Socially Assistive Robots in the Aging Population: End Users’ Involvement on Their Development Process

  • Liliana B. SousaEmail author
  • Paulo Santos Costa
  • Rafael A. Bernardes
  • Inês Marques
  • Beatriz Serambeque
  • João Apóstolo
  • Pedro Parreira
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1185)


There is an urgent need for efficient solutions that can promote healthy aging, with quality of life and well-being. Technological solutions might be strong allies in the promotion of active aging, to allow for the older adult to adapt and fulfill daily living activities at home. When applying technology to healthcare, particularly in the older population, socially assistive robots are found to be an important emerging research topic, being promising in preventing diseases related to aging and frailty, contributing to healthy aging. Human-centered design appears as a methodology to involve the user in the development process. Unfortunately, in the revision we made, only in few robots’ development, the authors reported the involvement of end users in the process.


Socially assisted robots Older adults End users Human-centered design 



The authors would like to thank the Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra for all the support. The authors PSC (SFRH/BD/136487/2018) and IAM (SFRH/BD/136973/2018) would like to thank the Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (FCT) for the financial support granted through the 2018 Ph.D. Scholarship program.


  1. 1.
    Population Reference Bureau: 2010 World population data sheet (2010).
  2. 2.
    Statistics National Institute: Projecções da população residente em Portugal 2008–2060 (Projections about the population living in Portugal 2008–2060) (2009).
  3. 3.
    Statistics National Institute: Censos 2011 (2012).
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization: World Report on Ageing and Health. WHO, Geneve (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization: Active Aging: A Policy Framework. WHO, Geneve (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson, E.: Cognitive change in old age. In: Jacoby, R., Oppenheimer, C., Dening, T., Thomas, A. (eds.) Oxford Textbook of Old Age Psychiatry, pp. 33–50. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Millán-Calenti, J.C., Tubío, J., Pita-Fernández, S., Rochette, S., Lorenzo, T., Maseda, A.: Cognitive impairment as predictor of functional dependence in an elderly sample. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 54, 197–201 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Razani, J., et al.: Patterns of deficits in daily functioning and cognitive performance of patients with Alzheimer disease. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol. 24(1), 23–32 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindgren, B.: The Rise in Life Expectancy, Health Trends among the Elderly, and the Demand for Health and Social Care, pp. 1–38 (2016). National Institute of Economic Research, Lund.
  11. 11.
    Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission: The 2018 Ageing Report: Economic & Budgetary Projections for the 28 EU Member States (2016–2070), pp. 1–406 (2018). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
  12. 12.
    Oliveira, C.R., Rosa, M.S., Pinto, A.M., Botelho, M.A., Morais, A., Veríssimo, M.T.: Estudo do perfil do envelhecimento da população portuguesa; Coimbra; Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Coimbra, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Eurotrials scientific consultants, Programa operacional saúde XXI, Alto Comissariado da Saúde, Ministério da Saúde (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sousa, L.B.: Abordagem funcional na determinação da capacidade financeira e testamentária: Linhas orientadoras e desenvolvimento de instrumentos de avaliação (Functional approach in financial and testamentary capacity: Guidelines and development of assessment instruments). Tese de doutoramento apresentada à Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spruytte, N., Audenhove, C., Lammertyn, F., Storms, G.: The quality of the caregiving relationship in informal care for older adults with dementia and chronic psychiatric patients. Psychol. Psychother. Theor Res. Pract. 75(3), 295–311 (2002). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gil, I., Costa, P., Parola, V., Cardoso, D., Almeida, M., Apóstolo, J.: Efficacy of reminiscence in cognition, depressive symptoms and quality of life in institutionalized elderly: a systematic review. Rev. Esc. Enferm. USP 53, e03458 (2019). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luppa, M., Luck, T., Weyerer, S., Konig, H., Brahler, E., Riedel-Heller, S.: Prediction of institutionalization in the elderly. Syst. Rev. Age Ageing 39(1), 31–38 (2009). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2), 94–103 (2009). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G.J., Jonker, P., Witte, L.: The potential of socially assistive robotics in care for elderly, a systematic review. Soc. Inform. Telecommun. Eng. 59, 83–89 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterlé, B.D., Gastmans, C.: How older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Mental Health 22(2), 149–167 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abdi, J., Al-Hindawi, A., Ng, T., Vizcaychipi, M.P.: Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 8, e018815 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Khosla, R., Chu, M.: Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 30, 369–393 (2014). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G.J., Jonker, P., Witte, L.: Social assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. JAMDA 13, 114–120 (2012)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Broadbent, E.: The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 575–591 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu, Y., Fassert, C., Rigaud, A.: Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 54, 121–126 (2012). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pollack, M.E.: Intelligent technology for an aging population: the use of AI to assist elders with cognitive impairment. AI Mag. 26, 9–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mordoch, E., Osterreicher, A., Guse, L., Roger, K., Thompson, G.: Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Maturitas 74, 14–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noury, N.: AILISA: experimental platforms to evaluate remote care and assistive technologies in gerontology. In: Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Enterprise networking and Computing in Healthcare Industry 2005, HEALTHCOM 2005, Busan, South Korea, pp. 67–72 (2005).
  28. 28.
    Dario, P., Guglielmelli, E., Laschi, C., Teti, G.: MOVAID: a personal robot in everyday life of disabled and elderly people. Technol. Disabil. 10(1999), 77–93 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gross, H. et al.: Progress in developing a socially assistive mobile home robot companion for the elderly with mild cognitive impairment. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA, pp. 2430–2437 (2011).
  30. 30.
    Fujita, M.: AIBO: toward the era of digital creatures. Int. J. Robot. Res. 20(10), 781–794 (2001). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tapus, A.: The role of the physical embodiment of a music therapist robot for individuals with cognitive impairments: longitudinal study. In: Virtual Rehabilitation International Conference, Haifa, p. 203 (2009).
  32. 32.
    Graf, B., Hans, M., Schraft, R.D.: Auton. Robot. 16, 193 (2004). Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tan, Y.K., et al.: Evaluation of the pet robot CuDDler using godspeed questionnaire. In: Biswas, J., Kobayashi, H., Wong, L., Abdulrazak, B., Mokhtari, M. (eds.) ICOST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7910, pp. 102–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jayawardena, C., Kuo, I., Broadbent, E., MacDonald, B.A.: Socially assistive robot HealthBot: design, implementation, and field trials. IEEE Syst. J. 10(3), 1056–1067 (2016). Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kriglstein, S., Wallner, G.: HOMIE: an artificial companion for elderly people. In: Extended Abstracts of CHI 2005 (2005).
  36. 36.
    Stiehl, W.D., Lieberman, J., Breazeal, C., Basel, L., Lalla, L., Wolf, M.: Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2005, Nashville, TN, USA, pp. 408–415 (2005).
  37. 37.
    Breemen, A.J., Yan, X., Meerbeek, B.: iCat: an animated user-interface robot with personality. In: AAMAS (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kanoh, M., Iwata, S., Kato, S., Itoh, H.: Emotive facial expressions of sensitivity communication robot “IFBOT”. Kansei Eng. Int. 5, 35–42 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Granata, C., Pino, M., Legouverneur, G., Vidal, J.S., Bidaud, P., Rigaud, A.S.: Robot services for elderly with cognitive impairment: testing usability of graphical user interfaces. Technol. Health Care 21(3), 217–231 (2013). PubMed PMID: 23792795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klamer, T., Allouch, S.B.: Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. In: 4th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, Munich, pp. 1–8 (2010).
  41. 41.
    Libin, A., Cohen-Mansfield, J.: Therapeutic robocat for nursing home residents with dementia: preliminary inquiry. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Demen. 19(2), 111–116 (2004). PubMed PMID: 15106392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Khosla, A., Raju, A.S., Torralba, A., Oliva, A.: Understanding and predicting image memorability at a large scale. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Santiago, pp. 2390–2398 (2015).
  43. 43.
    Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., Tanie, K.: Effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. In: Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No. 03CH37453), Las Vegas, NV, USA, vol. 3, pp. 2847–2852 (2003).
  44. 44.
    Pollack, M.E., et al.: Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI Workshop on Automation as Eldercare, August 2002Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Onishi, M., Luo, Z., Odashima, T., Hirano, S., Tahara, K., Mukai, T.: Generation of human care behaviors by human-interactive robot RI-MAN. In: Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Roma, pp. 3128–3129 (2007).
  46. 46.
    Bahadori, S., et al.: RoboCare: an integrated robotic system for the domestic care of the elderly (2003)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Ono, T., Imai, M., Nakatsu, R.: Development and evaluation of an interactive humanoid robot “Robovie”. In: Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292), Washington, DC, USA, vol. 2, pp. 1848–1855 (2002).
  48. 48.
    Dupourqué, V.: RobuLAB10, a service robot designed to aging-in-place. Gerontechnology 8(3), 183 (2009). Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yamamoto, H., Miyazaki, H., Tsuzuki, T., Kojima, Y.: A spoken dialogue robot, named wonder, to aid senior citizens who living alone with communication. J. Robot. Mechatron. 14(1), 54–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., Tanie, K.: Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day center. Proc. IEEE 11, 780–788 (2004)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 13407: Human-centered design processes for interactive systems. Geneva, Switzerland (1999)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9241-11: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Geneva, Switzerland (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC)CoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of Coimbra (FCTUC)CoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations