Home Trials of Robotic Systems: Challenges and Considerations for Evaluation Teams

  • Ilia Adami
  • Margherita AntonaEmail author
  • Constantine Stephanidis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9739)


In the past decade, the field of social robotics has focused its efforts on robotic systems whose main purpose is to support and elongate independent living at home for the elderly. A quick research on the subject will produce numerous publications on robotic prototypes, on the methodologies used to derive design requirements, and on the results from laboratory based evaluations. Reports on how such systems perform in actual home environments with ever-changing parameters and conditions are scarce and so are reports on what to take into consideration when planning the implementation of such complex evaluations. This paper will discuss some of the challenges that were faced by the experiment team during the home trials of an autonomously moving social robotic system.


Assistive robots Elderly Home trials 



Part of this work has been conducted in the context of the Project ICT-HOBBIT “HOBBIT The Mutual Care Robot”, funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (Grant Agreement 288146). The authors would like to thank the project’s partners: ACIN, Technische Universität Wien, AAT Logo AAT, Technische Univervisät Wien, MetraLabs GmbH Neue Technologien und Systeme, Hella Automation GmbH, Lund University, Academy for Aging Research at HB. In addition, the authors would like to thank the “TALOS” Community Care & Active Ageing Center of Heraklion Municipality for their assistance in finding candidates for the PT1 and PT2 trials.


  1. 1.
    United Nations. World Population Ageing, pp. 1–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vincze, M., Zagler, W., Lammer, L., Weiss, A., Huber, A., Fischinger, D., Gisinger, C.: Towards a robot for supporting older people to stay longer independent at home. In: Proceedings of 41st International Symposium on Robotics ISR/Robotik 2014, pp. 1–7. VDE, June 2014Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pripfl, J., Körtner, T., Batko-Klein, D., Hebesberger, D., Weninger, M., Gisinger, C., Weiss, A.: Results of a real world trial with a mobile social service robot for older adults. In: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interation, pp. 497–498. IEEE Press, March 2016Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rogers, Y., Connelly, K.H., Tedesco, L., Hazlewood, W., Kurtz, A., Hall, R.E., Hursey, J., Toscos, T.: Why it’s worth the hassle: the value of in-situ studies when designing ubicomp. In: Krumm, J., Abowd, G.D., Seneviratne, A., Strang, T. (eds.) UbiComp 2007. LNCS, vol. 4717, pp. 336–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Eisma, R., Tiwari, L., Mival, O., Newell, A.: Domesticating technology: in-home requirements gathering with frail older people. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Human - Computer Interaction HCI, pp. 827–831 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prakash, A., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: Older adults’ reactions to a robot’s appearance in the context of home use. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 268–269. ACM, March 2014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prakash, A., Beer, J. M., Deyle, T., Smarr, C.A., Chen, T.L., Mitzner, T.L., Rogers, W.A.: Older adults’ medication management in the home: how can robots help? In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 283–290. IEEE, March, 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C., Eimler, S.C.: Living with a robot companion: empirical study on the interaction with an artificial health advisor. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 327–334. ACM, November 2011Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wrede, B., Haasch, A., Hofemann, N., Hohenner, S., Hüwel, S., Kleinehagenbrock, M., Fritsch, J.: Research issues for designing robot companions: BIRON as a case study. In: Drews, P. (ed.) Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Mechatronics and Robotics, vol. 4, pp. 1491–1496 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matthews, J.T.: The Nursebot Project: developing a personal robotic assistant for frail older adults in the community. Home Health Care Manage. Pract. 14(5), 403–405 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2), 94–103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graf, B., Reiser, U., Hägele, M., Mauz, K., Klein, P.: Robotic home assistant Care-O-bot® 3-product vision and innovation platform. In: 2009 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO), pp. 139–144. IEEE, November 2009Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pollack, M.E., Brown, L., Colbry, D., Orosz, C., Peintner, B., Ramakrishnan, S., Thrun, S.: Pearl: A mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI Workshop on Automation as Eldercare, vol. 2002, pp. 85–91, August 2002Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wada, K., Shibata, T.: Living with seal robots—its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Trans. Robot. 23(5), 972–980 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuo, I.-H., Jayawardena, C., Broadbent, E., Stafford, R.Q., MacDonald, B.A.: HRI evaluation of a healthcare service robot. In: Ge, S.S., Khatib, O., Cabibihan, J.-J., Simmons, R., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) ICSR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7621, pp. 178–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang, W.L., Šabanovic, S.: Potential use of robots in Taiwanese nursing homes. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 99–100. IEEE Press, March, 2013Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Giuliani, V., Pecora, F., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L.: Psychological implications of domestic assistive technology for the elderly. PsychNol. J. 5(3), 229–252 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., MacDonald, B.A.: Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Aust. J. Ageing 31(2), 115–120 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beer, J.M., Smarr, C.A., Chen, T.L., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 335–342. ACM, March 2012Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hüttenrauch, H., Eklundh, K.S.: Fetch-and-carry with CERO: observations from a long-term user study with a service robot. In: Proceedings of 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2002, pp. 158–163. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pak, R., McLaughlin, A.: Designing Displays for Older Adults. CRC press, p. 126 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B.: Was it worth the hassle?: ten years of mobile HCI research discussions on lab and field evaluations. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, pp. 43–52. ACM, September 2014Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilia Adami
    • 1
  • Margherita Antona
    • 1
    Email author
  • Constantine Stephanidis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceFoundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)Heraklion, CreteGreece
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of CreteHeraklion, CreteGreece

Personalised recommendations