Would Granny Let an Assistive Robot into Her Home?

  • Susanne Frennert
  • Britt Östlund
  • Håkan Eftring
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7621)

Abstract

Assistive robots have received considerable research attention due to the increase of the senior population around the world and the shortage of caregivers. However, limited attention has been paid to involving seniors in the design process in order to elicit their attitudes and perception of having their own robot. This study addresses this issue. We conducted a workshop with 14 Swedish seniors age 65 to 86. The findings indicate that: (1) the functionality of the robot is far more important than the appearance; (2) the usefulness will determine the acceptance of a robot; (3) seniors feel it is important to keep up to date with new technological developments; (4) assistive robots were not perceived as intrusive and having a robotic presence in the seniors’ bathrooms and bedrooms was considered acceptable. These findings suggest that seniors are prepared to give assistive robots a try if the robot is perceived as useful.

Keywords

Participatory design attention cards assistive robots old adults 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lesnoff-Caravaglia, G.: Gerontechnology: Growing Old in a Technological Society. Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD., Springfield (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young, J.E., Sung, J., Voida, A., Sharlin, E., Igarashi, T., Christensen, H.I., Grinter, R.E.: Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction: Focusing on the Holistic Interaction Experience. International Journal of Social Robotics 3(1), 53–67 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young, J.E., Hawkins, R., Sharlin, E., Igarashi, T.: Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology. International Journal of Social Robotics 1(1), 95–108 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Massimi, M., Baecker, R.: Participatory Design Process with Older Users. In: Proc. UbiCoomp (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehn, P.: Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In: Participatory Design: Principles and Practices, pp. 41–77 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., Wensveen, S.: Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrett, J., Kirk, S.: Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Applied Ergonomics 31(6), 621–629 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lines, L., Hone, K.S.: Eliciting user requirements with older adults: lessons from the design of an interactive domestic alarm system. Universal Access in the Information Society 3(2), 141–148 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Östlund, B.: Silver Age Innovators: A New Approach to Old Users. In: The Silver Market Phenomenon, pp. 15–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Svanaes, D., Seland, G.: Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems, pp. 479–486. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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, pp. 335–342. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu, Y.H., Fassert, C., Rigaud, A.S.: Designing robots for the elderly: Appearance issue and beyond. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walters, M.L., Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Te, B.R., Koay, K.L.: Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. J. Autonomous Robots 24(2), 159–178 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mori, M.: The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4), 33–35 (1970)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., Tanie, K.: Analysis of factors that bring mental effects to elderly people in robot assisted activity, vol. 1152, pp. 1152–1157. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shibata, T., Wada, K., Tanie, K.: Statistical analysis and comparison of questionnaire results of subjective evaluations of seal robot in Japan and UK, vol. 3153, pp. 3152–3157. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vines, J., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Monk, A., Olivier, P.: Questionable concepts: critique as resource for designing with eighty somethings, pp. 1169–1178. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halskov, K., Dalsgård, P.: Inspiration card workshops. In: DIS 2006, pp. 2–11. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lucero, A., Arrasvuori, J.: PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. In: Proc. of Fun and Games 2010, pp. 28–37. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brandt, E., Messeter, J.: Facilitating collaboration through design games. In: Proc. Participatory design, vol. 1, pp. 121–131. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit, pp. 528–533. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mollenkopf, H., Kaspar, R.: Elderly people’s use and acceptance of information and communication technologies. Young Technologies in old Hands an International View on Senior Citizen‘s Utilization of ICT, DJØF, 41–58 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A.: Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V.: Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 399–426 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clark, H.H., Brennan, S.E.: Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition 13, 127–149 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Massimi, M., Baecker, R.M., Wu, M.: Using participatory activities with seniors to critique, build, and evaluate mobile phones. In: Proc. ASSETS 2007, pp. 155–162 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C., Gemperle, F.: Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. J. Human–Computer Interaction 19(1-2), 25–59 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., Noonan, P.: An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 18(1), 1 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goodhue, D.L.: Development and Measurement Validity of a TaskTechnology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Information System. Decision Sciences 29(1), 105–138 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Frennert
    • 1
    • 2
  • Britt Östlund
    • 2
  • Håkan Eftring
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Rehabilitation EngineeringLund UniversitySweden
  2. 2.Department of Design SciencesLund UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations