Advertisement

Analysis of Elderly Users’ Preferences and Expectations on Service Robot’s Personality, Appearance and Interaction

  • Styliani Kleanthous
  • Christophoros Christophorou
  • Christiana Tsiourti
  • Carina Dantas
  • Rachelle Wintjens
  • George Samaras
  • Eleni Christodoulou
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9755)

Abstract

Fortunately, improvements in welfare and medical care will allow life expectancy in Europe’s population to increase by the year 2050. However, it is not always the case that living longer implies a healthier, more active and independent life. In this context, technologies and products that will act as assistive companions to elderly, who are living alone at their home, are attracting a growing interest from both a research and commercial perspective. Literature reports contradictory results on the preferences of elderly towards assistive technologies and more specifically, service robots. In this paper, we are called to present an empirical study, conducted in the scope of an EU – Horizon 2020 project, in order to explore people’s perceptions, attitudes and requirements towards the idea of a future service robot for the home.

Keywords

Aging well Service robots User-centred requirements analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the GrowMeUp project, funded by the European Commission within the H2020-PHC-2014, (Grant Agreement: 643647).

References

  1. 1.
    Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G.J., Jonker, P., De Witte, L.: Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J. Am. Med. Directors Assoc. 13(2), 114–120 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broekens, J., Marcel, H., Henk, R.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2), 94–103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Rob. 1(4), 319–330 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tapus, A., Ţăpuş, C., Matarić, M.J.: User—robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Int. Serv. Rob. 1(2), 169–183 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roy, N., Baltus, G., Fox, D., Gemperle, F., Goetz, J., Hirsch, T., Margaritis, D., Montemerlo, M., Pineau, J., Schulte, J., Thrun, S.: Towards personal service robots for the elderly. In: Workshop on Interactive Robots and Entertainment (WIRE 2000) vol. 25, p. 184 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jayawardena, C., Kuo, I.H., Unger, U., Igic, A., Wong, R., Watson, C.I., Stafford, R.Q., Broadbent, E., Tiwari, P., Warren, J., Sohn, J.: Deployment of a service robot to help older people. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5990–5995. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Compagna, D., Kohlbacher, F.: The limits of participatory technology development: the case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 93, 19–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andrade, A.O., Pereira, A.A., Walter, S., Almeida, R., Loureiro, R., Compagna, D., Kyberd, P.J.: Bridging the gap between robotic technology and health care. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 10, 65–78 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tapus, A., Mataric, M.J., Scasselati, B.: Socially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 14(1), 35–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mori, M., MacDorman, K., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley (from the field). IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19(2), 98–100 (2012). doi: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zawieska, K., Ben Moussa, M., Duffy, B.R., Magnenat-Thalmann, N.: The role of imagination in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the Autonomous Social Robots and Virtual Humans workshop, 25th Annual Conference on Computer Animation and Social Agents (CASA 2012). Singapore (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M.L., Werry, I.: What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1192–1197 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Styliani Kleanthous
    • 1
  • Christophoros Christophorou
    • 1
  • Christiana Tsiourti
    • 2
  • Carina Dantas
    • 3
  • Rachelle Wintjens
    • 4
  • George Samaras
    • 5
  • Eleni Christodoulou
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CITARD Services LtdNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Caritas DiocesanaCoimbraPortugal
  4. 4.ZUYDERLANDSittard-GeleenNetherlands
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations