skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Results of Field Trials with a Mobile Service Robot for Older Adults in 16 Private Households

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yvonne Rogers. 2011. Interaction design gone wild. Interactions 18, 4 (July 2011), 58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978834Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Results of Field Trials with a Mobile Service Robot for Older Adults in 16 Private Households

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
            ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction  Volume 9, Issue 2
            June 2020
            164 pages
            EISSN:2573-9522
            DOI:10.1145/3375991
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 16 December 2019
            • Accepted: 1 September 2019
            • Revised: 1 August 2019
            • Received: 1 November 2017
            Published in thri Volume 9, Issue 2

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format