Skip to main content

Assessing the Acceptability of a Humanoid Robot for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia Care Using an Online Survey


In this work, an online survey was used to understand the acceptability of humanoid robots and users’ needs in using these robots to assist with care among people with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), their family caregivers, health care professionals, and the general public. From November 1, 2020 to March 13, 2021, a total of 631 complete responses were collected, including 80 responses from people with mild cognitive impairment or ADRD, 245 responses from caregivers and health care professionals, and 306 responses from the general public. We carried out detailed caparisons between people with ADRD, caregivers, and general public for their opinions about robot acceptance, robotic functionality, usability, and ethical issues. Overall, people with ADRD, caregivers, and the general public showed positive attitudes towards using the robot to assist with care for people with ADRD. The top three functions of robots required by the group of people with ADRD were reminders to take medicine, emergency call service, and helping contact medical services. Additionally, we included a discussion of the comments, suggestions, and concerns from the caregivers and the general public. We recognized common concerns raised by the participants, including the cost of the robot, the machine-like voice of the robot, and reduced acceptability of the robot by people with ADRD due to cognitive deficit. The results of this article are of significant relevance for the applications of social robotics in dementia care and for biomedical interventions related to AI and robotics in healthcare. Moreover, the discussions on potentials and limitations identified in this article will shed light for future design, development, and evaluation of socially assistive robots for people living with dementia.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Data availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. Patterson C (2018) World alzheimer report 2018. Alzheimer’s disease international (ADI), London

  2. Association A (2021) 2021 alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement 17(3)

  3. Brodaty H, Donkin M (2009) Family caregivers of people with dementia. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 11(2):217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kruse CS, Fohn J, Umunnakwe G, Patel K, Patel S (2020) Evaluating the facilitators, barriers, and medical outcomes commensurate with the use of assistive technology to support people with dementia: a systematic review literature. In: Healthcare, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, vol 8, p 278

  5. Woods D, Yuan F, Jao YL, Zhao X (2021) Social robots for older adults with dementia: A narrative review on challenges & future directions. In: International conference on social robotics, Singapore

  6. Yuan F, Zhang R, Bilal D, Zhao X (2021a) Learning-based strategy design for robot-assisted reminiscence therapy based on a developed model for people with dementia. In: International conference on social robotics, Singapore

  7. Yuan F, Blackburn J, Condon C, Bowland S, Lopez R, Zhao X (2021b) A social robot-based psychoeducational program to enhance alzheimer’s caregiver health. In: CHASE 2021: IEEE/ACM conference on connected health: applications, systems and engineering technologies, Washington D.C

  8. Liu Z, Collier P, Wang C, Paek EJ, Yoon SO, Casenhiser D, Zhao X (2021) A demonstration of human-robot communication based on multiskilled language-image analysis. In: CHASE 2021: IEEE/ACM conference on connected health: applications, systems and engineering technologies, Washington D.C

  9. Taheri A, Alemi M, Meghdari A, Pouretemad H, Holderread S (2015) Clinical application of humanoid robots in playing imitation games for autistic children in Iran. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 176:898–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li J (2015) The benefit of being physically present: a survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int J Human-Comput Stud 77:23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shibata T (2012) Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device: qualitative and quantitative evaluations of robot therapy in dementia care. Proc IEEE 100(8):2527–2538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pino O, Palestra G, Trevino R, De Carolis B (2020) The humanoid robot nao as trainer in a memory program for elderly people with mild cognitive impairment. Int J Soc Robot 12(1):21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Manca M, Paternò F, Santoro C, Zedda E, Braschi C, Franco R, Sale A (2021) The impact of serious games with humanoid robots on mild cognitive impairment older adults. Int J Human-Comput Stud 145:102509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McCallum S, Boletsis C (2013) Dementia games: a literature review of dementia-related serious games. In: International conference on serious games development and applications, Springer, pp 15–27

  15. Hartson R, Pyla PS (2018) The UX book: agile UX design for a quality user experience. Morgan Kaufmann.

  16. Di Nuovo A, Broz F, Wang N, Belpaeme T, Cangelosi A, Jones R, Esposito R, Cavallo F, Dario P (2018) The multi-modal interface of robot-era multi-robot services tailored for the elderly. Intell Serv Robot 11(1):109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Whelan S, Murphy K, Barrett E, Krusche C, Santorelli A, Casey D (2018) Factors affecting the acceptability of social robots by older adults including people with dementia or cognitive impairment: a literature review. Int J Soc Robot 10(5):643–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sancarlo D, D’Onofrio G, Oscar J, Ricciardi F, Casey D, Murphy K, Giuliani F, Greco A (2016) Mario project: a multicenter survey about companion robot acceptability in caregivers of patients with dementia. In: Italian forum of ambient assisted living, Springer, pp 311–336

  19. Cavallo F, Esposito R, Limosani R, Manzi A, Bevilacqua R, Felici E, Di Nuovo A, Cangelosi A, Lattanzio F, Dario P (2018) Robotic services acceptance in smart environments with older adults: user satisfaction and acceptability study. J Med Internet Res 20(9):e264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Coco K, Kangasniemi M, Rantanen T (2018) Care personnel’s attitudes and fears toward care robots in elderly care: a comparison of data from the care personnel in finland and japan. J Nurs Scholarsh 50(6):634–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Suwa S, Tsujimura M, Kodate N, Donnelly S, Kitinoja H, Hallila J, Toivonen M, Ide H, Bergman-Kärpijoki C, Takahashi E et al (2020) Exploring perceptions toward home-care robots for older people in Finland, Ireland, and Japan: a comparative questionnaire study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 91:104178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Flandorfer P (2012) Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int J Popul Res.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ryan C (2018) Computer and internet use in the United States (2016) US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. U.S, CENSUS BUREAU

  24. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pandey AK, Gelin R (2018) A mass-produced sociable humanoid robot: pepper: the first machine of its kind. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 25(3):40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yuan F, Anderson JG, Wyatt T, Lopez RP, Crane M, Montgomery A, Zhao X (2020) Feasibility study on robotic care of alzheimer’s.

  27. QuestionPro (2021) Geo-coding., Accessed 08 April 2021

  28. Vargha A, Delaney HD (2000) A critique and improvement of the cl common language effect size statistics of Mcgraw and Wong. J Educ Behav Stat 25(2):101–132

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schütze H, Manning CD, Raghavan P (2008) Introduction to information retrieval, vol 39. Cambridge University Press Cambridge

  30. QuestionPro (2021) Word cloud., Accessed 20 July 2021

  31. Law M, Sutherland C, Ahn HS, MacDonald BA, Peri K, Johanson DL, Vajsakovic DS, Kerse N, Broadbent E (2019) Developing assistive robots for people with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia: a qualitative study with older adults and experts in aged care. BMJ open 9(9):e031937

  32. Coşar S, Fernandez-Carmona M, Agrigoroaie R, Pages J, Ferland F, Zhao F, Yue S, Bellotto N, Tapus A (2020) Enrichme: perception and interaction of an assistive robot for the elderly at home. Int J Soc Robot 12(3):779–805

  33. Faucounau V, Wu YH, Boulay M, Maestrutti M, Rigaud AS et al (2009) Caregivers’ requirements for in-home robotic agent for supporting community-living elderly subjects with cognitive impairment. Technol Health Care 17(1):33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pigini L, Facal D, Blasi L, Andrich R (2012) Service robots in elderly care at home: users’ needs and perceptions as a basis for concept development. Technol Disabil 24(4):303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Korchut A, Szklener S, Abdelnour C, Tantinya N, Hernández-Farigola J, Ribes JC, Skrobas U, Grabowska-Aleksandrowicz K, Szczȩśniak-Stańczyk D, Rejdak K (2017) challenges for service robots-requirements of elderly adults with cognitive impairments. Front Neurol 8:228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yuan F, Klavon E, Liu Z, Lopez RP, Zhao X (2021) A systematic review of robotic rehabilitation for cognitive training. Front Robot AI 8:105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McCabe M, You E, Tatangelo G (2016) Hearing their voice: a systematic review of dementia family caregivers’ needs. Gerontol 56(5):e70–e88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Prakash A, Rogers WA (2015) Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task. Int J Soc Rbot 7(2):309–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Khosla R, Nguyen K, Chu MT (2017) Human robot engagement and acceptability in residential aged care. Int J Human-Comput Interact 33(6):510–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaopeng Zhao.

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.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (pdf 166 KB)

Supplementary file 2 (pdf 221 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuan, F., Anderson, J.G., Wyatt, T.H. et al. Assessing the Acceptability of a Humanoid Robot for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia Care Using an Online Survey. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 1223–1237 (2022).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: