motions by humanoids. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, pp. 2806–2812.Google Scholar
  24. Kuniyoshi, Y., Inaba, M., & Inoue, H. (1994). Learning by watching: Extracting reusable task knowledge from visual observation of human performance. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 10(6), 799–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, D., & Ott, C. (2011). Incremental kinesthetic teaching of motion primitives using the motion refinement tube. Autonomous Robots, 31(2–3), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., Friesen, W. V., & Ekman, P. (1991). Emotion, physiology, and expression in old age. Psychology and Aging, 6(1), 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A., & Cnossen, F. (2010). Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(6), 386–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopez Recio, D., Marquez Segura, L., Marquez Segura, E. & Waern, A. (2013). The NAO models for the elderly. In: 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 187–188.Google Scholar
  29. Matsusaka, Y., Fujii, H., Okano, T. & Hara, I. (2009). Health exercise demonstration robot TAIZO and effects of using voice command in robot-human collaborative demonstration. In: IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 472–477.Google Scholar
  30. Nakazawa, A., Nakaoka, S., Ikeuchi, K. & Yokoi, K. (2002). Imitating human dance motions through motion structure analysis. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2539–2544.Google Scholar
  31. Nguyen, V. V., & Lee, J. H . (2012). Full-body imitation of human motions with kinect and heterogeneous kinematic structure of humanoid robot. In: IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration, pp. 93–98.Google Scholar
  32. Ou, Y., Hu, J., Wang, Z., Fu, Y., Wu, X., & Li, X. (2015). A real-time human imitation system using kinect. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., & Thrun, S. (2003). Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: Challenges and results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 271–281.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Powell, M. (1998). Direct search algorithms for optimization calculations. Acta Numerica, 7, 287–336.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Ros, R., Baroni, I., & Demiris, Y. (2014). Adaptive human-robot interaction in sensorimotor task instruction: From human to robot dance tutors. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 62(6), 707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharit, J., Czaja, S. J., Perdomo, D., & Lee, C. C. (2004). A cost-benefit analysis methodology for assessing product adoption by older user populations. Applied Ergonomics, 35(2), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shiomi, M., Iio, T., Kamei, K., Sharma, C., & Hagita, N. (2015). Effectiveness of social behaviors for autonomous wheelchair robot to support elderly people in Japan. PloS One, 10(5), e0128,031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smarr, C. A., Mitzner, T. L., Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Chen, T. L., Kemp, C. C., et al. (2014). Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sucar, L., Azcárate, G., Leder, R., Reinkensmeyer, D., Hernández, J., Sanchez, I., et al. (2009). Gesture therapy: A vision-based system for arm rehabilitation after stroke. Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies International Joint Conference, BIOSTEC, Springer, Vol. 25, pp. 531–540.Google Scholar
  40. Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., Shell, D. A., & Mataric, M. J. (2007). Embodiment and human-robot interaction: A task-based perspective. In: The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human interactive Communication, IEEE, pp. 872–877.Google Scholar
  41. Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In: Proceedings of LREC, pp. 1556–1559.Google Scholar
  42. Wu, Y. H., Fassert, C., & Rigaud, A. S. (2012). Designing robots for the elderly: Appearance issue and beyond. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 54(1), 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu, Y. H., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerhervé, H., Damnée, S. & Rigaud, A. S. (2014). Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a 1-month period in the living lab setting. Clinical interventions in aging 9Google Scholar
  44. Yoshikawa, Y., Shinozawa, K., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N. & Miyamoto, N. (2006). The effects of responsive eye movement and blinking behavior in a communication robot. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4564–4569.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Binnur Görer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Albert Ali Salah
    • 1
  • H. Levent Akın
    • 1
  1. 1.Boğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations