skip to main content
10.1145/1957656.1957669acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study

Published:06 March 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper reports an ethnographic study on the use of a conversational robot. We placed a robot for 3.5 months in an elderly care center. Assuming a real deployment scenario, the robot was managed by a single non-programmer person during the field trial, who teleoperated the robot and updated the contents. The robot was designed to engage in daily greetings and chatting with elderly people. Through the ethnographic approach, we clarified how the elderly people interacted with this conversational robot, how the deployment process adopted to introduce the robot was designed, and how the organization's personnel involved themselves in this deployment.

References

  1. Chen, T. L. and Kemp, C. C. 2010. Lead Me by the Hand: Evaluation of a Direct Physical Interface for Nursing Assistant Robots, ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2010), pp. 367--374. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Dario, P., Guglielmelli, E., Laschi, C., and Teti, G. 1999. MOVAID: a personal robot in everyday life of disabled and elderly people. Technol Disabil 10:77--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Forlizzi, J. and Disalvo, C. 2006. Service robots in the domestic environment: A study of the Roomba vacuum in the home. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI'06), 258--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Forlizzi, J. 2007. How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI'07), pp. 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 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
  6. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine DeGruyter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Giulini, M.V., Scopelliti, M., and Fornara, F. 2005. Elderly people at home: Technological help in everyday activities. IEEE Int. W. on Robots and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 05), pp. 365--370.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., and Wielinga, B. 2006. The influence of a robot's social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. IEEE Int. S. on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 06), pp. 521--526.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., and Evers, V. 2008. Enjoyment, Intention to Use and Actual Use of a Conversational Robot by Elderly People, ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2008), pp. 113--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J., Stroback, J., and Kurtz, C. 2000. The Elder project: social and emotional factors in design of eldercare technologies. Conference on universal usability, pp. 72--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Hüttenrauch, H. and Eklundh, K. S. 2002. Fetch-and-Carry with Cero: Observations from a Long-Term User Study with a Service Robot, IEEE Int. W. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN2002), pp. 158--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahn, P. Jr., Freier, N. G., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Ruckert, J. H., Severson R. L., and Kane, S. K. 2008. Design Patterns for Sociality in Human-Robot Interaction, ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2008), pp. 97--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Imai, M., and Ono, T., 2004. Development and Evaluation of Interactive Humanoid Robots, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 92, pp. 1839--1850.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Mukai, T., et al. 2008. Development of the Tactile Sensor System of a Human-Interactive Robot "Ri-Man", IEEE Trans. on Robotics, vol. 24, pp. 505--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., Forlizzi, J., Srinivasa, S., and Rybski, P. 2010. Gracefully Mitigating Breakdowns in Robotic Services, ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2010), pp. 203--210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Mutlu, B. and Forlizzi, J. 2008. Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2008): 287--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mutlu, B., et al. 2009. Footing in Human-Robot Conversations: How Robots Might Shape Participant Roles Using Gaze Cues, ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2009), pp. 61--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Pain, H., Gale, C. R., Watson. C., Cox, V., Cooper, C., and Sayer, A. 2007. Readiness of elders to use assistive devices to maintain their independence in the home. Age Ageing 36:465--467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Pollack, M. E., et al. 2002. Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. AAAI Workshop on Automation as Eldercare.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Stiehl, W. D., et al. 2005. Design of a Therapeutic Robotic Companion for Relational, Affective Touch, IEEE Int. W. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN2005), pp. 408- 415. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sung, J.-Y., Grinter, R. E., Christensen, H. I., and Guo, L. 2008. Housewives or Technophiles?: Understanding Domestic Robot Owners, ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2008), pp. 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Tapus, A., Matarić, M. J., and Scassellati, B. 2007. Socially Assistive Robotics {Grand Challenges of Robotics}, IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, vol. 14, pp. 35--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Weiss, A., et al. 2008. A Methodological Variation for Acceptance Evaluation of Human-Robot Interaction in Public Places, IEEE Int. S. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN2008), pp. 713--718.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Wada, K. and Shibata, T. 2007. Living with Seal Robots-Its Sociopsychological and Physiological Influences on the Elderly at a Care House, IEEE Trans. on Robotics, vol. 23, pp. 972--980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study

      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