Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social service robots to support independent living

Experiences from a field trial

Soziale Serviceroboter zur Unterstützung des unabhängigen Lebens

Erfahrungen aus einem Feldversuch

  • Beiträge zum Themenschwerpunkt
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Assistive robots could be a future means to support independent living for seniors.

Objective

This article provides insights into the latest developments in social service robots (SSR) based on the recently finished HOBBIT project. The idea of the HOBBIT project was to develop a low-cost SSR which is able to reduce the risk of falling, to detect falls and handle emergencies in private homes. The main objective of the project was to raise the technology to a level that allows the robot to be fully autonomously deployed in the private homes of older users and to evaluate technology market readiness, utility, usability and affordability under real-world conditions.

Method

During the initial phase of the project, a first prototype (PT1) was developed. The results of laboratory tests with PT1 were used for the development of a second prototype (PT2), which was finally tested in seven households of senior adults (mean age 79 years) for 3 weeks each, i.e. in total more than 5 months.

Results

The results showed that PT2 is intuitive to handle and that the functions offered meet the needs of older users; however, the robot was considered more as a toy than a supportive device for independent living. Furthermore, despite an emergency function of the robot, perceived security did not increase.

Conclusion

Reasons for this might be a lack of technological robustness and slow performance of the prototype and also the good health conditions of the users; however, users believed that a market-ready version of the robot would be vital for supporting people who are more fragile and more socially isolated. Thus, SSRs have the potential to support independent living of older people although the technology has to be considerably improved to reach market readiness.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Assistierende Roboter könnten in Zukunft älteren Menschen helfen, länger unabhängig zu bleiben.

Ziel der Arbeit

Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Einblick über den aktuellen Stand der Entwicklung von sozialen Servicerobotern (SSR) anhand des kürzlich abgeschlossenen HOBBIT-Projekts. Die Idee des HOBBIT-Projekts war es, einen kostengünstigen SSR zu entwickeln, der Stürze seines Besitzers automatisch erfassen und Notrufe abwickeln kann. Dabei sollte die Technologie so weit vorangetrieben werden, dass der SSR in privaten Haushalten autonom für einen längeren Zeitraum eingesetzt und evaluiert werden kann.

Methode

In der ersten Phase des Projekts wurde ein erster Prototyp (PT1) entwickelt. Intensive Labortests bildeten darauf aufbauend die Basis für die Entwicklung des zweiten Prototyps (PT2), der schlussendlich von 7 Benutzerinnen und Benutzern (im Durchschnitt 79 Jahre alt) in deren privaten Wohnungen jeweils für 3 Wochen getestet wurde (in Summe also für mehr als 5 Monate).

Ergebnisse

Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass PT2 intuitiv zu bedienen ist und die Funktionen des SSR prinzipiell als sehr nützlich empfunden werden. Dennoch sahen die Benutzerinnen und Benutzer den Roboter eher als ein Spielzeug und nicht als tatsächliche Hilfestellung für ihren Lebensalltag an. Funktionen wie die Notfallerkennung hatten keine Auswirkungen auf das subjektive Sicherheitsempfinden.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Gründe für diese Ergebnisse dürften im Auftreten häufiger technischer Probleme, in der niedrigen Geschwindigkeit des Roboters, aber auch im guten Gesundheitszustand der Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer zu finden sein. Jedenfalls gaben die Benutzerinnen und Benutzer an, dass sie eine marktreife Version des Roboters als äußerst nützlich erachten würden. Soziale Serviceroboter haben demnach Potenzial, ältere Personen in ihrer Unabhängigkeit zu unterstützen. Um die Marktreife zu erlangen, muss die dahinterstehende Technologie allerdings noch wesentlich verbessert werden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander BH, Rivara FP, Wolf ME (1992) The cost and frequency of hospitalization for fall-related injuries in older adults. Am J Public Health 82:1020–1023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Amirabdollahian F, Op Den Akker R, Bedaf S et al (2013) Accompany: Acceptable robotiCs COMPanions for AgeiNG Years – Multidimensional aspects of human-system interactions. In: 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI), pp 570–577

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beer JM, Smarr C‑A, Chen TL et al (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, pp 335–342

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P et al (2012) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13:114–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernabei V, Ronchi D De, Ferla T La et al (2013) Animal-assisted interventions for elderly patients affected by dementia or psychiatric disorders: A review. J Psychiatr Res 47:762–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bridenbaugh SA, Kressig RW (2015) Motor cognitive dual tasking: early detection of gait impairment, fall risk and cognitive decline. Z Gerontol Geriatr 48:15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Broadbent E, Stafford R, Macdonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1:319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8:94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Care-O-bot. http://www.care-o-bot-4.de. Accessed 21 Dec 2015

  10. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Mis Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deshpande N, Metter EJ, Lauretani F et al (2008) Activity restriction induced by fear of falling and objective and subjective measures of physical function: a prospective cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:615–620

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Domeo. http://www.aal-domeo.org. Accessed 21 Dec 2015

  13. Feldwieser F, Gietzelt M, Goevercin M et al (2014) Multimodal sensor-based fall detection within the domestic environment of elderly people. Z Gerontol Geriatr 47:661–665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischinger D, Einramhof P, Papoutsakis K et al (2016) Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned. Rob Auton Syst 75:60–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koertner T, Schmid A, Batko-Klein D et al (2014) Meeting Requirements of Older Users? Robot Prototype Trials in a Home-like Environment. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Aging and Assistive Environments. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8515:660–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ksera. http://www.aat.tuwien.ac.at/kseera/index.html. Accessed 22 Dec 2015

  17. Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K et al (2014) A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11:3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. Ai Soc 20:138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parette P, Scherer M (2004) Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Dev Disabil 39:217–226

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pino M, Boulay M, Jouen F et al (2015) “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Front Aging Neurosci 7: doi:10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Poli P, Morone G, Rosati G et al (2013) Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: New tools for stroke patients’ therapy. Biomed Res Int 2013:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stafford RQ, Macdonald BA, Jayawardena C et al (2014) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J Soc Robot 6:17–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sterling DA, O’Connor JA, Bonadies J (2001) Geriatric falls: injury severity is high and disproportionate to mechanism. J Trauma 50:116–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA et al (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F et al (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: A systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Werner K, Oberzaucher J, Werner F (2012) Evaluation of human robot interaction factors of a socially assistive robot together with older people Sixth International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS)., pp 455–460

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yardley L, Beyer N, Hauer K et al (2005) Development and initial validation of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Age Ageing 34:614–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work of all partners of the HOBBIT consortium and the help of all volunteer participants is greatly acknowledged.

Funding

This research project received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 288146.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Akademie für Altersforschung am Haus der Barmherzigkeit, Seeböckgasse 30a, 1160, Wien, Austria

    J. Pripfl, T. Körtner, D. Batko-Klein, D. Hebesberger, M. Weninger & C. Gisinger

  2. Zentrum für Geriatrische Medizin und Geriatrische Pflege, Donau Universität Krems, Krems, Austria

    C. Gisinger

Authors
  1. J. Pripfl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Körtner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Batko-Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Hebesberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Weninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Gisinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Pripfl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

J. Pripfl, T. Körtner, D. Batko-Klein, D. Hebesberger, M. Weninger and C. Gisinger state that there are no conflicts of interest.

All studies on humans described in the present manuscript were carried out with the approval of the responsible ethics committee and in accordance with national law and the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (in its current, revised form). Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in studies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pripfl, J., Körtner, T., Batko-Klein, D. et al. Social service robots to support independent living. Z Gerontol Geriat 49, 282–287 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1067-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1067-4

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation