A Survey on Current Practices in User Evaluation of Companion Robots

The applicability of robotics to help older users at home was under investigation within a number of research projects in recent years. The evaluation of assistive robotics within a user study is a challenging task due to the complexity of the technologies used and the vulnerability of the involved target group. This chapter reviews research methods applied during the evaluation of companion robots and provides details on the implemented methods, involved target groups, test settings and evaluation aims. Typical pitfalls and methodological challenges are discussed and recommendations for the planning of future user evaluations are given.

[1]  Sabine Payr,et al.  Virtual Butlers and Real People: Styles and Practices in Long-Term Use of a Companion , 2013, Your Virtual Butler.

[2]  V. Leirer,et al.  Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. , 1982, Journal of psychiatric research.

[3]  Markus Vincze,et al.  Results of a real world trial with a mobile social service robot for older adults , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[4]  Amedeo Cesta,et al.  Evaluating Telepresence Robots in the Field , 2012, ICAART.

[5]  Dirk Heylen,et al.  Robotic Rabbit Companions: amusing or a nuisance? , 2011, Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces.

[6]  Mark Yim,et al.  Evaluating older adults' interaction with a mobile assistive robot , 2017, 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[7]  M. Matarić,et al.  Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics , 2007 .

[8]  Oskar Jonsson,et al.  STS-inspired design to meet the challenges of modern ageing. Welfare technology as a tool to promote user driven innovations or another way to keep older users hostage? , 2015 .

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

[10]  J. Jutai,et al.  Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) , 2002 .

[11]  P. Costa,et al.  Factorial and construct validity of the Italian Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). , 2003, European journal of psychological assessment : official organ of the European Association of Psychological Assessment.

[12]  A. Green,et al.  Applying the Wizard-of-Oz framework to cooperative service discovery and configuration , 2004, RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759).

[13]  B. Green,et al.  Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. , 2006, Journal of chiropractic medicine.

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

[15]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[16]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement , 1999 .

[17]  Rollin McCraty,et al.  The impact of a new emotional self-management program on stress, emotions, heart rate variability, DHEA and cortisol , 1998, Integrative physiological and behavioral science : the official journal of the Pavlovian Society.

[18]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[19]  Hongsoon Kim,et al.  Reliability of the interRAI Long Term Care Facilities (LTCF) and interRAI Home Care (HC) , 2015, Geriatrics & gerontology international.

[20]  Letitia Anne Peplau,et al.  The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence , 1980 .

[21]  Tobias Rehrl.  The ambient adaptable living assistant is meeting its users , 2012 .

[22]  Horst-Michael Groß,et al.  A mobile robot platform for socially assistive home-care applications , 2012, ROBOTIK.

[23]  J. Ware,et al.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. , 1996, Medical care.

[24]  Horst-Michael Groß,et al.  Realization and user evaluation of a companion robot for people with mild cognitive impairments , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

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

[26]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey , 2013, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[27]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[28]  Roger Bemelmans,et al.  Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. , 2012, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

[29]  Amedeo Cesta,et al.  GiraffPlus: Combining social interaction and long term monitoring for promoting independent living , 2013, 2013 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI).

[30]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Accompany: Acceptable robotiCs COMPanions for AgeiNG Years — Multidimensional aspects of human-system interactions , 2013, 2013 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI).

[31]  G. Zimet,et al.  The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support , 1988 .

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

[33]  Michael Burmester,et al.  AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität , 2003, MuC.