Meeting Requirements of Older Users? Robot Prototype Trials in a Home-like Environment

  • Tobias Körtner
  • Alexandra Schmid
  • Daliah Batko-Klein
  • Christoph Gisinger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8515)


A prototype of an assistive robot for older people was tested in three different countries in life-like lab settings. A sample of potential older users with different grades and types of age-related impairments completed a sequence of tasks with the robot. Subsequently, usability issues, user acceptance, and their willingness to pay for such a robot (affordability) were assessed to find out if the robot caters to the needs of the impairment groups. Main results of the data analyses were: ease of use was deemed satisfactory by the majority of participants. Task speed was considered to be rather slow. Additionally, it could be shown that participants were sceptical of buying a robot for their own use, but would be willing to rent one. A significant difference in classifying the robot prototype as helpful for the home was found in participants with mobility impairments compared to participants without mobility impairments.


social robotics human-robot interaction assistive technology user requirements older users prototype trials 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    European Commission–Eurostat: Key figures on Europe 2007/2008 edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dillon, A.: User acceptance of information technology. In: Karwowski, W. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, London (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    KSERA. Deliverable D1.1 – Scenarios, Use Cases & Requirements. EU FP7 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Walker, A., Walker, C.: Ageing and Disability: A Quality of Life Perspective. In: Conference on Ageing and Disability, Graz, June 8-9, European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dias, N., Kempen, G., Todd, C.: The German version of the Falls Efficacy Scale- International Version (FES-I). Gerontol. Geriatr. 39, 297–300 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jansenberger, H.: Sturzprävention in Therapie und Training. Thieme, Stuttgart (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hegel, F., Lohse, M., Swadzba, A., Wachsmuth, S., Rohlfing, K., Wrede, B.: Classes of Applications for Social Robots: a User Study. In: 16th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication, Korea, pp. 938–943 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohse, M.: Bridging the gap between users’ expectations and system evaluations. In: ROMAN, pp. 485–490. IEEE Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boissy, P., Corriveau, H., Michaud, F., Labonté, D., Royer, M.-P.: A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 13, 79–84 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Körtner, T., Schmid, A., Batko-Klein, D., Gisinger, C., Huber, A., Lammer, L., Vincze, M.: How Social Robots Make Older Users Really Feel Well− A Method to Assess Users‘ Concepts of a Social Robotic Assistant. In: Ge, S.S., Khatib, O., Cabibihan, J.-J., Simmons, R., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) ICSR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7621, pp. 138–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fausset, C.B., Kelly, A.J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.: Challenges to aging in place: Understanding home maintenance difficulties. Journal Housing for the Elderly 25(2), 125–141 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischinger, D., Einramhof, P., Wohlkinger, W., Papoutsakis, K., Mayer, P., Panek, P., Koertner, T., Hofmann, S., Argyros, A., Vincze, M., Weiss, A., Gisinger, C.: HOBBIT – The Mutual Care Robot. In: ASROB-2013 in Conjunction with IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), November 7, Tokyo Big Sight, Japan (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiller, J.S., Lucas, J.W., Ward, B.W., Peregoy, J.A.: Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 10 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brocas, A.M., Dupays, S., Hini, E.: Une approche de l’autonomie chez les adultes et les personnes agées. Études et Resultats 178, 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindenberg, U., Smith, J., Mayer, K.U., Baltes, P.B., Delius, J.: Die Berliner Altersstudie, 3rd edn. Akademie Verlag, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend: Altern im Wandel, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Brooke, J.: System Usability Scale (SUS). Digital Equipment Corporation (1986)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Tiwari, L., Newell, A.: Early user involvement in the development of Information Technology-related products for older people. Universal Access in the Information Society 3(2), 131–140 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marquié, J.C., Jourdan-Boddaert, L., Huet, N.: Do Older Adults Underestimate their Actual Computer Knowledge? Behaviour and Information Technology 21(4), 273–280 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Körtner
    • 1
  • Alexandra Schmid
    • 1
  • Daliah Batko-Klein
    • 1
  • Christoph Gisinger
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Academy for Ageing ResearchHaus der BarmherzigkeitViennaAustria
  2. 2.Donauuniversität KremsKremsAustria

Personalised recommendations