Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Social Robotics
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics 2/2014

01.04.2014

Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People

verfasst von: Susanne Frennert, Britt Östlund

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This article maps the range of currently held scientific positions on matters of concern involving social robots and older people. 345 publications from peer-reviewed journals and conferences were narrowed down to 31 key publications that were studied in detail and categorised into seven matters of concern: (1) role of robots in older people’s lives, (2) factors affecting older people’s acceptance of robots, (3) lack of mutual inspiration in the development of robots for older people, (4) robot aesthetics, (5) ethical implications of using robots in caring for older people, (6) robotic research methodology, and (7) technical determinism versus social construction of social robots. The findings indicate that older people are implicated but not present in the development of robots and that their matters of concern are not identified in the design process. Instead, they are ascribed general needs of social robots due to societal changes such as ageing demographics and demands from the healthcare industry. The conceptualisation of older people seems to be plagued with stereotypical views such as that they are lonely, frail and in need of robotic assistance. Our conclusions are that the perceptions of older people need to be re-examined and perhaps redefined in order to fairly represent who they are, and that more research on older people as social robotic users is needed.
Vorheriger Artikel Older People’s Prior Robot Attitudes Influence Evaluations of a Conversational Robot

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
NB. Dautenhahn [31] uses the word “caretaker” while Pulman [32] and Walters et al. [33] use the word “caregiver” for the same role.
 
Literatur
1.
Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319–330CrossRef
2.
Flandorfer P (2012) Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int J Popul Res 2012:1–13
3.
Young JE et al (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):95–108CrossRef
4.
Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103CrossRef
5.
Bemelmans R et al (2012) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13(2):114–120.e1
6.
Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2012) Human–robot interaction in social robotics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRef
7.
Levy D (2008) Love+ sex with robots: the evolution of human–robot relations. Harper Perennial, New York
8.
Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New York
9.
Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and machines: how robots will change us. Pantheon Books, New York
10.
Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (2011) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge
11.
Bijker WE (2009) Social construction of technology. In: Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen SAP, Hendricks VF (eds) A companion to the philosophy of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge
12.
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. In: Latour B (ed) Reassembling the social—an introduction to actor-network-theory, vol 1. (Foreword by Latour B). Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 316. ISBN-10: 0199256047, ISBN-13: 9780199256044
13.
MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (1999) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Buckingham
14.
Lie M, Sørensen KH (1996) Making technology our own?: domesticating technology into everyday life. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo
15.
Bijker W, Law J (1994) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge
16.
Fuglsan L (2001) Three perspectives in STS in the policy context. Visions of STS: counterpoints in science, technology and society studies. SUNY Series in Science, Technology and Society, New York, pp 35–55
17.
Kaplan DM (2009) Readings in the philosophy of technology. Rowman & Littlefield, Landham
18.
Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton
19.
Latour B (1991) Technology is society made durable. In: Law J (ed) A sociology of Monsters new. Essays on power, technology and domination. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 103–131
20.
Law J, Hassard J (1999) Actor network theory and after. Blackwell, Oxford
21.
Brown N, Webster A (2004) New medical technologies and society: reordering life. Polity Press, Cambridge
22.
Silverstone R, Hirsch E (1992) Consuming technologies: media and information in domestic spaces. Psychology Press, London
23.
Silverstone R, Hirsch E, Morley D (1992) Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. Consuming technologies: media and information in domestic spaces. Routledge, London, pp 15–31
24.
Hackett EJ et al (2008) The handbook of science and technology studies. The MIT Press, Cambridge
25.
Winfield A (2012) Robotics: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
26.
Nourbakhsh IR (2013) Robot futures: an ethics of critical responsiveness. The MIT Press, Cambridge
27.
Breazeal CL (2004) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge
28.
Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166MATHCrossRef
29.
Suchman L (2006) Human–machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef
30.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(2):105–112CrossRef
31.
Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704CrossRef
32.
Pulman S (2007) Towards necessary and sufficient conditions for being a companion. In: Artificial companions in society: perspectives on the present and future. Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, p 36
33.
Walters ML et al (2007) Robotic etiquette: results from user studies involving a fetch and carry task. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), 2007
34.
Breazeal C (2011) Social robots for health applications. In: Annual international conference of the IEEE on engineering in medicine and biology society, EMBC 2011
35.
Joyce K, Loe M (2010) A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health. Sociol Health Illn 32(2):171–180CrossRef
36.
Oost E, Reed D, Oost E, Reed D (2011) Towards a sociological understanding of robots as companions. In: Lamers MH, Verbeek FO (eds) Human–robot personal relationships. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–18CrossRef
37.
Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):32–38CrossRef
38.
Beer JM et al (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. ACM, New York
39.
Heerink M et al (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In: IEEE
40.
Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16(2):141–161CrossRef
41.
Riessman (1965) The “helper” therapy principle. Soc Work 10: 27–32
42.
Roger K et al (2012) Social commitment robots and dementia. Can J Aging 31(1):87–94CrossRef
43.
Shibata T et al (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23(4):443–458CrossRef
44.
Banks MR, Banks WA (2002) The effects of animal-assisted therapy on loneliness in an elderly population in long-term care facilities. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 57(7):M428–M432CrossRef
45.
Wada K et al (2002) Analysis of factors that bring mental effects to elderly people in robot assisted activity. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems
46.
Wada K et al (2004) Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. Proc IEEE 92(11): 1780–1788
47.
Wada K et al (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 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2005 (ICRA 2005)
48.
Pollack ME et al (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI workshop on automation as eldercare
49.
Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P (2010) Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):451–460CrossRef
50.
Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2004) Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human–Computer Interact 19(1–2):25–59CrossRef
51.
Kidd CD, Taggart W, Turkle S (2006) A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In: Proceedings 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2006 (ICRA 2006)
52.
Heerink M et al (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):361–375CrossRef
53.
Neven L (2010) ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociol Health illn 32(2): 335–347
54.
Czaja SJ, Lee CC (2007) The impact of aging on access to technology. Univers Access in the Inf Soc 5(4):341–349CrossRef
55.
Kohlbacher F, Herstatt C (2008) The silver market phenomenon: business opportunities in an era of demographic change. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
56.
Shaw-Garlock G (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):249–260CrossRef
57.
Zhao S (2006) Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media Soc 8(3):401–419CrossRef
58.
Robertson J (2010) Gendering humanoid robots: robo-sexism in Japan. Body Soc 16(2):1–36CrossRef
59.
Coeckelbergh M (2011) You, robot: on the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI Soc 26(1):61–69CrossRef
60.
Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2011) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):24–31CrossRef
61.
62.
Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40CrossRef
63.
Dodig-Crnkovic G, Çürüklü B (2012) Robots: ethical by design. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):61–71CrossRef
64.
Sullins J (2012) Robots, love and sex: the ethics of building a love machine. Affect Comput 3(4):398–409CrossRef
65.
Callén B et al (2009) Telecare research: (Cosmo) politicizing methodology. ALTER Eur J Disabil Res 3(2):110–122CrossRef
66.
Dautenhahn K, Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704CrossRef
67.
Gaver W (2012) What should we expect from research through design? In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York
68.
Wyatt S (2008) Technological determinism is dead: long live technological determinism. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 165–180
69.
Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):439–450CrossRef
70.
Hüttenrauch H et al (2006) Investigating spatial relationships in human–robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems
71.
Walters ML et al (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 2005)
72.
Oudshoorn N, Pinch T (2003) How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology (inside technology). The MIT Press, Cambridge
73.
Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York
74.
Bouma H et al (2007) Gerontechnology in perspective. Gerontechnology 6(4):190–216MathSciNet
75.
Foucault M (1982) The subject and power. Crit Inquiry 8(4): 777–795
76.
Dautenhahn K (2004) Socially intelligent agents in human primate culture. In: Trappl R, Payr S (eds) Agent culture: human–agent interaction in a multicultural world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
77.
Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Center for the Study of Language and Information/Cambridge University Press, Chicago/New York
78.
Gassmann O, Reepmeyer G (2011) Universal design: innovations for all ages. In: Kohlbacher F, Herstatt C (eds) The silver market phenomenon. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–116
79.
Burrows E (2011) The birth of a robot race. Eng Technol 6(10): 46–48CrossRef
80.
Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E (1999) Design: cultural probes. Interactions 6(1):21–29CrossRef
81.
Hutchinson H et al (2003) Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York
82.
Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Geminoid: teleoperated android of an existing person. Humanoid robots–new developments. I-Tech, Vienna, p 14
83.
Weiss A et al (2011) Looking forward to a “robotic society”? Int J Soc Robot 3(2):111–123CrossRef
84.
Goffman E (2005) Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway
85.
Verbeek PP (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People
verfasst von
Susanne Frennert
Britt Östlund
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2014
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0225-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

International Journal of Social Robotics 2/2014 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Designing Enjoyable Motion-Based Play Interactions with a Small Humanoid Robot

OriginalPaper

Older People’s Prior Robot Attitudes Influence Evaluations of a Conversational Robot

Survey

Identifying the Potential for Robotics to Assist Older Adults in Different Living Environments

OriginalPaper

The Five Robots—A Taxonomy for Roboethics

OriginalPaper

Domestic Robots for Older Adults: Attitudes, Preferences, and Potential

OriginalPaper

Socially Assistive Robots: A Comprehensive Approach to Extending Independent Living

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise