=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2524/paper11
|storemode=property
|title=Social robots for older users: a possibility to support assessment and social interventions
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2524/paper11.pdf
|volume=Vol-2524
|authors=Daniela Conti,Alessandro Di Nuovo,Santo Di Nuovo
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/psychobit/ContiNN19
}}
==Social robots for older users: a possibility to support assessment and social interventions==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2524/paper11.pdf
Social robots for older users: a possibility to support
assessment and social interventions
Daniela Conti1[0000-0001-5308-7961], Alessandro Di Nuovo2[0000-0003-2677-2650]
and Santo Di Nuovo3[0000-0002-3786-3323]
1,2
Sheffield Robotics, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK
{d.conti,a.dinuovo}@shu.ac.uk
3
University of Catania, Via Teatro Greco 84, 95124 Catania, Italy
s.dinuovo@unict.it
Abstract. In the last decades, various researches in the field of robotics have
created numerous opportunities for innovative support of the older population.
The goal of this work was to review and highlight how social robots can help
the daily life of older people, and be useful also as assessment tools. We will
underline the aspects of usability and acceptability of robotic supports in the
psychosocial work with older persons. The actual usability of the system influ-
ences the perception of the ease of use only when the user has no or low experi-
ence, while expert users’ perception is related to their attitude towards the ro-
bot. This finding should be more deeply analysed because it may have a strong
influence on the design of future interfaces for elderly-robot interaction. Robots
can play an important role to tackle the societal challenge of the growing older
population. The authors report some recent studies with older users, where it
was demonstrated that the acceptability of robotics during daily life activities,
and also in cognitive evaluation, could be supported by social robots.
Keywords: Acceptability, Older people, Social robots.
1 Introduction
1.1 Older people and robots
The growing number of older people living alone in need of care is one of the great
societal challenges of the most developed countries (e.g. Japan, USA, Europe, Aus-
tralia). Indeed, high-income countries have the oldest population profiles, with more
than 20% of the population predicted to be over 65 in 2050, when citizens older than
80 will be triple than today. This is likely to increase social isolation and loneliness,
which can be associated with several health hazards, e.g. cognitive deterioration, and
increased mortality [1].
This is a challenge for the social care systems, which, as of now, are struggling to
meet the demand of assistance for vulnerable adults because of limitations in their
budgets and, moreover, in the difficulty in recruiting new skilled workers.
Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0).
2
The new technologies, and in particular the social robotics, are seen as a way to ad-
dress human resource and economic pressures on social care systems.
Humanoids robots are capable to provide greater support to older people, because
they are able to pick things up, move around on their own, and have a more natural,
intuitive way of interaction, e.g. include gestures with the hands and arms. Usually the
more advanced humanoid platforms embed additional sensors and devices, like
touchscreens, in order to provide easier to use interfaces thanks to multimodality: it
has been observed that older users preferred to send commands the robot using
speech, because they found touchscreen difficult to use, vice-versa they like to have
visual feedback on screen when the robot is speaking. The availability of multiple
ways for the interaction is indispensable in the case age related hearing loss or visual
impairments which can reduce the ability of the elderly to interact [2].
1.2 Social robots as support to the social care systems
The increasing evidence from scientific research is leading the growth of the robotics
market focused on services for ageing well, with robots that are increasingly available
to assist and accompany the older users.
To this end, one of the most developed commercial examples is Mobile Robotic
Telepresence (MRT) [3] systems that incorporate audio and video communication
equipment onto mobile robot devices which can be steered from remote locations.
MRT systems facilitate social interaction between people by eliminating the necessity
to travel while still providing a physical presence, which has a greater positive influ-
ence in the social perception [4] of the interaction. Thanks to MRT technology, rela-
tives can visit more often their older family members and social workers will be able
to engage more clients per day, especially in sparsely populated rural areas. MRT
from a simple smartphone app, meanwhile the local user is free while interacting with
the pilot user who can also use the robot to inspect the home. The freedom for the
local user is particularly beneficial in the case of people with disability who can have
difficulties in reaching a phone.
However, MRT systems still require a human operator for the social interaction,
which can be present only for a limited amount of time during the day, for the rest the
current MRT systems risk to remain just a modern piece of furniture with no use.
Another solution could be robot companions, which embody advanced Artificial In-
telligence (AI) functionalities to conduct social interaction in complete autonomy.
Nevertheless, such completely autonomous robots are not available on the market yet,
but the underlining idea of a robot companion has been extensively investigated with
pet-like shape robots, e.g. Aibo, MiRO, or humanoids robot, e.g. Pepper, Care-o-
Robot, which resemble the shape of the human body. Pet robots are programmed with
limited interaction abilities, but they proved to be as effective or even more than real
pets in reducing loneliness [5] for elderly in care homes while overcoming the con-
cerns about live animals.
Humanoid robots are more ambitious systems, which include support for complex
functionalities such as dexterous manipulation, advanced navigation and, moreover, a
natural, more intuitive interface, which can overcome some of the difficulties current-
ly experienced especially by the elderly, thanks to the multimodality of stimulation
given by them [2].
3
Social robots can provide a solution for the ageing population challenge, in particular,
to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Solutions like MTR systems or pet-like
companions are already in the market and ready to be deployed soon. More sophisti-
cated humanoid companions with human-like social capabilities are being studied and
seem a promising solution for more comprehensive quality care. Nevertheless, re-
searchers and service providers must address public anxiety and make clear that the
robots are being designed to improve productivity by assisting the social workers,
who will be facilitated in their work and not replaced. Moreover, robot programmed
autonomy has to be limited and humans must always be in full control so that any
danger or accidental situation can be avoided.
1.3 Acceptance and attitude towards robots
Currently, robots are starting to become a part of working life in many areas including
journalism [6], agriculture [7], the military [8], medicine such as surgery [9], educa-
tion [10], and care [11]. A factor influencing the attitude toward robots may indeed be
a concern over the risk of unemployment caused by robots [12], considering certain
occupations are even at risk of being replaced by robots or other technology [13].
Apparently, the public has mixed feelings about robots. In several surveys conducted
by the Eurobarometer, attitudes toward robots and artificial intelligence were general-
ly positive [14]. In the last European survey [15], 68% respondents agreed that “ro-
bots are a good thing for society because they help people”, but, at the same time,
only 26% of the respondents were comfortable "with having a robot to provide ser-
vices and companionship when infirm or elderly". The Eurobarometer survey shows
also the public concern about robots, a technology that “require careful manage-
ment” (88%), and about replacing humans and stealing jobs (72%). Though, the anal-
ysis underlines how the attitude is related to the exposition to information in the last
year, which makes more likely to have a positive view of artificial intelligence and
robots (75% vs. 49% who have not). In an additional analysis of the Eurobarometer
data, Taipale at al. [16] specified further that people are reluctant to use robots in the
fields of childcare and elderly care, leisure, and education. Nor did they favour robots
for “jobs that require artistry, evaluation, judgement and diplomacy” [17]. Along the
same lines of thought, in another recent survey [15] only 26% of the respondents were
comfortable "with having a robot to provide services and companionship to the infirm
or elderly" or "with having a medical operation performed on them by a robot". This
could be related to the common perception that people have of robots. Specifically,
they are seen as technically powerful but potentially dangerous machines, which are
mainly useful in space exploration, in military applications and in industries where
human beings are not present. For this reason, the objectives of the recent robotics
research focus on the attitude, usability, and acceptability by the users, aspects which
are often not correlated [18–22].
4
2 Studies on social robotics for older persons
2.1 A European project aimed to support the older people
Scientific research is also exploring multi-robot systems to favor independent living,
improve the quality of life and the efficiency of care for older people. For instance,
this was the case of the Robot-Era project [2] in which a multinational European con-
sortium of academies and industries developed a plurality of complete advanced ro-
botic services, integrated into intelligent environments. The project conducted one of
the largest experiment ever carried out using multiple service robots, developing elev-
en different services to support older users individually at home, or collectively in the
building and outside. In summary, the experimental results [23] showed that the robot
companions can be effective at home as an instrument to help the family with their
care and in case of need (e.g. illness).
Researchers are also exploring the use of multi-robot systems which would enable
more independent living for seniors because they are able to coordinate with each
other to better perform their tasks, also outside the home.
2.2 Results on the acceptability
The acceptance of robots by older people has been examined in many studies. How-
ever, usually, older users have expressed an opinion without interacting directly with
a robot, showing a strong limitation in the studies [23].
In a study, a robot was used as a physical exercises coach with 33 older participants.
The results showed that most of the users were pleased with the robot as an exercise
motivator [24]. In another recent study with 16 adults, the acceptability of robots for
partner dance-based exercise was investigated. The results suggested that the robot
was perceived as useful, easy to use and enjoyable [25]. In a study with 32 older par-
ticipants, the authors [26] investigated how the human-likeness of the robot’s face
could influence the perceptions of the robots. But, no real robots were used in the
study and the imagination of the participants was stimulated by robot images. Finally,
with interviews and questionnaires, the results showed a greater preference for the
human aspect of the robots by older adults.
In European Robot-Era project the results of the experiments indicated that older
participants were keen to accept robot companions at home as a way to help the fami-
ly with their care [2]. Specifically, experiments were conducted in domestic envi-
ronment, condominium, and outdoor areas. Eleven robotic services were provided by
the Robot-Era system, and each service was tested by older adults that extensively
interacted directly with three robots to accomplish tasks [23].
The perception of usability, measured using the System Usability Scale [27] was very
high (the median score for 67 users was 82 out of 100, over the cutoff score of 68),
and significantly correlated (.32; p<.05) with acceptability, measured using the Uni-
fied Theory of Acceptability and Use of Technology (UTAUT) questionnaire [28].
More specifically, the Perceived ease of use correlated with usability .50 (p<.001),
more than the intention to use (.31; p<.05) [2].
5
Moreover, the actual usability of the system influences the perception of the ease of
use only when the user has no or low experience, while expert users’ perception is
related to their attitude towards the robot [23]. This finding should be more deeply
analysed, because it may have a strong influence on the design of the future interfaces
for elderly-robot interaction, since it is expected that the number of elderly that pos-
sess and use technological devices is growing. Finally, the authors suggest that the
positive perception of the robots’ aesthetics could play a role in increasing the ac-
ceptance of robotic services by older users [23, 29].
2.3 Social robots as assessment tools
Recently, some studies have investigated how social robots could support the clini-
cian during psychological diagnosis. In fact, often the diagnosis is affected by the bias
of the subjectivity of the evaluator. Studies indicated that the support of robots could
lead to a more objective assessment, guarantee standardized administration and asses-
sor neutrality, especially for gender and ethnicity, and allow micro-longitudinal eval-
uations [21, 30]. Indeed, robots can be a useful tool for large-scale screening of cogni-
tive functions. This condition requires further examinations by clinical psychologists,
who must always be responsible for the final diagnosis. This can occur if the robotic
administration of a cognitive test is supervised by a professional expert [30].
In a recent study, 21 Italian elderly participants were involved. The aim was to com-
pare the prototype of a robotic cognitive test with a traditional psychometric paper
and pencil tool, and investigated personality factors and acceptance of technology on
tests. The authors tested the validity of the robotic assessment conducted under pro-
fessional supervision. Some factors such as Anxiety (.47; p<.05), Trust (-.49; p<.05),
and Intention to use (.47; p<.05) were related to performance in psychometric tests.
Finally, the results show the positive influence of Openness to experience on the in-
teraction with the robot’s interfaces (.58; p<.01) [21].
3 Conclusion
Though research into social robots is just beginning, we know so far that they can
provide some solutions to society’s ageing population challenge - and might also help
in reducing social isolation and loneliness -- if society is willing to adopt them. MRT
systems and "pet" companions are already on the market. Humanoid companions are
still being studied, but seem like a promising solution for more comprehensive quality
care [31].
The literature suggests that young people are more in favor than older people to use
robots in caring [32]. Also, differences with males, between countries, and those who
live in cities, and more educated are more favorable have been found. Besides the
importance of psychosocial variables for user acceptance of social robots and tech-
nology in the context of everyday functioning, because the level of psychosocial func-
tioning could either hinders or promotes robot acceptance [33].
The observation of an “uncanny valley”, that is a phenomenon in which highly hu-
manlike entities provoke aversion in human observers, has had an important role for
the recent researches [34]. To understand the uncanny valley, and the visual factors
6
that contribute to an agent’s uncanniness, the relationship between human similarity
and people’s aversion toward humanlike robots via manipulation of the agents’ ap-
pearances was been studied [35]. The authors showed a clear and consistent “uncanny
valley”, and the category ambiguity and atypicality provoke aversive responding, thus
shedding light on the visual factors that drive people’s uneasiness [35]. Also, the time
and/or exposure to robots is unlikely to mitigate the “uncanny valley” effect, because
no relationship exists between people’s aversion and any pre-existing attitudes toward
robots [35].
In conclusion, the robots’ acceptance in intervention and diagnostic evaluation will be
essential for employing robots in social purposes, particularly for older users. Howev-
er, it is evident that the research still in progress and, as usual in the diffusion of inno-
vation, the success is mostly shown with early adopters. For this reason, future studies
should focus in managing and acting upon adverse user responses to maximize the
effectiveness of robots also with the general population. Furthermore, longitudinal
studies would be needed to assess the long-term effects - positive and negative - of
how older people perceive social robots.
References
1. Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P., Wardle, J.: Social isolation, loneliness, and
all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. 110, 5797–5801 (2013).
2. Di Nuovo, A., Broz, F., Wang, N., Belpaeme, T., Cangelosi, A., Jones, R., Esposito,
R., Cavallo, F., Dario, P.: The multi-modal interface of Robot-Era multi-robot services
tailored for the elderly. Intelligent Service Robotics. 11, 109–126 (2018).
3. Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., Loutfi, A.: A review of mobile robotic telepresence.
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. 2013, 3 (2013).
4. Li, J.: The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works
comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies. 77, 23–37 (2015).
5. Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Kerse, N., Broadbent, E.: The Psychosocial Effects of a
Companion Robot: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical
Directors Association. 14, 661–667 (2013).
6. Jung, J., Song, H., Kim, Y., Im, H., Oh, S.: Intrusion of software robots into
journalism: The public’s and journalists’ perceptions of news written by algorithms
and human journalists. Computers in human behavior. 71, 291–298 (2017).
7. Suprem, A., Mahalik, N., Kim, K.: A review on application of technology systems,
standards and interfaces for agriculture and food sector. Computer Standards &
Interfaces. 35, 355–364 (2013).
8. Marchant, G., Allenby, B., Arkin, R., Barrett, E., Borenstein, J., Gaudet, L., Kittrie,
O., Lin, P., Lucas, G., O’Meara, R.: International Governance of Autonomous Military
Robots’. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. 12, 272 (2010).
9. Palep, J.H.: Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery. Journal of Minimal Access
Surgery. 5, 1 (2009).
10. Mubin, O., Stevens, C.J., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A. Al, Dong, J.-J.: A Review of the
Applicability of Robots in Education. Technology for Education and Learning. 1,
(2013).
11. Di Nuovo, A., Conti, D., Trubia, G., Buono, S., Di Nuovo, S.: Deep learning systems
for estimating visual attention in robot-assisted therapy of children with autism and
intellectual disability. Robotics. 7, 25 (2018).
7
12. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Bisson, P., Marrs, A.: Disruptive
technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy.
McKinsey Global Institute San Francisco, CA (2013).
13. Frey, C.B., Osborne, M.A.: The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to
computerisation? Technological forecasting and social change. 114, 254–280 (2017).
14. European Commission: Special Eurobarometer 382 - Public Attitudes towards Robots.
Brussels, Belgium (2012).
15. European Commission: Special Eurobarometer 460 - Attitudes towards the impact of
digitisation and automation on daily life. Brussels, Belgium (2017).
16. Taipale, S., de Luca, F., Sarrica, M., Fortunati, L.: Robot shift from industrial
production to social reproduction. In: Social robots from a human perspective. pp. 11–
24. Springer (2015).
17. Takayama, L., Ju, W., Nass, C.: Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: what everyday
people think robots should do. In: 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). pp. 25–32. IEEE (2008).
18. Kanda, T., Miyashita, T., Osada, T., Haikawa, Y., Ishiguro, H.: Analysis of humanoid
appearances in human–robot interaction. Robotics, IEEE Transactions on. 24, 725–735
(2008).
19. Conti, D., Di Nuovo, S., Buono, S., Di Nuovo, A.: Robots in education and care of
children with developmental disabilities: a study on acceptance by experienced and
future professionals. International Journal of Social Robotics. 9, 51–62 (2017).
20. Conti, D., Commodari, E., Buono, S.: Personality factors and acceptability of socially
assistive robotics in teachers with and without specialized training for children with
disability. Life Span and Disability. 20, 251–272 (2017).
21. Rossi, S., Santangelo, G., Staffa, M., Varrasi, S., Conti, D., Di Nuovo, A.:
Psychometric evaluation supported by a social robot: Personality factors and
technology acceptance. In: 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and
Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). pp. 802–807. IEEE (2018).
22. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the
Older Population: Review and Future Directions. International Journal of Social
Robotics. 1, 319–330 (2009).
23. Cavallo, F., Esposito, R., Limosani, R., Manzi, A., Bevilacqua, R., Felici, E., Di
Nuovo, A., Cangelosi, A., Lattanzio, F., Dario, P.: Robotic services acceptance in
smart environments with older adults: user satisfaction and acceptability study. Journal
of medical Internet research. 20, e264 (2018).
24. Fasola, J., Matarić, M.J.: A Socially Assistive Robot Exercise Coach for the Elderly.
Journal of Human-Robot Interaction. 2, 3–32 (2013).
25. Chen, T.L., Bhattacharjee, T., Beer, J.M., Ting, L.H., Hackney, M.E., Rogers, W.A.,
Kemp, C.C.: Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise.
PloS one. 12, e0182736 (2017).
26. Prakash, A., Rogers, W.A.: Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively
than others: effects of human-likeness and task. International journal of social robotics.
7, 309–331 (2015).
27. Brooke, J.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry.
189, 4–7 (1996).
28. Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., Evers, V.: of an interface robot and a screen
agent by elderly users Categories and Subject Descriptors. People and Computers.
430–439 (2009).
29. Robot-Era project, http://www.robot-era.eu/robotera/.
30. Varrasi, S., Di Nuovo, S., Conti, D., Di Nuovo, A.: A Social Robot for Cognitive
Assessment. In: HRI’18 Companion: Conference on ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, March 5-8, 2018, Chicago, IL, USA. pp.
8
269–270 (2018).
31. Dahl, T., Boulos, M.: Robots in health and social care: A complementary technology
to home care and telehealthcare? Robotics. 3, 1–21 (2014).
32. Hudson, J., Orviska, M., Hunady, J.: People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the
elderly. International journal of social robotics. 9, 199–210 (2017).
33. Baisch, S., Kolling, T., Schall, A., Rühl, S., Selic, S., Kim, Z., Rossberg, H., Klein, B.,
Pantel, J., Oswald, F.: Acceptance of social robots by elder people: does psychosocial
functioning matter? International Journal of Social Robotics. 9, 293–307 (2017).
34. Mori, M.: Bukimi no tani [The uncanny valley]. Energy, 7 (4) 33-35.(Translated by
Karl F. MacDorman and Takashi Minato in 2005 within Appendix B for the paper
Androids as an Experimental Apparatus: Why is there an uncanny and can we exploit
it? In: Proceedings of the CogSci-2005 Workshop: Toward Social Mechanisms of
Android Science. pp. 106–118 (1970).
35. Strait, M.K., Floerke, V.A., Ju, W., Maddox, K., Remedios, J.D., Jung, M.F., Urry,
H.L.: Understanding the uncanny: both atypical features and category ambiguity
provoke aversion toward humanlike robots. Frontiers in psychology. 8, 1366 (2017).