Are older people any different from younger people in the way they want to interact with robots? Scenario based survey

Numerous projects, normally run by younger people, are exploring robot use by older people. But are older any different from younger people in the way they want to interact with robots? Understanding older compared to younger people’s preferences will give researchers more insight into good design. We compared views on multi-modal human–robot interfaces, of older people living independently, with students and university staff. We showed 96 participants aged under 65 and 18 aged 65 + , six videos presenting different scenarios, including interfaces both working properly and failing, for an older man interacting with a robot by speech and touch screen tablet. Participants were asked about the interfaces they might use and why, using self-completed questionnaires with mainly open-ended questions. People over 65 were more like people under 21 than those aged 22–64 (78%, 67%, 47% respectively) in preferring speech over tablet for robot–human interaction. But reasons for doing so may differ, for example, hearing and eyesight impairment versus speaking while hands full. Older participants were more likely (83% vs. 55%) to want a robot in the house than those under 65. Older people were as familiar with tablets and smart speakers as younger people, but less likely to use smart phones. Some younger people suggested interacting with robot via their smart phone, and while not at home. Answers to similar questions about preferences for robot interaction varied according to position in the questionnaire. User-centred design of human–robot interfaces should include open questions to understand people’s preferences, should account for question wording and order in interpreting user preferences, and should include people of all age ranges to better understand interface use. Older people’s technology needs have differences and similarities to the younger people who are likely carrying out the research. Our sample of older people were more like people under 21 than those aged in between for preference of robot–human interaction, and more willing to have a robot in the home than younger people. Differences may come from a more home based lifestyle and difficulties with vision, hearing, or dexterity rather than lack of interest in technology.

[1]  Rebecca Q. Stafford,et al.  Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. , 2010, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[2]  Susanne Frennert,et al.  Older People Meet Robots : Three Case Studies on the Domestication of Robots in Everyday Life , 2016 .

[3]  R. Barber,et al.  Maggie: A Robotic Platform for Human-Robot Social Interaction , 2006, 2006 IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics.

[4]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

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

[6]  P. Bennett,et al.  Preferences for Very Low and Very High Voice Pitch in Humans , 2012, PloS one.

[7]  P. Siminski Order Effects in Batteries of Questions , 2008 .

[8]  Roberto Basili,et al.  Effective and Robust Natural Language Understanding for Human-Robot Interaction , 2014, ECAI.

[9]  Dirk Schreckenberg,et al.  Effects of Scale, Question Location, Order of Response Alternatives, and Season on Self-Reported Noise Annoyance Using ICBEN Scales: A Field Experiment , 2016, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[10]  Taezoon Park,et al.  When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human-robot interaction , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  Incremental natural language processing for HRI , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[12]  Sunghee Lee,et al.  Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated health, and subjective life expectancy in survey instruments , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[13]  Emily Q. Wang,et al.  Effect of tonal native language on voice fundamental frequency responses to pitch feedback perturbations during sustained vocalizations. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  William D. Smart,et al.  Human-robot interactions as theatre , 2011, 2011 RO-MAN.

[15]  Dirk Heylen,et al.  Social Signal Processing: The Research Agenda , 2011, Visual Analysis of Humans.

[16]  Susanne Frennert,et al.  Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People , 2014, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[17]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Emotion and sociable humanoid robots , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  From embodied to socially embedded agents – Implications for interaction-aware robots , 2002, Cognitive Systems Research.

[19]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

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

[21]  Ya-Huei Wu,et al.  Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. , 2012, Archives of gerontology and geriatrics.

[22]  Kai Oliver Arras,et al.  Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000 people survey , 2005 .

[23]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[24]  Antonis A. Argyros,et al.  Hobbit , a care robot supporting independent living at home : First prototype and lessons learned , 2015 .

[25]  F. Jouen,et al.  “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots , 2015, Front. Aging Neurosci..

[26]  Ashok Bharucha,et al.  Ethical Perspectives on Emerging Assistive Technologies: Insights from Focus Groups with Stakeholders in Long-Term Care Facilities , 2009, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[27]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[28]  Gurjit Singh,et al.  Effects of Age on Auditory and Cognitive Processing: Implications for Hearing Aid Fitting and Audiologic Rehabilitation , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[29]  WeissAstrid,et al.  Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home , 2016 .