Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors

Design sozialer Assistenzroboter für ältere Menschen

  • Beiträge zum Themenschwerpunkt
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The development of social assistive robots is an approach with the intention of preventing and detecting falls among seniors. There is a need for a relatively low-cost mobile robot with an arm and a gripper which is small enough to navigate through private homes.

Material and methods

User requirements of a social assistive robot were collected using workshops, a questionnaire and interviews. Two prototype versions of a robot were designed, developed and tested by senior citizens (n = 49) in laboratory trials for 2 h each and in the private homes of elderly persons (n = 18) for 3 weeks each.

Results

The user requirement analysis resulted in a specification of tasks the robot should be able to do to prevent and detect falls. It was a challenge but possible to design and develop a robot where both the senior and the robot arm could reach the necessary interaction points of the robot. The seniors experienced the robot as happy and friendly. They wanted the robot to be narrower so it could pass through narrow passages in the home and they also wanted it to be able to pass over thresholds without using ramps and to drive over carpets.

Conclusion

User trials in seniors’ homes are very important to acquire relevant knowledge for developing robots that can handle real life situations in the domestic environment. Very high reliability of a robot is needed to get feedback about how seniors experience the overall behavior of the robot and to find out if the robot could reduce falls and improve the feeling of security for seniors living alone.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Soziale Assistenzroboter könnten in Zukunft zur Vermeidung und Detektion von Stürzen bei älteren Personen eingesetzt werden. Dafür ist die Entwicklung eines kostengünstigen mobilen Roboters notwendig, der mit einem Arm ausgestattet ist und dessen Größe den Einsatz in privaten Wohnungen erlaubt.

Material und Methoden

Nutzerbedürfnisse in Bezug auf die Anwendung des Roboters wurden mittels Workshops, Fragebogen und Interviews ermittelt. Zwei Prototypen des Roboters wurden designt, entwickelt und von potenziellen Benutzern in 2‑stündigen Laborversuchen (n = 49) und schlussendlich in privaten Wohnungen von Senioren (n = 18) für jeweils 3 Wochen getestet.

Ergebnisse

Die Bedürfnisanalyse ergab eine Reihe von Aufgaben, die der Roboter ausführen sollte, um Stürze zu vermeiden, bzw. diese zu detektieren. Herausfordernde Design- und Entwicklungsaufgaben, wie die Entwicklung eines Roboterarms mit ausreichender Reichweite und Bewegungsfähigkeit, wurden gelöst. Darüber hinaus zeigte sich, dass die Senioren den Roboter in der Interaktion als glücklich und freundlich einstuften. Offene Punkte für die weitere Entwicklung sind eine schmalere Version des Roboters, die auch in sehr engen Korridoren navigieren kann, sowie ein Roboter, der über Türschwellen und Teppiche fahren kann.

Schlussfolgerungen

Feldversuche in privaten Wohnungen sind für die Verbesserung des Designs und die technische Entwicklung von Assistenzrobotern äußerst wertvoll. Dieser Feldversuch hat auch gezeigt, dass für die Evaluierung von subjektiven Interaktionserfahrungen und die Beurteilung, ob der Roboter tatsächlich Stürze vermeiden und das Sicherheitsgefühl erhöhen kann, eine sehr hohe technische Reliabilität Voraussetzung ist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The HOBBIT Project Homepage. http://www.hobbit-project.eu/. Accessed 17 January 2016

  2. Buchenau M, Suri JF (2000) Experience prototyping. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, New York, pp 424–433

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fazekas G, Zsiga K, Pilissy T et al (2012) Field test of a home-care robot for elderly assistance: first experiences. 9th Congress of the Mediterrenean Rehabilitation Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fischinger D, Einramhof P, Papoutsakis K et al (2016) Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned. Robot Auton Syst 75:60–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fischinger D, Einramhof P, Wohlkinger W et al (2013) Hobbit-the mutual care robot. Workshop on Assistance and Service Robotics in a Human Environment Workshop in conjunction with IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Frennert S (2014) Older people and the adoption of innovations. Media-Tryck, Lund

  7. Frennert S, Eftring H, Ostlund B (2013) Using attention cards to facilitate active participation in eliciting old adults’ requirements for assistive robots. RO-MAN, 2013. IEEE, pp 774–779. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6628407&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A6628390%29

  8. Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2013) Older people’s involvement in the development of a social assistive robot. In: Social Robotics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 8–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2013) What older people expect of robots: A mixed methods approach. In: Social Robotics. Springer, New York, pp 19–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Frennert S, Ostlund B (2014) Review: seven matters of concern of social robots and older people. Int J Soc Robot 6:299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Frennert S, Östlund B, Eftring H (2012) Would granny let an assistive robot into her home? In: Social Robotics. Springer, New York, pp 128–137

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Jönsson B, Anderberg P, Brattberg G et al. (2006) Design side by side. Studentlitteratur, Lund

  13. Koskinen I, Zimmerman J, Binder T et al (2013) Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 56:262–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 316

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lundin-Olsson L, Rosendahl E (2008) Att förebygga fallolyckor bland äldre personer. Vårdalinstitutet, Institutet för Vård-och Omsorgsvetenskap (The Swedish Institute for Health Sciences), Lund

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM (2005) Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  17. Reiser U, Jacobs T, Arbeiter G et al (2013) Care-O-bot® 3‑Vision of a robot butler. Your virtual butler. Springer, New York, pp 97–116

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Schroeter C, Mueller S, Volkhardt M et al (2013) Robotics and Automation (ICRA). In: Realization and user evaluation of a companion robot for people with mild cognitive impairments. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)., pp 1153–1159

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research received funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 288146.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Certec, Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 26, Box 118, 221 00, Lund, Sweden

    H. Eftring & S. Frennert

Authors
  1. H. Eftring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Frennert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Eftring.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

H. Eftring and S. Frennert state that there are no conflicts of interest.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifiable information is included.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eftring, H., Frennert, S. Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Z Gerontol Geriat 49, 274–281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation