Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Will Older Adults Accept a Humanoid Robot as a Walking Partner?

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conducted an empirical study with older adults whose ages ranged from 60 to 73 and compared situations where they walked alone and with a robot. A parameter-based side by side walking model which uses motion, environmental and relative parameters derived from human–human side by side walking was used to navigate the robot autonomously. The model anticipates the motion of both robot and the human partner for motion prediction, uses subgoals on the environment and does not require the final goal of to be known. The participants’ perceptions of ease of walking with/without the robot, enjoyment, and intention to walk with/without the robot were measured. Experimental results revealed that they gave significantly higher ratings to the intention for walking with the robot than walking alone, although no such significance was found in ease of walking with/without the robot or enjoyment. We analyzed the interview results and found that our participants wanted to walk with the robot again because they felt positive about at present and expected it to improve over time.

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
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bickmore TW, Picard RW (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI2005) 12:293–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Rob 1:319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8:94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen TL, Bhattacharjee T, Beer JM, Ting LH, Hackney ME, Rogers WA, Kemp CC (2017) Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise. PLoS ONE 12:e0182736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dishman RK, Sallis JF, Orenstein DR (1985) The determinants of physical activity and exercise. Public Health Rep 100(2):158–171

    Google Scholar 

  6. Doucet A, Gordon N, de Freitas N (2001) Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice

  7. Fasola J, Mataric MJ (2012) Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc IEEE 100:2512–2526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fasola J, Matarić MJ (2013) Socially assistive robot exercise coach: motivating older adults to engage in physical exercise. In Springer tracts in advanced robotics, pp 88, 463–479

  9. Ferrer G, Zulueta AG, Cotarelo FH, Sanfeliu A (2017) Robot social-aware navigation framework to accompany people walking side-by-side. Auton Robots 41(4):775–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Giraff (2018) An advanced telepresence robot for hospitals & home care 2018. https://telepresencerobots.com/robots/giraff-telepresence. Accessed 10 June 2018

  11. Granner ML, Sharpe PA, Hutto B, Wilcox S, Addy CL (2007) Perceived individual, social, and environmental factors for physical activity and walking. J Phys Acti Health 4:278–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hebesberger D, Dondrup C, Koertner T, Gisinger C, Pripfl C (2016) Lessons learned from the deployment of a long-term autonomous robot as companion in physical therapy for older adults with dementia: a mixed methods study. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 27–34

  13. Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, Evers V (2008) Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2008), pp 113–120

  14. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Rob 2:361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hornung A, Wurm KM, Bennewitz M, Stachniss C, Burgard W (2013) Octomap: an efficient probabilistic 3D mapping framework based on octrees. Auton Rob 34:189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Iwamura Y, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011) Do elderly people prefer a conversational humanoid as a shopping assistant partner in supermarkets? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2011), pp 449–456

  17. Karunarathne D, Morales Y, Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2018) Model of side-by-side walking without the robot knowing the goal. Int J Soc Rob 10:401–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kidd CD (2008) Designing for long-term human-robot interaction and application to weight loss. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

  19. Kobayashi Y, et al (2011) Robotic wheelchair moving with caregiver collaboratively. In: International conference on intelligent computing, Springer, pp. 523–532

  20. Kobayashi Y, et al (2011) Robotic wheelchair moving with caregiver collaboratively depending on circumstances. In: Extended abstracts on ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI2011)

  21. Mann JA, MacDonald BA, Kuo I-H, Li X, Broadbent E (2015) People respond better to robots than computer tablets delivering healthcare instructions. Comput Hum Behav 43:112–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Morales Y, Satake S, Huq R, Glas D, Kanda T, Hagita N (2012) How do people walk side-by-side?–Using a computational model of human behavior for a social robot. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2012), pp 301–308

  23. Morales Y, Kanda T, Hagita N (2014) Walking together: side by side walking model for an interacting robot. J Hum–Rob Interact 3:51–73

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moussaïd M, Perozo N, Garnier S, Helbing D, Theraulaz G (2010) The walking behaviour of pedestrian social groups and its impact on crowd dynamics. PLoS ONE 5:e10047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Murakami R, Morales Saiki LY, Satake S, Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2014) Destination unknown: walking side-by-side without knowing the goal. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 471–478

  26. Niemelä M, Heikkilä P, Lammi H (2017) A social service robot in a shopping mall: expectations of the management, retailers and consumers. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI’17). ACM, pp 11–18

  27. Nomura T, SuzukiT Kanda T, Han J, Shin N, Namin J, Burke J, Kato K (2008) What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the United States. Int J Hum Rob 5:25–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Prassler E, Bank D, Kluge B (2002) Key technologies in robot assistants: motion coordination between a human and a mobile robot. Trans on Control Autom Syst Eng 4:56–61

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sabelli AM, Kanda T (2016) Robovie as a mascot: a qualitative study for long-term presence of robots in a shopping mall. Int J Social Robot 8(2):211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schutzer KA, Graves BS (2004) Barriers and motivations to exercise in older adults. Prev Med 39:1056–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Slam6d (2011) Slam6d—simultaneous localization and mapping with 6 Dof. http://www.openslam.org/slam6d.html. Accessed 20 May 2011

  32. The VN, Jayawardena C (2016) A decision-making model for optimizing social relationship for side-by-side robotic wheelchairs in active mode. In: 2016 6th IEEE international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (BioRob). IEEE, pp 735–740

  33. Totsuka R, Satake S, Kanda T, Imai M (2017) Is a robot a better walking partner if it associates utterances with visual scenes? In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 313–322

  34. Tsui KM, Desai M, Yanco HA, Uhlik C (2011) Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 11–18

  35. Vita (2018) High-tech, medical grade remote presence for hospitals with FDA clearance. https://telepresencerobots.com/robots/intouch-health-rp-vita. Accessed 10 June 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to Norifumi Ogawa and Tatsuya Matsushima for their help during our experiments.

Funding

This study was funded in part by Tateishi Science and Technology Foundation and by JST, CREST.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratories, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International, Kyoto, Japan

    Deneth Karunarathne, Yoichi Morales, Tatsuya Nomura & Takayuki Kanda

  2. Faculty of Science and Technology, Ryukoku University, Shiga, Japan

    Tatsuya Nomura

  3. Graduate school of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka-shi, Osaka, Japan

    Deneth Karunarathne & Hiroshi Ishiguro

Authors
  1. Deneth Karunarathne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoichi Morales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tatsuya Nomura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takayuki Kanda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hiroshi Ishiguro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deneth Karunarathne.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karunarathne, D., Morales, Y., Nomura, T. et al. Will Older Adults Accept a Humanoid Robot as a Walking Partner?. Int J of Soc Robotics 11, 343–358 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0503-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0503-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation