skip to main content
10.1145/1957656.1957665acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: acceptance, benefits, and concerns

Published:06 March 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

While much of human-robot interaction research focuses upon people interacting with autonomous robots, there is also much to be gained from exploring human interpersonal interaction through robots. The current study focuses on mobile remote presence (MRP) systems as used by a population who could potentially benefit from more social connectivity and communication with remote people - older adults. Communication technologies are important for ensuring safety, independence, and social support for older adults, thereby potentially improving their quality of life and maintaining their independence [24]. However, before such technologies would be accepted and used by older adults, it is critical to understand their perceptions of the benefits, concerns, and adoption criteria for MRP systems. As such, we conducted a needs assessment with twelve volunteer participants (ages 63-88), who were given first-hand experience with both meeting a visitor via the MRP system and driving the MRP system to visit that person. The older adult participants identified benefits such as being able to see and be seen via the MRP system, reducing travel costs and hassles, and reducing social isolation. Among the concerns identified were etiquette of using the MRP, personal privacy, and overuse of the system. Some new use-cases were identified that have not yet been explored in prior work, for example, going to museums, attending live performances, and visiting friends who are hospitalized. The older adults in the current study preferred to operate the MRP themselves, rather than to be visited by others operating the MRP system. More findings are discussed in terms of their implications for design.

References

  1. Boissy, P., Corriveau, H., Michaud, F., Labonte, D. and Royer, M.-P. 2007. A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 13, 79--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Caine, K. E., Fisk, A. D. and Rogers, W. A. 2007. Designing privacy conscious aware homes for older adults. In Proceedings of HFES.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Giuliani, M. V., Pecora, F., Scopelliti, M. and Tiberio, L. 2007. Psychological implications of domestic assistive technology for the elderly. PsychNology Journal 5, 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A. and Sharit, J. 2006. Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging 21, 333--352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M., Koay, K. L. and Werry, I. 2005. What is a robot companion-Friend, assistant or butler? In Proceedings of IROS, IEEE, 1488--1493. DOI=10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Demiris, G., Rantz, M. J., Aud, M. A., Marek, K. D., Tyrer, H. W., Skubic, M. and Hussam, A. A. 2004. Older adults' attitudes toward and perceptions of 'smart home' technologies: A pilot study. Informatics for Health and Social Care 29, 87--94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D. and Roger, W. A. 2009. More than a servant: Self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. In Proceedings of HFES, 136--150. DOI=10.1518/107118109X12524441079382Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C. and Gemperle, F. 2004. Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 25--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. GeckoSystems 2010. Gecko System Markets: Consumer Family.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gitlin, L. 2003. Conducting research on home environments: Lessons learned and new directions. The Gerontologist 43, 5, 628--637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Giuliani, M. V., Scopelliti, M. and Fornara, F. 2005. Elderly people at home: Technological help in everyday activities. In Proceedings of RO-MAN, IEEE, 365--370.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen, S. T., Andersen, H. J. and Bak, T. 2010. Practical evaluation of robots for elderly in Denmark: An overview. In Proceedings of HRI, ACM, Osaka, Japan, 149--150. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1734454.1734517 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V. and Wielinga, B. 2006. The influence fo a robot's social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. In Proceedings of RO-MAN, IEEE, 521--526.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Heerink, M., Krose, B., Wielinga, B. and Evers, V. 2008. Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In Proceedings of HRI, ACM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 113--119. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1349822.1349838 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Heerink, M., Krose, B., Wielinga, B. and Evers, V. 2009. Measuring the influence of social abilities on acceptance of an interface robot and a screen agent by elderly users. In Proceedings of British Computer Society Conference on HCI, 430--439. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Helal, A. and Abdulrazak, B. 2006. TeCaRob: Tele-care using telepresence and robotic technology for assisting people with special needs. International Journal of ARM 7, 3, 46--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jouppi, N. P. 2002. First steps toward mutually-immersive mobile telepresence. In Proceedings of CSCW, ACM, New Orleans, LA, USA, 354--363. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587078.587128 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kidd, C. D., Taggart, W. and Turkle, S. 2006. A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In Proceedings of ICRA, IEEE, 3972--3976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Melenhorst, A. S., Rogers, W. A. and Bouwhuis, D. G. 2006. Older adults' motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychology and Aging 21, 190--195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Michaud, F., Boissy, P., Labonte, D., Corriveau, H., Grant, A., Lauria, M., Cloutier, R., Roux, M.-A., Iannuzzi, D. and Royer, M.-P. 2007. Remote assistance in caregiving using telerobot. In Proceedings of ICTA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Morris, M., Lundell, J. and Dishman, E. 2004. Catalyzing social interaction with ubiquitous computing: A needs assessment of elders coping with cognitive decline. In Proceedings of CHI, Vienna, Austria, 1151--1154. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/985921.986011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Paulos, E. and Canny, J. 2001. Social tele-embodiment: Understanding presence. Autonomous Robots 11, 1, 87--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Pollack, M. E., Brown, L., Colbry, D., Orosz, C., Peintner, B., Ramakrishnan, S., Engberg, S., Matthews, J. T., Dunbar-Jacob, J., McCarthy, C. E., Thrun, S., Montemerlo, M., Pineau, J. and Roy, N. 2002. Pearl: A mobile robotic assistant for the elderly AAAI Workshop on automation as caregiver.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogers, W. A. and Mynatt, E. D. 2003. How can technology contribute to the quality of life of older adults? in The technology of humanity: Can technology contribute to the quality of life?, Mitchell, M. E. Ed. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, 22--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharit, J., Czaja, S. J., Perdomo, D. and Lee, C. C. 2004. A cost-benefit analysis methodology for assessing product adoption by older user populations. Applied Ergonomics 35, 81--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Taggart, W., Turkle, S. and Kidd, C. D. 2005. An interactive robot in a nursing home: Preliminary remarks CogSci workshop: Towards social mechanisms of android science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsai, T.-C., Hsu, Y.-L., Ma, A.-I., King, T. and Wu, C.-H. 2006. Developing a telepresence robot for interpersonal communication with the elderly in a home environment. Telemedicine and e-Health 13, 4, 407--424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Venolia, G., Tang, J., Cervantes, R., Bly, S., Robertson, G., Lee, B. and Inkpen, K. 2010. Embodied social proxy: Mediating interpersonal connection in hub-and-satellite tams. In Proceedings of CHI, ACM, Atlanta, GA, 1049--1058. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753326.1753482 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: acceptance, benefits, and concerns

      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
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        HRI '11: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction
        March 2011
        526 pages
        ISBN:9781450305617
        DOI:10.1145/1957656

        Copyright © 2011 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: 6 March 2011

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader