Abstract
This review aims to provides a design criterion for the design and development of SARs to help product designers and researchers who are actively engaged in this field. Our focus is on the product users’ three major levels of needs, namely: (1) Functionality - Subject to the users’ physical aging and other limitations, the functions and roles of SARs are derived from different users’ background living environmental factors. These differing factors affects their preferences in what functions SARs could play in their lives, and how efficiently these can be carried out. (2) Usability - This involves interactions between the users’ perception and spatial environment and their restricted physical capabilities. To facilitate the elderly’s ability to move with minimal physical exertion, (i) employ operating methods based on lifestyle habits and past experiences of using similarly related products, (ii) use technological assistance to reduce user learning curve and learning pressure, and (iii) apply multi-modal assistance to reduce the need for change of existing living patterns and habits. (3) Pleasure: Pleasure is derived from emotions, attitudes, acceptances, experiences and interactions. This includes Physical Pleasure, Social Pleasure, Psychological Pleasure and Ideological Pleasure. Each brings a different type of pleasure to the elderly. There is a need for further research the requirements of the elderly for SARs design. From the research results, this three-level analysis provide a set of design criteria for developers to build SARs that are more in tune with the physical and mental capabilities of the elderly user.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Thomas, J., Harden, A.: Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8, 45 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Colombo, F., Llena-Nozal, A., Mercier, J., Tjadens, F.: Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care (2011). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264097759-en
Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Khosla, R., Chu, M.-T.: Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 30, 369–393 (2014)
Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review (2009)
Chen, T.L., et al.: Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise. PLoS ONE 12(10), e0182736–e0182736 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182736
Van Wynsberghe, A.: Designing robots for care: care centered value-sensitive design. Sci. Eng. Ethics 19(2), 407–433 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., Sutton, A.: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J. Health Serv. Res. 10(1), 45–53 (2005)
Greenhalgh, T., Peacock, R.: Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ Case Rep. 331, 1064–1065 (2005)
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Biol. 62, e1–e34 (2009)
Caleb-Solly, P., Dogramadzi, S., Huijnen, C., van den Heuvel, H.: Exploiting ability for human adaptation to facilitate improved human-robot interaction and acceptance. Inf. Soc. 34(3), 153–165 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1444255
De Carolis, B., Ferilli, S., Palestra, G.: Simulating empathic behavior in a social assistive robot. Multimed. Tools Appl. 76(4), 5073–5094 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3797-0
Cavallo, F., et al.: Robotic services acceptance in smart environments with older adults: user satisfaction and acceptability study. J. Med. Internet Res. 20(9), 19 (2018). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9460
Di Nuovo, A., et al.: The multi-modal interface of Robot-Era multi-robot services tailored for the elderly. Intel. Serv. Robot. 11(1), 109–126 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-017-0237-6
Eftring, H., Frennert, S.: Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie 49(4), 274–281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7
Lee, S., Naguib, A.M.: Toward a sociable and dependable elderly care robot: design, implementation and user study. J. Intell. Rob. Syst.: Theory Appl. 98(1), 5–17 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-019-01028-8
Moro, C., Lin, S., Nejat, G., Mihailidis, A.: Social robots and seniors: a comparative study on the influence of dynamic social features on human–robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 11(1), 5–24 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0488-1
Zsiga, K., Toth, A., Pilissy, T., Peter, O., Denes, Z., Fazekas, G.: Evaluation of a companion robot based on field tests with single older adults in their homes. Assist. Technol. 30(5), 259–266 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2017.1322158
McGlynn, S.A., Kemple, S., Mitzner, T.L., King, C.H.A., Rogers, W.A.: Understanding the potential of PARO for healthy older adults. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 100, 33–47 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.004
,
.:
. [User Experience Test of Companion Robot and Its Innovative Usage among Older Adults-Use Zenbo as an Example].
6(3), 265–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.6283/jocsg.201809_6(3).265Kim, S.C., Lee, B.K., Kim, C.Y.: Usability evaluation of communication service robot for the elderly. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 32(2), 313–319 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3233/bmr-169655
Baisch, S., et al.: Acceptance of social robots by elder people: does psychosocial functioning matter? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9(2), 293–307 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0392-5
Karunarathne, D., Morales, Y., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H.: Will older adults accept a humanoid robot as a walking partner? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 11(2), 343–358 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0503-6
,
.:
. [Study on Service Experience Insight of Use of Zenbo Robot by Silver-haired People].
7(1), 467–489 (2019). https://doi.org/10.6283/jocsg.201903_7(1).467Chu, L., et al.: Identifying features that enhance older adults’ acceptance of robots: a mixed methods study. Gerontology 65, 441–450 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1159/000494881
Gerlowska, J., et al.: Assessment of perceived attractiveness, usability, and societal impact of a multimodal robotic assistant for aging patients with memory impairments. Front. Neurol. 9, 13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00392
World Health Organization (WHO): World report on ageing and health, Geneva (2015)
,
.:
. [User Experience Test of Companion Robot and Its Innovative Usage among Older Adults-Use Zenbo as an Example].
6(3), 265–282 (2018). 
,
.:
. [Study on Service Experience Insight of Use of Zenbo Robot by Silver-haired People].
7(1), 467–489 (2019). Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lin, CC., Liao, HY., Tung, FW. (2020). Design Guidelines of Social-Assisted Robots for the Elderly: A Mixed Method Systematic Literature Review. In: Stephanidis, C., et al. HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Papers: Cognition, Learning and Games. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12425. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60128-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60128-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60127-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60128-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)