Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Social
Robots by Older Adults and People with
Dementia : A Literature Review.
Sally Whelan PhD Candidate, MA, RNT, RGN
School of Nursing and Midwifery, NUIG
• Background to Study - social robots to support care given to older adults (OA) and people with dementia (PWD). • Technology Acceptability – concepts and models. • Literature Review Study – methods used, results, conclusions, recommendations. • Questions/Discussion.
Session Overview
What is a Social Robot? Definition: A robot that is useful and possesses, ‘social intelligence and skills which enable them to interact with people in a socially acceptable manner’. (Dautenhahn 2007)
Social Robots
This definition includes companion-type robots and service-type robots which support people in undertaking daily living functions
Primary purpose to enhance mental health, and the psychological well-being of its users. Through increasing the engagement and social connectedness
Zoomorphic Robots - Paro
Shibata et al., 2012 and McGlynn, Kemple et al, 2014, Klein and Cook 2012 and Robinson, MacDonald et al. 2013 and Shibata 2012
Zoomorphic Robots - Karotz
(de Graaf, Allouch et al. 2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teZJ1ivTLpk
Mario’s - Goals
• To be user driven • To provide assistance • To be a companion • To aid connectedness • To monitor user health and behaviour • To improve quality of life • To be acceptable to the elderly
Mario’s – Functions in Development
Individualised Applications • Reminiscence • Entertainment – Music; Games; Films • News • Skype video calls • Everyday things – scheduling reminders
Social Robots with a Human-like or Mechanical Appearance
Brian 2.1
(McColl, Wing-Yue et al. 2013 and Wing-Yue,
Louise et al. 2014)
Matilda (Khosla, Nguyen et al. 2014)
Acceptability of Social Robots
Acceptability is defined as the ‘robot being willingly incorporated into the older person’s life’ (Broadbent et al 2009)
It implies long term usage.
Important for design and future usage
It depends on multiple variables (Spiekman et al 2011; Frennert et al 2013).
(Heerink et al 2006, 2008,2011,2013)
The Almere Technology Acceptance Model
Relationship between Almere model constructs
(Heerink 2011)
Literature Review
Aims • To determine how this issue has been
examined to date • To identify the importance of particular
factors • To ascertain what is likely to improve
acceptability • To make recommendations for future
research.
Methods
• Key words used to search Cochrane library,
PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web
of Science Core Collection, PsychINFO, and
Compendex (EI Village 2).
• Inclusion Criteria: published in English,
2005-May 2016, empirical study - relevant
to the review aims, which involved PWD,
OA, OA with Cognitive Impairment.
Search Results
• The titles of 198 articles were read • 141 were discounted - not in English, weren’t
relevant, duplicates. • Abstracts from 57 papers were then examined • 11were excluded as they were not empirical
studies or participants not PWD or OA. • Remaining 46 studies identified for inclusion
Results – Attitudes and Anxieties towards technology
• Mental models • Perceived mind experience and mind
agency (Stafford et al 2010, 2013)
• Gender, education, age and computer experience (Heerink 2011)
Results – Intention to Use
• Less Reliable predictor – Changes with experience (Gross and Schroeter el 2012; Heerink 2010)
• More in vivo longitudinal studies needed
• Usage is influenced by what a robot means to individual (Pfadenhauer and Dukat 2015)
Results – Perceived Usefulness
• Useful and relevant to unmet needs (de Graaf
2015)
• Identifying unmet needs complex • Involvement during robot
development – early and regularly
Results – Perceived Ease of Use
• Practical Usability – individual and environmental considerations
• Studies focusing on PEOU and OA and PWD learning to use are few e.g.(Granata
and Pino 2013)
Results – Perceived Enjoyment
• Important for acceptability (Heerink et
al 2011, Young et al 2009)
• Correlates with ITU and actual usage (Heerink et al 2010)
• PE reduced over six months (de Graaf
2015)
Results – Social Presence
• Embodied robot vs ICT technology (Tapus and Tapus 2009)
• Robot size linked to SP and Anxiety (Torta
et al 2013; Robinson, Macdonald et al 2013)
• Relevant to purpose and context • Feeling comfortable
Results – Perceived Sociability
• Believing robot has social ability to
function as assistive device Correlates with PS (Heerink et al 2010)
• Linked to appearance, behavior and communication styles
Results – Robot Appearance
• Little consensus (Scopelliti et al 2005; Bagum,
et al 2013; Pino et al 2015)
• Uncanny valley concept
• Degrees of realism not key • Benefits of undetermined design
(Chang et al 2013)
• Respond to package - robot expressions and communication behavior
Results – Robot Appearance
Results – Robot behavior and communication style
• Compatible with social context and perceptions status and role
• Human-like communication – Stimulations for PWD (Cohen-Mansfield et al
2010)
• ‘Robotiquette’ – recent technical advances
Results – Trust and Perceived Adaptivity
• Important (Frennert 2013, Scopelliti et al 2005)
• Underlies need for Perceived Control • Balance between autonomy and
adaptability (de Graaf 2015)
Results – Social Influences and facilitating conditions
• Few studies focus on these • SI was one of strongest predictor of ITU
(Alaiad 2014; Wu et al 2014)
Conclusion – Acceptability linked to…
• Psychological variables of individuals • Their social and physical environment • Meeting the needs of individuals
Important factors – PEOU, PE, Fulfilling function, Opinions of others.
• Human-like communication • Appropriate to appearance and
function. • Responding to emotional needs
Conclusion – Caution interpreting findings
• Many small studies, short term robot usage and some not in own context or with actual robot usage.
• Infancy of research field • Longitudinal studies in the context of
deployment needed.
Any Questions?
Funding:
The research leading to these results has received
funding from the European Union Horizons 2020–
the Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation (2014-2020) under grant agreement
643808 Project MARIO ‘Managing active and
healthy aging with use of caring service robots”.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they
have no conflict of interest.
