1 / 21

Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment

Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment. Marcel Heerink Instituut voor Information Engineering - Hogeschool van Amsterdam Universiteit van Amsterdam - Human Computer Systems & Intelligent Systems co-researchers: Vanessa Evers, Bob Wielinga , Ben Krose. Background. 2000 2025.

osman
Download Presentation

Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment Marcel Heerink Instituut voor Information Engineering - Hogeschool van Amsterdam Universiteit van Amsterdam - Human Computer Systems & Intelligent Systems co-researchers: Vanessa Evers, Bob Wielinga , Ben Krose

  2. Background 2000 2025

  3. Robots & eldercare • Paro • Pearl • Aibo

  4. Research question • Is there a measurable influence of perceived social abilities on the acceptance of autonomous interactive systems by elders in an eldercare environment?

  5. Approach • Quantitative research • iCat • Wizard of Oz • +S and –S version • Questionnaire • Observations • Functional and conversational acceptance • Field experiment: 2 eldercare institutions (Archipel and Ankerplaats)

  6. Abilities • listening attentively (looking at the participant, nodding), • being nice and pleasant to interact with (smiling, being helpful), • remembering little personal details about people (using their names), • being expressive, • admitting mistakes.

  7. Conditions

  8. Possible functionalities • Agenda/reminder • Device interface • Monitor • Companion

  9. Questionnaire • UTAUT • PE = performance expectancy • EE = effort expectancy • SI = social influence • AT = attitude toward using technology • SE = self-efficacy • ANX = anxiety • ITU = intention to use • + SA = social abilities (-) • + feeling comfortable talking to a robot (conversational acceptance) • 5 point scale • Questions instead of statements

  10. Results 1

  11. Results 2 Did you feel uncomfortable talking to a robot?

  12. Results 3 Would you want to use the iCat immediately if you could?

  13. Observations

  14. Observations 2

  15. Movie • Start

  16. Conclusions & discussion • UTAUT constructs show no significant differences between more en less social condition • There are significant differences concerning “conversational acceptance”: participants felt more uncomfortable and used more conversational expressions with a more social robot • Other differences are related to gender (could be a generation related result) • Further research: • On screen agents • Different experimental conditions? • Work on ‘social abilities?’ • More elaborate observation model

More Related