An Evaluation Tool of the Effect of Robots in Eldercare on the Sense of Safety and Security

  • Neziha AkalinEmail author
  • Andrey Kiselev
  • Annica Kristoffersson
  • Amy Loutfi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10652)


The aim of the study presented in this paper is to develop a quantitative evaluation tool of the sense of safety and security for robots in eldercare. By investigating the literature on measurement of safety and security in human-robot interaction, we propose new evaluation tools. These tools are semantic differential scale questionnaires. In experimental validation, we used the Pepper robot, programmed in the way to exhibit social behaviors, and constructed four experimental conditions varying the degree of the robot’s non-verbal behaviors from no gestures at all to full head and hand movements. The experimental results suggest that both questionnaires (for the sense of safety and the sense of security) have good internal consistency.


Sense of safety Sense of security Eldercare Video-based evaluation Quantitative evaluation tool 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Social Robot. 1(1), 71–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bicchi, A., Peshkin, M.A., Colgate, J.E.: Safety for physical human-robot interaction. In: Siciliano, B., Khatib, O. (eds.) Springer Handbook of Robotics, pp. 1335–1348. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boholm, M., Möller, N., Hansson, S.O.: The concepts of risk, safety, and security: applications in everyday language. Risk Anal. 36, 320–338 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 25(1), 49–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cortellessa, G., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L., Svedberg, G.K., Loutfi, A., Pecora, F.: A cross-cultural evaluation of domestic assistive robots. In: AAAI Fall Symposium: AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems, pp. 24–31 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walters, M.L., et al.: Evaluating the robot personality and verbal behavior of domestic robots using video-based studies. Adv. Robot. 25(18), 2233–2254 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischinger, D., Einramhof, P., Papoutsakis, K., Wohlkinger, W., Mayer, P., Panek, P., Hofmann, S., Koertner, T., Weiss, A., Argyros, A., et al.: Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: first prototype and lessons learned. Robot. Auton. Syst. 75, 60–78 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fonad, E., Wahlin, T.B.R., Heikkila, K., Emami, A.: Moving to and living in a retirement home: focusing on elderly people’s sense of safety and security. J. Hous. Elder. 20(3), 45–60 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., Hirzinger, G.: Safe physical human-robot interaction: measurements, analysis and new insights. In: Kaneko, M., Nakamura, Y. (eds.) Robotics Research. STAR, vol. 66, pp. 395–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int. J. Social Robot. 2(4), 361–375 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamide, H., Mae, Y., Kawabe, K., Shigemi, S., Hirose, M., Arai, T.: New measurement of psychological safety for humanoid. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 49–56. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kornecki, A.J., Liu, M.: Fault tree analysis for safety/security verification in aviation software. Electronics 2(1), 41–56 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lasota, P.A., Rossano, G.F., Shah, J.A.: Toward safe close-proximity human-robot interaction with standard industrial robots. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 339–344. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lichtenthäler, C., Lorenzy, T., Kirsch, A.: Influence of legibility on perceived safety in a virtual human-robot path crossing task. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE ROMAN, pp. 676–681. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maslow, A.H.: A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4), 370–396 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nonaka, S., Inoue, K., Arai, T., Mae, Y.: Evaluation of human sense of security for coexisting robots using virtual reality. 1st report: evaluation of pick and place motion of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2004, vol. 3, pp. 2770–2775. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piètre-Cambacédès, L., Chaudet, C.: The SEMA referential framework: avoiding ambiguities in the terms security and safety. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 3(2), 55–66 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Russell, J.: A circumplex model of affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1161–1178 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Theodoridis, T., Hu, H.: Toward intelligent security robots: a survey. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 42(6), 1219–1230 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss, A., Bartneck, C.: Meta analysis of the usage of the Godspeed questionnaire series. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), pp. 381–388. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wyrobek, K.A., Berger, E.H., Van der Loos, H.F.M., Salisbury, J.K.: Towards a personal robotics development platform: rationale and design of an intrinsically safe personal robot. In: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2165–2170, May 2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neziha Akalin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrey Kiselev
    • 1
  • Annica Kristoffersson
    • 1
  • Amy Loutfi
    • 1
  1. 1.Örebro UniversityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations