Abstract
In this article, we present results obtained from field trials with the Hobbit robotic platform, an assistive, social service robot aiming at enabling prolonged independent living of older adults in their own homes. Our main contribution lies within the detailed results on perceived safety, usability, and acceptance from field trials with autonomous robots in real homes of older users. In these field trials, we studied how 16 older adults (75 plus) lived with autonomously interacting service robots over multiple weeks.
Robots have been employed for periods of months previously in home environments for older people, and some have been tested with manipulation abilities, but this is the first time a study has tested a robot in private homes that provided the combination of manipulation abilities, autonomous navigation, and non-scheduled interaction for an extended period of time. This article aims to explore how older adults interact with such a robot in their private homes. Our results show that all users interacted with Hobbit daily, rated most functions as well working, and reported that they believe that Hobbit will be part of future elderly care. We show that Hobbit’s adaptive behavior approach towards the user increasingly eased the interaction between the users and the robot. Our trials reveal the necessity to move into actual users’ homes, as only there, we encounter real-world challenges and demonstrate issues such as misinterpretation of actions during non-scripted human-robot interaction.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Results of Field Trials with a Mobile Service Robot for Older Adults in 16 Private Households
- Aitor Aldoma, Federico Tombari, Luigi Di Stefano, and Markus Vincze. 2012. A global hypotheses verification method for 3d object recognition. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 511--524.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Markus Bajones, David Fischinger, Astrid Weiss, Daniel Wolf, Markus Vincze, Paloma de la Puente, Tobias Körtner, Markus Weninger, Konstantinos Papoutsakis, Damien Michel, Ammar Qammaz, Paschalis Panteleris, Michalis Foukarakis, Ilia Adami, Danai Ioannidi, Asterios Leonidis, Margherita Antona, Antonis Argyros, Peter Mayer, Paul Panek, Håkan Eftring, and Susanne Frennert. 2018. Hobbit: Providing fall detection and prevention for the elderly in the real world. J. Robot. 2018 (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1754657Google Scholar
- Markus Bajones, Astrid Weiss, and Markus Vincze. 2016. I know what you did last week. Log data analysis of long term household trials. In Proceedings of the Workshop on “The Challenge (Not) to Go Wild! Challenges and Best Practices to Study HRI in Natural Interaction Settings” at HRI’16.Google Scholar
- Jenay M. Beer, Cory-ann Smarr, Tiffany L. Chen, Akanksha Prakash, Tracy L. Mitzner, Charles C. Kemp, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2012. The domesticated robot: Design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’12). 335--342.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Broadbent, Jeff Garrett, Nicola Jepsen, Vickie Li Ogilvie, Ho Seok Ahn, Hayley Robinson, Kathryn Peri, Ngaire Kerse, Paul Rouse, Avinesh Pillai et al. 2018. Using robots at home to support patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 20, 2 (2018).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elizabeth Broadbent, Ngaire Kerse, Kathryn Peri, Hayley Robinson, Chandimal Jayawardena, Tony Kuo, Chandan Datta, Rebecca Stafford, Haley Butler, Pratyusha Jawalkar et al. 2016. Benefits and problems of health-care robots in aged care settings: A comparison trial. Australasian J. Age. 35, 1 (2016), 23--29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paolo Dario, Eugenio Guglielmelli, Vincenzo Genovese, and Maurizio Toro. 1996. Robot assistants: Applications and evolution. Robot. Auton. Syst. 18, 1--2 (1996), 225--234.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Methodology 8 themes of human-robot interaction: A growing research field. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 4, 1 SPEC. ISS. (2007), 103--108. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5772/5702Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paloma de la Puente, Markus Bajones, Christian Reuther, Daniel Wolf, David Fischinger, and Markus Vincze. 2019. Robot navigation in domestic environments: Experiences using RGB-D sensors in real homes. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 94, 2 (2019), 455--470.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrew Dillon. 2001. User acceptance of information technology. Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105880 http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/105880.Google Scholar
- R. Eisma, A. Dickinson, J. Goodman, A. Syme, L. Tiwari, and A. F. Newell. 2004. Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people. Univ. Access Inform. Soc. 3, 2 (2004), 131--140. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-004-0092-zGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Gabor Fazekas, Andras Toth, Pierre Rumeau, Katalin Zsiga, Tamas Pilissy, and Vincent Dupurque. 2012. Cognitive-care robot for elderly assistance: Preliminary results of tests with users in their homes. In Proceedings of the AAL Forum. 145--148.Google Scholar
- Heike Felzmann, Kathy Murphy, Dympna Casey, and Oya Beyan. 2015. Robot-assisted care for elderly with dementia: Is there a potential for genuine end-user empowerment. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human--Robot Interaction.Google Scholar
- David Fischinger, Peter Einramhof, Konstantinos Papoutsakis, Walter Wohlkinger, Peter Mayer, Paul Panek, Stefan Hofmann, Tobias Körtner, Astrid Weiss, Antonis Argyros, and Markus Vincze. 2016. Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned. Robot. Auton. Syst. 75 (2016), 60--78. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.029Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Fischinger, Astrid Weiss, and Markus Vincze. 2015. Learning grasps with topographic features. Int. J. Robot. Res. 34, 9 (2015), 1167--1194. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364915577105Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jodi Forlizzi and Carl Disalvo. 2006. Service robots in the domestic environment: A study of the Roomba vacuum in the home. Design 2006 (2006), 258--265. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121286Google Scholar
- Birgit Graf, Ulrich Reiser, Martin Hägele, Kathrin Mauz, and Peter Klein. 2009. Robotic home assistant Care-O-Bot® 3—Product vision and innovation platform. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO’09). 139--144. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2009.5587059Google ScholarDigital Library
- Horst-Michael Gross, Steffen Mueller, Christof Schroeter, Michael Volkhardt, Andrea Scheidig, Klaus Debes, Katja Richter, and Nicola Doering. 2015. Robot companion for domestic health assistance: Implementation, test and case study under everyday conditions in private apartments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’15). 5992--5999. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2015.7354230Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chandimal Jayawardena, I-Han Kuo, Elizabeth Broadbent, and Bruce A. MacDonald. 2016. Socially assistive robot healthbot: Design, implementation, and field trials. IEEE Syst. J. 10, 3 (2016), 1056--1067.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Zenta Miyashita, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2009. An affective guide robot in a shopping mall. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI’09). ACM, New York, NY, 173--180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514127Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tobias Körtner, Alexandra Schmid, Daliah Batko-Klein, Christoph Gisinger, Andreas Huber, Lara Lammer, and Markus Vincze. 2012. How social robots make older users really feel well—A method to assess users’ concepts of a social robotic assistant. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 138--147. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_14Google ScholarDigital Library
- I-Han Kuo, Elizabeth Broadbent, and Bruce MacDonald. 2008. Designing a robotic assistant for healthcare applications. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of Health Informatics.Google Scholar
- Lara Lammer, Andreas Huber, Astrid Weiss, and Markus Vincze. 2014. Mutual care: How older adults react when they should help their care robot. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction. Retrieved from http://hobbit.acin.tuwien.ac.at/publications/AISB2014-HRIpaper.pdf.Google Scholar
- Iolanda Leite, Carlos Martinho, and Ana Paiva. 2013. Social robots for long-term interaction: A survey. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5, 2 (2013), 291--308. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-yGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- J. C. Marquié, L. Jourdan-Boddaert, and N. Huet. 2002. Do older adults underestimate their actual computer knowledge?Behav. Inform. Technol. 21, 4 (2002), 273--280. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929021000020998Google Scholar
- Tatsuya Nomura, Tomohiro Suzuki, Takayuki Kanda, and Kensuke Kato. 2006. Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact. Stud. 7, 3 (2006), 437--454. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nomGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Martha E. Pollack, Laura Brown, Dirk Colbry, Cheryl Orosz, Bart Peintner, Sailesh Ramakrishnan, Sandra Engberg, Judith T. Matthews, Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob, Colleen E. McCarthy et al. 2002. Pearl: A mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Automation as Eldercare, Vol. 2002. 85--91.Google Scholar
- Johann Prankl, Aitor Aldoma Buchaca, Alexander Svejda, and Markus Vincze. 2015. RGB-D object modelling for object recognition and tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’15). 8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tobias Rehrl, Raphaël Troncy, Andreas Bley, Susanne Ihsen, Katharina Scheibl, Sebastian Glende, Stefan Goetze, Jens Kessler, Christoph Hintermueller, and Frank Wallhoff. 2012. The ambient adaptable living assistant is meeting its users. In Proceedings of the AAL Forum. 629--636. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1.1.364.3969Google Scholar
- Yvonne Rogers. 2011. Interaction design gone wild. Interactions 18, 4 (July 2011), 58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978834Google ScholarDigital Library
- Astrid Marieke Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Astrid Weiss, and Selma Šabanović. 2016. The challenge (not) to go wild!: Challenges and best practices to study HRI in natural interaction settings. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI’16). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 583--584. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2906831.2906991.Google Scholar
- Selma Sabanovic, Marek P. Michalowski, and Reid Simmons. 2006. Robots in the wild: Observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control (AMC’06), Vol. 2006. 576--581. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/AMC.2006.1631758Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ch. Schroeter, S. Mueller, M. Volkhardt, E. Einhorn, C. Huijnen, H. Van Den Heuvel, A. Van Berlo, A. Bley, and H. M. Gross. 2013. Realization and user evaluation of a companion robot for people with mild cognitive impairments. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 1153--1159. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630717Google Scholar
- Ralf Schwarzer and Matthias Jerusalem. 1995. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. Number 2008. Elsevier Publishers, 35--37. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/t00393-000Google Scholar
- T. Shibata and K. Tanie. 2001. Physical and affective interaction between human and mental commit robot. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’01), Vol. 3. 2572--2577. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2001.933010Google Scholar
- Masahiro Shiomi, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2006. Interactive humanoid robots for a science museum. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human--Robot Interaction (HRI’06). ACM, New York, NY, 305--312. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121293Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cory-Ann Smarr, Akanksha Prakash, Jenay M. Beer, Tracy L. Mitzner, Charles C. Kemp, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2012. Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting, Vol. 56. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 153--157.Google Scholar
- Walter Dan Stiehl, Cynthia Breazeal, Kuk-Hyun Han, Jeff Lieberman, Levi Lalla, Allan Maymin, Jonathan Salinas, Daniel Fuentes, Robert Toscano, Cheng Hau Tong, et al. 2006. The huggable: A therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Emerging Technologies. ACM, 15.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jayoung Sung, Rebecca E. Grinter, and Henrik I. Christensen. 2009. “Pimp My Roomba”: Designing for personalization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1 (2009), 193--196. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518732Google Scholar
- Markus Vincze, Markus Bajones, Markus Suchi, Daniel Wolf, Astrid Weiss, David Fischinger, and Paloma da la Puente. 2016. Learning and detecting objects with a mobile robot to assist older adults in their homes. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 316--330.Google Scholar
- K. Wada and T. Shibata. 2007. Living with seal robots—Its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Trans. Robot. 23, 5 (Oct. 2007), 972--980. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.906261Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Wada, T. Shibata, T. Saito, K. Sakamoto, and K. Tanie. 2005. Psychological and social effects of one year robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service facility for the aged. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2785--2790. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570535Google Scholar
- K. Wada, T. Shibata, T. Saito, and K. Tanie. 2004. Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. Proc. IEEE 92, 11 (Nov. 2004), 1780--1788. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.835378Google ScholarCross Ref
- Astrid Weiss, Lara Lammer, Andreas Huber, Markus Vincze, Nina Hess, Tobias Körtner, and Alexandra Schmid. 2014. Developing an assistive robot for older adults: Methodological considerations for field trials. In Proceedings of the Workshop on “Socially Assistive Robots for the Elderly: Are We Trapped in Stereotypes?” at HRI’14.Google Scholar
- Lucy Yardley, Nina Beyer, Klaus Hauer, Gertrudis Kempen, Chantal Piot-Ziegler, and Chris Todd. 2005. Development and initial validation of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Age and Ageing 34, 6 (2005), 614--619. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afi196Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katalin Zsiga, András Tóth, Tamás Pilissy, Orsolya Péter, Zoltán Dénes, and Gábor Fazekas. 2018. Evaluation of a companion robot based on field tests with single older adults in their homes. Assist. Technol. 30, 5 (2018), 259--266. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2017.1322158Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
Results of Field Trials with a Mobile Service Robot for Older Adults in 16 Private Households
Recommendations
The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place
HRI '12: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot InteractionMany older adults wish to remain in their own homes as they age [16]. However, challenges in performing home upkeep tasks threaten an older adult's ability to age in place. Even healthy independently living older adults experience challenges in ...
Results of a Real World Trial with a Mobile Social Service Robot for Older Adults
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot InteractionRobots are an increasingly discussed solution for assistance of seniors. Importance of testing natural interaction therefore becomes crucial. This paper presents first results of a study with an autonomous mobile social service robot prototype that was ...
Evaluating older adults' interaction with a mobile assistive robot
2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)This paper presents findings from two deployments of an autonomous mobile robot in older adult low income Supportive Apartment Living (SAL) facilities. Design guidelines for the robot hardware and software were based on query of clinicians, caregivers and ...
Comments