Design Guidelines of Social-Assisted Robots for the Elderly: A Mixed Method Systematic Literature Review

This review aims to provides a design criterion for the design and development of SARs to help product designers and researchers who are actively engaged in this field. Our focus is on the product users’ three major levels of needs, namely: (1) Functionality - Subject to the users’ physical aging and other limitations, the functions and roles of SARs are derived from different users’ background living environmental factors. These differing factors affects their preferences in what functions SARs could play in their lives, and how efficiently these can be carried out. (2) Usability - This involves interactions between the users’ perception and spatial environment and their restricted physical capabilities. To facilitate the elderly’s ability to move with minimal physical exertion, (i) employ operating methods based on lifestyle habits and past experiences of using similarly related products, (ii) use technological assistance to reduce user learning curve and learning pressure, and (iii) apply multi-modal assistance to reduce the need for change of existing living patterns and habits. (3) Pleasure: Pleasure is derived from emotions, attitudes, acceptances, experiences and interactions. This includes Physical Pleasure, Social Pleasure, Psychological Pleasure and Ideological Pleasure. Each brings a different type of pleasure to the elderly. There is a need for further research the requirements of the elderly for SARs design. From the research results, this three-level analysis provide a set of design criteria for developers to build SARs that are more in tune with the physical and mental capabilities of the elderly user.

[1]  Jenay M. Beer,et al.  Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise , 2017, PloS one.

[2]  Ning Wang,et al.  The multi-modal interface of Robot-Era multi-robot services tailored for the elderly , 2017, Intelligent Service Robotics.

[3]  Sanja Dogramadzi,et al.  Exploiting ability for human adaptation to facilitate improved human-robot interaction and acceptance , 2018, Inf. Soc..

[4]  F. Colombo Help wanted? : providing and paying for long-term care , 2011 .

[5]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Aimee van Wynsberghe,et al.  Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design , 2013, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[7]  David R. Jones,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods , 2005 .

[8]  Stefano Ferilli,et al.  Simulating empathic behavior in a social assistive robot , 2017, Multimedia Tools and Applications.

[9]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[10]  Sukhan Lee,et al.  Toward a Sociable and Dependable Elderly Care Robot: Design, Implementation and User Study , 2020, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[11]  Barbara Klein,et al.  Acceptance of Social Robots by Elder People: Does Psychosocial Functioning Matter? , 2017, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[13]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Will Older Adults Accept a Humanoid Robot as a Walking Partner? , 2018, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[14]  J. Broekens,et al.  Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review , 2009 .

[15]  Alex Mihailidis,et al.  Social Robots and Seniors: A Comparative Study on the Influence of Dynamic Social Features on Human–Robot Interaction , 2018, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[16]  Andreas R. Luft,et al.  Encouragement-Induced Real-World Upper Limb Use after Stroke by a Tracking and Feedback Device: A Study Protocol for a Multi-Center, Assessor-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial , 2018, Front. Neurol..

[17]  Su-Ling Yeh,et al.  Identifying Features that Enhance Older Adults’ Acceptance of Robots: A Mixed Methods Study , 2019, Gerontology.

[18]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  Robotic Services Acceptance in Smart Environments With Older Adults: User Satisfaction and Acceptability Study , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[19]  A. Harden,et al.  Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[20]  Rajiv Khosla,et al.  Socially Assistive Robots in Elderly Care: A Mixed-Method Systematic Literature Review , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  H. Eftring,et al.  Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors , 2016, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie.

[22]  Wendy A. Rogers,et al.  Understanding the potential of PARO for healthy older adults , 2017, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  Gábor Fazekas,et al.  Evaluation of a companion robot based on field tests with single older adults in their homes , 2018, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[24]  D. Tzovaras,et al.  Assessment of Perceived Attractiveness, Usability, and Societal Impact of a Multimodal Robotic Assistant for Aging Patients With Memory Impairments , 2018, Front. Neurol..