Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 429–442 | Cite as

Acceptability of a Teleoperated Android by Senior Citizens in Danish Society

A Case Study on the Application of an Embodied Communication Medium to Home Care
  • Ryuji Yamazaki
  • Shuichi Nishio
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
  • Marco Nørskov
  • Nobu Ishiguro
  • Giuseppe Balistreri
Article

Abstract

We explore the potential of teleoperated androids, which are embodied telecommunication media with humanlike appearances. By conducting a pilot study, we investigated how Telenoid, a teleoperated android designed as a minimalistic human, affects people in the real world when it is employed to express telepresence and a sense of ‘being there’. Our exploratory study focused on the social aspects of the android robot, which might facilitate communication between the elderly and Telenoid’s operator. This new way of creating social relationships can be used to solve a problem in society, the social isolation of senior citizens. It has become a major issue even in Denmark that is known as one of countries with advanced welfare systems. In this pilot study at Danish homes, we found that the elderly with or without dementia showed positive attitudes toward Telenoid and developed various dialogue strategies. Contrary to the issue of revulsion that can be caused by humanlike robots and the negative reactions by non-users in media reports, we discuss potentials and challenges of the android’s embodiment for social inclusion of senior citizens in telecommunications.

Keywords

Teleoperated android Minimal design Embodied communication Social isolation Elderly care Social acceptance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by JST CREST, and MEXT KAKENHI 24300200. The authors thank all the participants and our colleagues for their cooperation in this work, especially Martin Fischer at Svendborg Municipality, Martin Exner at Danish University of Education, Jari Due Jessen at Technical University of Denmark, Helle Skovbjerg Karoff at Technical University of Denmark, and Ilona Straub at University Duisburg-Essen.

References

  1. 1.
    Population Division, United Nations (2011) World population prospects: the 2010 revision. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Townsend P (1957) The family life of old people. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kitwood T (1997) Dementia reconsidered: the person comes first. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Madsen B, Olesen P (eds) (2003) Ældre om ensomhed: 25 ældre skriver om at være ensom (Serie om sorg og savn) [Elderly about loneliness: 25 elderly write about being lonely (series about sorrow and loss)]. Kroghs Forlag, VejleGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Willis SL (1996) Everyday problem solving. In: Birren JE et al (eds) Handbook of the psychology of aging, 4th edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 287–307Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aging in place: a state survey of livability policies and practices. In: The national conference of State Legislatures and the AARP Public Policy Institute, 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamazaki R, Nishio S, Ogawa K, Ishiguro H (2012) Teleoperated android as an embodied communication medium: a case study with demented elderlies in a care facility. In: Proceedings of the RO-MAN’12, pp 1066–1071Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamazaki R, Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Nørskov M, Ishiguro N, Balistreri G (2012) Social acceptance of a teleoperated android: field study on elderly’s engagement with an embodied communication medium in Denmark. In: Proceedings of the international conference on social robotics (ICSR 2012), pp 428–437Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denmarks Statistik. http://www.dst.dk/da/. Accessed 23 Nov 2013 (in Danish)
  10. 10.
    Cabinet Office Japan, Annual report on the aging society: 2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rostgaard T, Glendinning C, Gori C, Kröger T, Österle A, Szebehely M, Thoebald H, Timonen V, Vabø M (2011) LIVINDHOME: living independently at home: reforms in home care in 9 European countries. SFI—The Danish National Centre for Social Research, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meijer A, van Campen C, Kerkstra A (2000) A comparative study of the financing, provision and quality of care in nursing homes. The approach of four European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. J Adv Nurs 32(3):554–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mynatt ED, Essa I, Rogers W (2000) Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Proceedings of the 2000 conference on universal usability, pp 65–71Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kautz H, Fox D, Etzioni O, Borriello G, Arnstein L (2002) An overview of the assisted cognition project. The role of intelligent technology in elder care. AAAI Press, Automation as Caregiver, Menlo Park, pp 60–65Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pollack ME (2002) Planning technology for intelligent cognitive orthotics. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence planning systems, p 322Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB (2010) Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med 7(7):e1000316(1)–e1000316(20)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brooker D, Duceb L (2000) Well-being and activity in dementia: a comparison of group reminiscence therapy, structured goal-directed group activity, and unstructured time. Aging Ment Health 4:354–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuwahara N, Abe S, Yasuda K, Kuwabara K (2006) Networked reminiscence therapy for individuals with dementia by using photo and video sharing. In: Proceedings of the ASSETS’06, pp 125–132Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alaoui M, Lewkowicz M (2013) A livingLab approach to involve elderly in the design of smart TV applications offering communication services. In: Online Communities and Social Computing, pp 325–334Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A (2010) User-centered evaluation of robotic telepresence for an elderly population. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on designing robotic artefacts with user- and experience-centred perspectives at NordiCHI’10, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wada K, Shibata T (2006) Robot therapy in a care house: results of case studies. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 581–586Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pollack ME, Engberg S, Thrun S (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. The role of intelligent technology in elder care. AAAI Press, Automation as Caregiver, Menlo Park, pp 85–91Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tamura T, Yonemitsu S, Itoh A, Oikawa D, Kawakami A, Higashi Y, Fujimoto T, Nakajima K (2004) Is an entertainment robot useful in the care of elderly people with severe dementia? J Gerontol Med Sci 59A(1):83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2006) The influence of a robot’s social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. In: Proceedings of the RO-MAN’06, pp 521–526Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stiehl WD, Lieberman J, Breazeal C, Basel L, Cooper R, Knight H, Lalla L, Maymin A, Purchase S (2006) The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: Proceedings of the 3rd consumer communications and networking conference, pp 1290–1291Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee D, Yamazaki T, Helal S (2009) Robotic companions for smart space interaction. Pervasive Comput 8:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani [The uncanny valley]. Energy 7(4):33–35 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Green A, Huttenrauch H, Eklundh KS (2004) Applying the Wizard-of-Oz framework to cooperative service discovery and configuration. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 575–580Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sellen AJ (1992) Speech patterns in video-mediated conversations. In: Proceedings of the CHI’92, pp 49–59Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fahlen LE, Brown CG, Stahl O, Carlsson C (1993) A space based model for user interaction in shared synthetic environments. In: Proceedings of the INTERCHI’93, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buxton W (1997) Living in augmented reality: ubiquitous media and reactive environments. In: Finn K, Sellen A, Wilber S (eds) Video mediated communication. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 363–384Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morikawa O (2004) The sense of togetherness in HyperMirror: an explanation using cognitive modes. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on artificial reality and telexistence, ICAT’04, pp 584–587Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee MK, Takayama L (2011) “Now, I have a body”: uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In: Proceedings of the CHI’11, pp 33–42Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hollan J, Stornetta S (1992) Beyond being there. In: Proceedings of the CHI’92, pp 119–125Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yamazaki R, Nishio S, Ogawa K, Matsumura K, Minato T, Ishiguro H, Fujinami T, Nishikawa M (2013) Promoting socialization of schoolchildren using a teleoperated android: an interaction study. Int J Hum Robot (IJHR) 10(1):1350007(1)–1350007(25)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ishiguro H (2005) Android science: toward a new cross-disciplinary framework. In: Proceedings of toward social mechanisms of android science. A CogSci 2005 Workshop, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:143–166CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Minato T, Shimada M, Ishiguro H, Itakura S (2004) Development of an android robot for studying human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on industrial and engineering applications of artificial intelligence and expert systems, pp 424–434Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Can a teleoperated android represent personal presence? A case study with children. Psychologia 50(4):330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ogawa K, Nishio S, Koda K, Balistreri G, Watanabe T, Ishiguro H (2011) Exploring the natural reaction of young and aged person with Telenoid in a real world. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform 15(5):592–597Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Geminoid: teleoperated android of an existing person. Hum Robot New Dev 20:343–352Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sekiguchi D, Inami M, Tachi S (2001) Robot-PHONE: RUI for interpersonal communication. In: CHI’01 Ext. Abst, pp 277–278Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kuwamura K, Minato T, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2012) Personality distortion in communication through teleoperated robots. In: Proceedings of the RO-MAN’12, pp 49–54Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Montgomery E (2003) The hug: an exploration of robotic form for intimate communication. In: Proceedings of the RO-MAN’03, pp 403–408Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ogawa K, Nishio S, Koda K, Taura K, T. Minato, Ishii CT, Ishiguro H (2011) Telenoid: tele-presence android for communication. In: Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH emerging technologies, p 15Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alač M, Movellan J, Tanaka F (2011) When a robot is social: enacting a social robot through spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in robotics practice. Soc Stud Sci 41(6): 126–159Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Den kan ogsa give en krammer [It can also give a hug]. http://www.information.dk/263649. Accessed 7 Jun 2012 (in Danish)
  48. 48.
    Kavanaugh AL, Patterson SJ (2001) The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement. Am Behav Sci 45:496–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sone Y (2008) Realism of the unreal: the Japanese robot and the performance of representation. Vis Commun 7:345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaplan F (2004) Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int J Human Robot (IJHR) 1(3):465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nomura T (2009) Who and under what context requires “Roboethics” from cross-cultural perspective on assumptions about robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ICRA 2009 workshop on RoboEthics, pp 118–119Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tanaka F, Cicourel A, Movellan JR (2007) Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(46):17954–17958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) (2002) Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) educational packGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryuji Yamazaki
    • 1
  • Shuichi Nishio
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
    • 2
  • Marco Nørskov
    • 3
  • Nobu Ishiguro
    • 4
  • Giuseppe Balistreri
    • 5
  1. 1.Hiroshi Ishiguro LaboratoryAdvanced Telecommunications Research Institute InternationalKeihanna Science CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering ScienceOsaka UniversityToyonakaJapan
  3. 3.Institute for Culture and Society – PhilosophyAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  4. 4.Studies in Language and Society, Graduate School of Language and CultureOsaka UniversityMinooJapan
  5. 5.DICGIM – Università degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations