| Literature DB >> 29910769 |
Justyna Gerłowska1,2, Urszula Skrobas2, Katarzyna Grabowska-Aleksandrowicz2, Agnieszka Korchut2, Sebastian Szklener2, Dorota Szczęśniak-Stańczyk2, Dimitrios Tzovaras3, Konrad Rejdak2,4.
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to present the results of the assessment of clinical application of the robotic assistant for patients suffering from mild cognitive impairments (MCI) and Alzheimer Disease (AD). The human-robot interaction (HRI) evaluation approach taken within the study is a novelty in the field of social robotics. The proposed assessment of the robotic functionalities are based on end-user perception of attractiveness, usability and potential societal impact of the device. The methods of evaluation applied consist of User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ), AttrakDiff and the societal impact inventory tailored for the project purposes. The prototype version of the Robotic Assistant for MCI patients at Home (RAMCIP) was tested in a semi-controlled environment at the Department of Neurology (Lublin, Poland). Eighteen elderly participants, 10 healthy and 8 MCI, performed everyday tasks and functions facilitated by RAMCIP. The tasks consisted of semi-structuralized scenarios like: medication intake, hazardous events prevention, and social interaction. No differences between the groups of subjects were observed in terms of perceived attractiveness, usability nor-societal impact of the device. The robotic assistant societal impact and attractiveness were highly assessed. The usability of the device was reported as neutral due to the short time of interaction.Entities:
Keywords: acceptability; dementia; mild cognitive impairments; robotic assistant; service robot; societal impact; usability
Year: 2018 PMID: 29910769 PMCID: PMC5992288 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00392
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1RAMCIP evaluation process.
The distribution of the UEQ subscale values for RAMCIP evaluation.
| RAMCIP Attractiveness | 1.66 | 1.75 | 0.33 | 0.83 | 3 | 2.5 | 0.377 | 0.95 | 0.61 |
| RAMCIP Perspicuity | 2 | 1.125 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 3 | 2.75 | 0.422 | 0.89 | 0.6 |
| RAMCIP Efficiency | 0.75 | 1 | 0.25 | −0.5 | 2.75 | 2.275 | 0.33 | 0.62 | 0.7 |
| RAMCIP Dependability | 2 | 1.625 | 0.75 | 0 | 3 | 2.5 | 0.314 | 0.75 | 0.68 |
| RAMCIP Stimulation | 1.75 | 2 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 3 | 2.75 | 0 | 0.8 | 0.72 |
| RAMCIP Novelty | 1.25 | 0.625 | 0.5 | −0.75 | 2.5 | 3 | 0.587 | 0.32 | 0.74 |
Figure 2(A) The graphical representation of the UEQ subscales values given by the healthy participants and (B) the graphical representation of the UEQ subscales values given by MCI participants.
The societal impact inventory analysis.
| Thanks to RAMCIP I would communicate better with my dependent | Rather agree | 7 | 41.17 |
| RAMCIP's presence would increase my dependent's mood | Rather agree | 8 | 47.05 |
| Thanks to RAMCIP my dependent would become more active in everyday life | Rather agree | 8 | 47.05 |
| RAMCIP's presence would increase my dependent's quality of life | Strongly agree | 9 | 52.94 |
| RAMCIP's presence would increase my dependent's security | Strongly agree | 13 | 76.47 |
| RAMCIP's presence would give me some more free time | Rather agree | 9 | 52.94 |
| RAMCIP's presence would allow me to pick up a job (part-time, remote) | Rather agree | 7 | 41.17 |
| RAMCIP's presence would increase my quality of life | Strongly agree | 9 | 52.94 |
| RAMCIP's presence would increase my dependent's sense of intimidation | Rather do not agree | 10 | 58.82 |
| RAMCIP's presence would increase my dependent's stress level | Rather do not agree | 9 | 52.94 |
| RAMCIP's presence would be intimidating for me | Strongly do not agree | 9 | 52.94 |
| RAMCIP's presence would increase my stress level | Strongly do not agree | 8 | 47.05 |
| RAMCIP's presence would be intimidating for the other family members and guests | Rather do not agree | 8 | 47.05 |
| Robot can help human-caregiver with some caregiving activities | Strongly agree | 8 | 47.05 |
| I cannot imagine communicating with my relatives via robot | Rather do not agree | 7 | 41.17 |
| The dependent will feel better somatically and her/his health will improve | Very likely | 7 | 41.17 |
| The dependent will feel better mentally and her/his wellbeing will improve | Very likely | 8 | 47.05 |
| The dependent will feel safer | Very likely | 9 | 52.94 |
| The dependent's cognitive functioning will improve | Quite likely | 8 | 47.05 |
| The dependent will be better in control of everyday activities (medication intake) | Very likely | 8 | 47.05 |
| The dependent will be better in control of her/his finances | Quite likely | 6 | 35.29 |
| The dependent will be more active in everyday life | Quite likely | 7 | 41.17 |
| The dependent will be better in resolving everyday problems | Very likely | 10 | 58.82 |
| The dependent's social interactions within family will improve | Quite likely | 9 | 52.94 |
| The dependent's social interactions will improve | Quite likely | 8 | 47.05 |