Social Inclusion with Robots: A RAPP Case Study Using NAO for Technology Illiterate Elderly at Ormylia Foundation

Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 351)

Abstract

What really happens in terms of social inclusion and exclusion differentiates among European Countries, cultures and social groups and is being affected by socio-economic factors, social perceptions and societal changes. There are also variations among elderly in the European Union concerning their retirement from labor, institutionalization (residential or independent living), opportunities for further development or leisure and many more. A lot of EU projects focus on services that can be easy to access and affordable by elderly, enhancing the independency and autonomous living of the seniors. RAPP (EU-FP7) is addressing this need by offering a solution in the form of a software platform that will support the creation and delivery of robotic applications (RApps) targeted to people at risk of exclusion, especially older people. In this paper we are focusing to technology illiterate elderly, a group of seniors engaged for RAPP by Ormylia Foundation.

Keywords

Social Inclusion robots elderly seniors Assistive Robots Companion Robot technology illiterate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Marcu, M.: Population grows in twenty EU Member States. Population 1, no. 2010 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization, ed. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: ICF. World Health Organization (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Werry, I.: What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler? In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005), pp. 1192–1197. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scherer, M.J., Glueckauf, R.: Assessing the Benefits of Assistive Technologies for Activities and Participation. Rehabilitation Psychology 50(2), 132 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hutson, S., Lim, S.L., Bentley, P.J., Bianchi-Berthouze, N., Bowling, A.: Investigating the suitability of social robots for the wellbeing of the elderly. In: D’Mello, S., Graesser, A., Schuller, B., Martin, J.-C. (eds.) ACII 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6974, pp. 578–587. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kidd, C.D., Taggart, W., Turkle, S.: A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2006, pp. 3972–3976. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scherer, M.J., Sax, C., Vanbiervliet, A., Cushman, L.A., Scherer, J.V.: Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disability & Rehabilitation 27(21), 1321–1331 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hassani, A.Z.: Discovering the level of robot acceptance of seniors using scenarios based on assistive technologiesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klamer, T., Ben Allouch, S.: Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. In: 2010 4th International Conference on-NO PERMISSIONS Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy, R.R., Nomura, T., Billard, A., Burke, J.L.: Human–robot interaction. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 17(2), 85–89 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2), 94–103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis, T.: Research in technology Education – some Areas of Need. Journal of Technology Education 10(2) (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrios- Aranibar, D., Gurgel, V., Gonsalvez, L.M.G., Santos, M., Arauio, G.R., Roza, V.C., Nascimento, R.A.: Technological Inclusion using Robots. In: Anais do XXVI Congresso da SBC, EnRI. III Encintro de Robotica Intelligente (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shapiro, J.J., Hughes, S.K.: Information literacy as a liberal art? Educom Review 31, 31–35 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warschauer, M.: Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roupa, Z., Nikas, M., Gerasimou, E., Zafeiri, V., Giasyrani, L., Kazitori, E., Sotiropoulou, P.: The use of technology by the elderly. Health Science Journal 4(2) (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahn, M.: Older people’s attitudes toward residential technology: The role of technology in aging in place. PhD diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van De Watering, M.: The impact of computer technology on the elderly (2008) (retrieved June 29, 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Demiris, G., Rantz, M.J., Aud, M.A., Marek, K.D., Tyrer, H.W., Skubic, M., Hussam, A.A.: Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of’smart home’technologies: a pilot study. Informatics for Health and Social Care 29(2), 87–94 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ezer, N., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: More than a servant: Self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 53(2), 136–140 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beer, J.M., Smarr, C., 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. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 335–342. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Giuliani, M.V., Pecora, F., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L.: Psychological Implications of Domestic Assistive Technology for the Elderly. Psychnology Journal 5(3) (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., Evers, V.: Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 113–120. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T.: Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. Ai & Society 20(2), 138–150 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T.: Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. Ai & Society 20(2), 138–150 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K.: Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2006, pp. 372–377. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K.L., Walters, M.L.: The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ormylia FoundationOrmylia – ChalkidikiGreece

Personalised recommendations