BACKGROUND: As older adults age, they may require assistance completing activities of daily living (ADLs). Robotic assistance can offset healthcare costs and allow older adults to preserve their autonomy. Younger adults are often involved in the design and purchase of these robotic technologies, and must take into account the needs and expectations of the target population (i.e., older adults) to create a robot that the end-user will adopt. RESEARCH AIM/QUESTIONS: This study evaluated the opinions of both younger and older adults regarding the design and performance of the Robot Activity Support (RAS) system. It is important to understand points of agreement and divergence between these populations' perspectives so that effective robotic aids are created for older adults. METHODS: Fifty-two younger and older adults completed three scripted tasks with the RAS robot in a smart home environment. Each participant made task errors to cue the robot to offer help via three prompt modalities (guide to the object, video of forgotten step, and video of the full task). After interacting with the robot, participants completed questionnaires to evaluate their opinions of and satisfaction with the robot. RESULTS: There were no differences between younger and older adults' perceptions of the robot across a variety of factors (e.g., likability, cognitive demand), with both age groups expressing generally neutral opinions. Both groups rated the Full Video prompt as least helpful, effective, and liked. Participants recommended the robot's response accuracy, movement speed, alerting style and system flexibility be improved. Younger adults overestimated how much older adults would want a robot like this. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the importance of testing technology with the end-user, as older adults were less interested in having a similar robot in their home than younger counterparts expected. Future studies will show if older adults' opinions can be improved after making the recommended changes.
BACKGROUND: As older adults age, they may require assistance completing activities of daily living (ADLs). Robotic assistance can offset healthcare costs and allow older adults to preserve their autonomy. Younger adults are often involved in the design and purchase of these robotic technologies, and must take into account the needs and expectations of the target population (i.e., older adults) to create a robot that the end-user will adopt. RESEARCH AIM/QUESTIONS: This study evaluated the opinions of both younger and older adults regarding the design and performance of the Robot Activity Support (RAS) system. It is important to understand points of agreement and divergence between these populations' perspectives so that effective robotic aids are created for older adults. METHODS: Fifty-two younger and older adults completed three scripted tasks with the RAS robot in a smart home environment. Each participant made task errors to cue the robot to offer help via three prompt modalities (guide to the object, video of forgotten step, and video of the full task). After interacting with the robot, participants completed questionnaires to evaluate their opinions of and satisfaction with the robot. RESULTS: There were no differences between younger and older adults' perceptions of the robot across a variety of factors (e.g., likability, cognitive demand), with both age groups expressing generally neutral opinions. Both groups rated the Full Video prompt as least helpful, effective, and liked. Participants recommended the robot's response accuracy, movement speed, alerting style and system flexibility be improved. Younger adults overestimated how much older adults would want a robot like this. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the importance of testing technology with the end-user, as older adults were less interested in having a similar robot in their home than younger counterparts expected. Future studies will show if older adults' opinions can be improved after making the recommended changes.
Entities:
Keywords:
activities of daily living; assistance; autonomous; mild cognitive impairment; robot; smart home
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Garrett Wilson; Christopher Pereyda; Nisha Raghunath; Gabriel de la Cruz; Shivam Goel; Sepehr Nesaei; Bryan Minor; Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe; Matthew E Taylor; Diane J Cook Journal: Cogn Syst Res Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 3.523