Advertisement

Design and Interaction in a Smart Gym: Cognitive and Bodily Mastering

  • Alma Leora Culén
  • Sisse Finken
  • Tone Bratteteig
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7946)

Abstract

Being physically active is perhaps the most important factor influencing the health of elderly people. As a consequence, technologies that support and encourage physical activity have been developed. In this paper, we study a “smart gym” in a residential care building. Our findings indicate that the “smart gym” does not address the complexities of exercise for an elderly person: in order to exercise one has to master the gym equipment and its technology, cognitively as well as bodily. Both the equipment and the smart technology turn out to be difficult to master by its elderly users. Our study reports these difficulties and suggests a more nuanced concept of mastery as a way to address the challenges in designing for elderly users. We unfold physical and bodily dimensions of mastery and consider how these differ between individuals, and within the context and situation.

Keywords

situated elderliness cognitive mastery bodily mastery smart gym technology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Velferdsteknologi. Fagrapport om implementering av velferdsteknologi i de kommunale helse- og omsorgstjenestene 2013–2030. Report IS-1990, Helsedirektoratet (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finken, S., Mörtberg, C.: The Thinking House: on Configuring of an Infrastructure of Care. In: 3rd International Workshop on Infrastructures for Healthcare: Global Healthcare, IT-University Copenhagen, pp. 44–47 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stefano, D.H., Bien, Z., Bang, W.C.: The Smart House for Older Persons and Persons With Physical Disabilities: Structure, Technology Arrangements, and Perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 12(2), 228–250 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smarthusteknologi. Planlegging og drift i kommunale tjenester. Report IS-1216,Sosialoghelsedirektoratet, Deltasenteret, Oslo (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jansson, M., Mörtberg, C.: A Cup of Coffee: Users’ Needs and Experiences of ICT in Homecare. In: Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Human-Centered Design of E-Health Technologies: Concepts, Methods and Applications, pp. 253–271. IGI Global, Hershey (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finken, S.: Case Description – When Technologies Move to the Home. In: Bratteteig, T., Finken, S., van der Velden, M., Verne, G. (eds.) Chapter to appear in a book based on the A3-project “Autonomy and Automation in an IT Society for all” (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornejo, R., Hernández, D., Favela, J., Tentori, M., Ochoa, S.F.: Persuading older adults to socialize and exercise through ambient games. In: Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth), pp. 215–218. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandt, E., Binder, T., Malmborg, L., Sokoler, T.: Communities of everyday practice and situated elderliness as an approach to co-design for senior interaction. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction, pp. 400–403. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ormrod, J.E.: Educational Psychology: Developing Learners, Merrill (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bandura, A.: Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Worth Publishers (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bouma, H., Fozard, J.L., Bouwhuis, D.G., Taipale, V.T.: Gerontechnology in perspective. Gerontechnology 6(4), 190–216 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alvseike, H., Brønnick, K.: Feasibility of the iPad as a hub for smart house technology in the elderly; effects of cognition, self-efficacy, and technology experience. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 5, 299–306 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malinowsky, C., Almkvist, O., Kottorp, A., Nygård, L.: Ability to manage everyday technology: a comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disability and rehabilitation: Assistive technology 5(6), 462–469 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Culén, A., Bratteteig, T.: Touch-Screens and Elderly users: A Perfect Match? In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, pp. 460–465 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Åmdal, V.S., Klette, K., Simonsen, H.L., Selskap, A.S.: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h12/projects/elderly/Elderlyaidapp/
  16. 16.
    Foucault, M.: The Care of the Self. The History of Sexuality, vol. 3. Vintage (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larssen, A.T., Robertson, T., Edwards, J.: How it Feels, not Just How it Looks: When Bodies Interact with Technology. In: OZCHI 2006 Proceedings, pp. 329–332. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alma Leora Culén
    • 1
  • Sisse Finken
    • 1
  • Tone Bratteteig
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations