Proactive Assistive Technology: An Empirical Study

  • Amedeo Cesta
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
  • Vittoria Giuliani
  • Federico Pecora
  • Riccardo Rasconi
  • Massimiliano Scopelliti
  • Lorenza Tiberio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4662)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the problem of evaluating elderly people’s perception of assistive robots and domotic environments. Specifically, we focus on aspects related to the modalities in which interaction can occur between an elder user and an assistive robotic agent. Our work benefits from the products of project RoboCare, namely, a domestic environment in which sensors, intelligent software components and a domestic robot provide a set of cognitive support services for the elder user. This paper analyzes a number of evaluation criteria in detail, specifically related to the robot’s aspect, the way in which it communicates with the user, and the perceived usefulness of its support services. Among these criteria, the paper proposes and reports an evaluation of the Proactive interaction modality (where the system takes the initiative) and On-demand interaction (in which the user explicitly requests a service). Users evaluate the On-demand support services in personal safety scenarios as particularly useful, and less so in scenarios which are not critical. The paper also provides a discussion which can be useful for the design of future assistive agents and robotic companions.

References

  1. 1.
    Asch, S.E.: Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (41), 258–290 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baltes, P.B., Baltes, M.M.: Psychological Perspectives on Successful Aging: The Model of Selecive Optimization with Compensation, pp. 1–34. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review 84, 191–215 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Pecora, F., Rasconi, R.: Supporting Interaction in the RoboCare Intelligent Assistive Environment. In: Proccedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Interaction Challenges for Intelligent Assistants (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cesta, A., Pecora, F.: Integrating Intelligent Systems for Elder Care in RoboCare. In: Mann, W.C., Helal, A. (eds.) Promoting Independence for Older Persons with Disabilities, pp. 65–73. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cortellessa, G., Cesta, A.: Evaluating Mixed-Initiative Systems: An Experimental Approach. In: ICAPS-2006. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automated Planning & Scheduling (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feil-Seifer, D., Mataric’, M.J.: Defining socially assistive robotics. In: ICORR-2005. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, June, pp. 465–468. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giuliani, M.V., Scopelliti, M., Fornara, F.: Elderly people at home: technological help in everyday activities. In: ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 365–370. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lawton, M.P.: Time budgets of older people: A window on four lifestyles. Journal of Gerontology 37, 115–123 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McAvay, G.J., Seeman, T.E., Rodin, J.: A longitudinal study of change in domain-specific self-efficacy among older adults. Journal of Gerontology 51, 243–253 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myers, K.: Calo: Building an intelligent personal assistant. In: AAAI-06. Invited Talk. The Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pecora, F., Rasconi, R., Cortellessa, G., Cesta, A.: User-Oriented Problem Abstractions in Scheduling, Customization and Reuse in Scheduling Software Architectures. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 2(1), 1–16 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., Thrun, S.: Towards Robotic Assistants in Nursing Homes: Challenges and Results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42(3–4), 271–281 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pollack, M.E.: Intelligent Technology for an Aging Population:The Use of AI to Assist Elders with Cognitive Impairment. AI Magazine 26(2), 9–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simmons, R., Sabanovic, S., Michalowski, M.P.: Robots in the wild: Observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, Istanbul, Turkey (March 2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M.V., D’Amico, A.M., Fornara, F.: If I had a robot ... peoples’ representation of domestic robots. In: Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Langdon, P.M., Robinson, P. (eds.) Design for a more inclusive world, pp. 257–266. Springer-Verlag, London (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M.V., Fornara, F.: Robots in a domestic setting: A psychological approach. Universal Access in the Information Society 4(2), 146–155 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Willis, S.L.: Everyday cognitive competence in elderly persons: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. The Gerontologist 36, 595–601 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
    • 1
  • Vittoria Giuliani
    • 1
  • Federico Pecora
    • 1
  • Riccardo Rasconi
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Scopelliti
    • 1
  • Lorenza Tiberio
    • 1
  1. 1.ISTC-CNR, Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology, Italian National Research Council, I-00137 RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations