mobiserv – fp7 – 248434 - cordis :...

MOBISERV – FP7 – 248434An Integrated Intelligent Home Environment for the

Provision of Health, Nutrition and Mobility Services to the

Elderly

Final Deliverable

D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria

(Issue 1)Date of delivery: Dec 20th 2011

Contributing Partners: UWE, SMH

Date: 20th Dec 2011 Version : Issue 1 ver6

D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1 2/53

Document Control

Title: D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria

Project: MOBISERV (FP7 248434)

Nature: Report Dissemination Level: Restricted

until publication in journal

Authors: UWE, SMH

Origin: UWE

Doc ID: MOBISERV D2.7 Issue 1 v6

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Amendment History

Version Date Author Description/Comments

v0.1 2011-09-01 UWE First Version

v2 2011-09-12 UWE Findings from Embodiment Workshops

v3 2011-10-10 UWE Findings from Survey

v4 2011-11-29 UWE, SMH Findings from Scenario-focussed Workshops

V4 2011-12-1 UWE, SMH Draft sent

V5 2011-12-16 UWE, SMH Final version

V6 2011-12-20 UWE, SMH Responses to Internal Moderation (SYSTEMA) incorporated

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Table of contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................9

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................12

1.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................121.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................121.3 INTENDED AUDIENCE..................................................................................................14

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................................................................................15

2.1 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................21

3 METHODOLOGY FOR PRIMARY RESEARCH...........................................................22

3.1 FOCUS GROUPS WORKSHOPS....................................................................................223.1.1 Embodiment workshops.........................................................................................223.1.2 Scenario-focussed workshops................................................................................24

3.2 SURVEY........................................................................................................................24

4 RESULTS OF THE EMBODIMENT WORKSHOPS......................................................25

4.1 DISCUSSIONS ON THE NATURE OF AN IDEAL ROBOT................................................254.1.1 Functionality..........................................................................................................25

4.1.1.1 Memory associated tasks............................................................................................................................254.1.1.2 Cleaning tasks.............................................................................................................................................254.1.1.3 Assistive tasks..............................................................................................................................................26

4.1.2 Behaviour and Appearance...................................................................................264.2 DISCUSSIONS ON THE NATURE OF A NIGHTMARE ROBOT........................................27

4.2.1 Behaviour and Appearance...................................................................................274.2.2 Loss of Control and Reliability..............................................................................27

4.3 DISCUSSIONS PROMPTED BY A DOCUMENTARY ON ROBOT DEVELOPMENT............284.3.1 Initial Feedback, impressions and opinions..........................................................284.3.2 Cue card discussion and comments.......................................................................29

4.3.2.1 Cue Card A..................................................................................................................................................304.3.2.2 Cue Card B..................................................................................................................................................304.3.2.3 Cue Card C..................................................................................................................................................314.3.2.4 Cue Card D..................................................................................................................................................324.3.2.5 Cue Card E..................................................................................................................................................33

5 RESULTS OF THE SCENARIO-FOCUSSED WORKSHOPS.......................................34

5.1 USER ACCEPTANCE.....................................................................................................345.2 EMBODIMENT..............................................................................................................36

5.2.1 Behaviour and appearance....................................................................................37

6 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY AND DISCUSSIONS......................................................38

MOBISERV FP7 248434

The information contained in this report is subject to change without notice and should not be construed as a commitment by any members of the MOBISERV Consortium. The MOBISERV Consortium assumes no responsibility for the use or inability to use any software or algorithms, which might be described in this report. The information is provided without any warranty of any kind and the MOBISERV Consortium expressly disclaims all implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use.


6.1 SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES.................................................386.2 NEW ROBOT FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS DRAWN FROM THE DISCUSSIONS

39

7 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION................................................................................40

8 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................41

9 APPENDIX 1 - QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES..........................................................42

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Table of Figures

Figure 1 Eight different shaped robots images used in Broadbent et al.’s study.....................17Figure 2 Hopis and In-touch Telemedicine Robot from the Broadbent et al. study................18Figure 3 Robot A Care-O-bot II Fraunhofer IPA.....................................................................30Figure 4 Robot B (PaPeRo 2005 From NEC)..........................................................................30Figure 5 Robot C Seeker by David Shinsel.............................................................................31Figure 6 Robot D ApriAttenda by Toshiba..............................................................................32Figure 7 Robot F, RIBA "Robot for Interactive Body Assistance" Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, Japan, and Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd................................................33

MOBISERV FP7 248434


List of Tables

Table 1 Breakdown of participants by type of workshop........................................................22

MOBISERV FP7 248434


GlossaryTerm ExplanationMOBISERV An Integrated Intelligent Home Environment for the Provision of Health,

Nutrition and Mobility Services to the ElderlyPRU Portable Robotic UnitWHSU Wearable Health Support Unit

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Executive Summary

This document, D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report - Issue 1, discusses a

range of issues which have been identified as being significant for user acceptance of the

MOBISERV system as it is conceptualised and initially implemented, in particular, those

relating to the robot which provides the primary interface to the system and the smart

garments.

It should be noted that the first MOBISERV prototype (which was due in M21) has not

been available for this study, only initial versions of individual components of the

MOBISERV system were shown to the participants. As such, this user acceptance

criteria report is made available as Issue 1, and Issue 2 will be made available in month

35 when the users have had adequate opportunities to experience the MOBISERV

system and technology first-hand, and thus make better informed judgements of what is

acceptable and what is not to them.

The findings in this report are based on review of recent literature, workshop discussions and

questionnaires with a range of primary and secondary users.

In summary, the criteria for user acceptance are as follows:

1. High level of intuitiveness for interfaces and interactions with high technical

performance and reliability

Successful interaction is based on knowledge of context – if a robot is perceived to be

“intelligent” it will be expected to interact “intelligently” with appropriate feedback to

user interactivity. When this is not present, or not easily discernable, then frustration

can ensue, as well as a feeling of failure. It is natural for people to assume that if the

robot did not respond as expected, then the mistake was theirs for not having

communicated correctly, which can result in low self-efficacy, whereas the poor

response is invariably due to the poor quality of voice recognition and touch-screen

performance.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


2. Flexibility to enable personalisation of system features and settings

For a robot this means personalising gender, voice, accent, speed, nature and style of

feedback/interaction e.g. the graphic user interface specifications. The personalisation

would ensure that the system could be integrated into the persons’ particular social

context, which they felt comfortable with. This customisation would also ensure that

the system would cope with the users’ specific needs and limitations, both physical

and cognitive.

3. Offer assurance of operational safety

4. Provide means for people to create their own engaging learning about the system

benefits by controlling information privacy

A key part of acceptance is for older people to see the benefit of the system for

themselves. This can be achieved by allowing them to privately build a picture of

their own unshared data within the system, enable them to review it and share it with

a carer when they are ready. In this way, older people can learn about the system

features from an engaging example (i.e. their own data), rather than from some

generic data.

5. Enable fine grained privacy control

Sharing data is not simply a matter of yes or no, all or nothing. Higher-level abstract

representations of health status are currently accepted as forms of monitoring by older

people.

6. Respect a person’s personal routine

Learning behavioural patterns, and based on this making informed decisions of when

and where it is appropriate to interrupt and not interrupt the person and give context

appropriate responses and help.

7. Not undermine existing human contact

People are concerned that the robot will replace the current care and support they

receive from human carers. The argument that there will not be adequate carers

available in the future due to the vast numbers of older people in society is not well

known and thus not adequate to justify the need for a robot. As such it is important to

clarify the role of the MOBISERV system in aiding and assisting current carer models

and thus enhancing the quality and level of service.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


8. Offer mixed format training and a phased introduction – to prevent a feeling of

intrusion

Training, in the form of videos, instruction leaflets, pictorial cards, addressing

different learning needs, and brief introductory interactions spaced over a period of

time, would make the system seem more familiar to the person, making them more

comfortable with having the system around.

9. Provide a clearly defined case for how the MOBISERV system, and in particular

the robot, will improve the quality of life, from a wellbeing, as well as social

perspective

It is difficult for a person to psychologically accept that they actually require

assistance – most people prefer to remain in denial. A robot assistant or companion

could make the admission of need too real for people to accept, which could also be

seen as a social stigma. The robot really needs to offer significant support and be

provided as an alternative to care by unknown human carers and/or residential care.

10. Involving all stakeholders in the design of the technology in a participatory

manner

Engagement with all stakeholders within different levels and forms of participatory

design will help to ensure that stakeholder needs are explicitly considered and

addressed in the way the system is developed and the functionality shaped. It should

be recognised there is some tension between the needs of primary users (e.g. privacy)

and secondary users (e.g. monitoring). It is imperative for user acceptance that the

needs of primary users are met above the needs of secondary users – after all,

secondary users are dependent on primary users accepting it.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


1 Introduction

1.1 Scope of the study

In developing the MOBISERV system and technology it is important to consider and define

what aspects will make the technology acceptable to the users. Without the presence of the

integrated system, users can only base their views on the design concept and initial

components implementation and have to imagine the scenarios to be able to say what will,

and what won’t, be acceptable to them. They can only do so on the basis of their past

experiences, often shaped by the media – science fiction movies that they have seen and

books they have read. The research team can offer them realistic scenarios and examples, and

artefacts such as concept videos and existing technologies and initial version of individual

components, however this will only provide a guide to prompt the discussion. A realistic

understanding of user acceptance criteria can only emerge when users have experienced

something tangible and understood fully the scope of what is proposed by interacting with it,

to truly say what is acceptable and what isn’t.

This document therefore discusses a range of issues which have been identified as being

significant for user acceptance of the MOBISERV system mainly as it is conceptualised

(and less as it is initially implemented), in particular, those relating to the robot which

provides the primary interface to the system and the smart garments.

It should be noted that as the first MOBISERV prototype (which was due in M21) has

not been available for this study, only initial versions of individual components of the

MOBISERV system were shown to the participants. As such this user acceptance

criteria report is made available as Issue 1, and Issue 2 will be made available in month

35 when the users have had adequate opportunities to experience the MOBISERV

system and technology first-hand, and thus make better informed judgements of what is

and what isn’t acceptable to them.

The findings in this report are based on review of recent literature, workshop discussions and

questionnaires with a range of primary and secondary users.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


1.2 Aims and Objectives

The purpose of the primary research for this study is to ascertain the criteria that will

maximise the user acceptance of the MOBISERV system and components. To this end we

aim to:

1. Discover older people’s perceptions, expectations and impression of domestic care ser-

vice robots and other MOBISERV assistive technologies

2. Provide an opportunity for members of the target user groups to discuss both their’s and

each other’s perceptions, expectations and impression of the MOBISERV system.

3. Discover what potential functions and tasks members of the target user groups would ex-

pect such system to perform.

4. Discover with members of the target user groups: 1. what their individual ideal embodi-

ment preferences and requirements are for a domestic care service robot, 2. What physical

and functional properties would be ideal for other assistive technologies.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


1.3 Intended Audience

This report provides key guidance for the consortium for shaping future developments of the

technology as well as for considering aspects that will be significant for the exploitation and

dissemination of the system as a whole and the various sub-components. In addition it will

also guide the perspectives and agenda for public engagement and dissemination to promote

further conversations and discussions about how this technology can be designed to be

acceptable.

It should be noted that this report (Issue 1) is mainly based on the conceptualised

MOBISERV system, rather than the actual integrated prototype (as this was not available)

and Issue 2 of the report, which will be delivered at the end of the project (M35) will relate to

the actual MOBISERV system.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


2 Review of the literature

This section consists of a brief literature review of studies conducted in order to discover and

take into consideration stakeholder perspectives and acceptance criteria in regards to human-

robot interaction within the home.

In one of the early studies regarding embodiments of assistive robots, Mataric (2005) argues

that a robot’s physical presence and shared context with the end user is a fundamental and

crucial area of design and development for assistive robots in order to provide a supportive

role for older adults. This is due to the complex nature of the interaction that must take place

between the end user and the machine in order to establish credible human-robot interaction.

Mataric also argues that the same supportive role can be provided by disembodied solutions

embedded within the user’s environment.

Mataric draws upon prior research that suggests that people will assign personality, emotions,

intentions and objectives towards machines no matter how complex or simple they might be.

This process is affected by various factors including an individual’s background or culture. In

order to successful develop robotic solutions for a highly complex domain such as care for

older people, it is necessary to take into account these issues so that the end user is confident

and capable of interacting and engaging with the technology.

In order to demonstrate the importance of the role of embodiment in regards to assistive

robots for older people, Mataric (2005) explored developing prototypes of embodied

technology and compared their effectiveness against disembodied equivalents. The Clara

assistant nurse robot described in the study is capable of locating a hospital room, bed and

patient for the purpose of spirometry. This task is performed by nurses for patients recovering

from heart surgery, who are required to undertake breathing tests in order to monitor

regaining lung functionality and to avert infection. Clara is also required to perform several

monitoring tasks associated with this function and interacts with patients via speech. Clara

has been designed to describe the spirometry task to the patient, provide feedback,

encouragement and report its findings to staff within a hospital. The robot is capable of

performing these tasks amongst patients based on their preferred personality and mode of MOBISERV FP7 248434


interaction in order to personalise the experience. Mataric also researches the benefits of non-

contact socially assistive robots for post stroke rehabilitation therapy that includes monitoring

and encouraging exercise as well as providing feedback. Results are positive with stroke

patients increasing the amount of exercise as a result of interacting with the system.

Mataric argues that a greater understanding of the role of embodiment is required for the

design and development of assistive robots for older people on the grounds that this user

group may be more technologically disinclined compared to younger users. Furthermore

Mataric also argues that more research is required with respect to different types of behaviour

in relation to the embodiment, with different users groups. Again this is a crucial area of

study in regards to older people in order to establish credible human-robot interaction for

providing care service for this user group.

Related to the behaviour of assistive robots, the degree of autonomy and supporting roles that

require the user to engage with the system in order to achieve a desired objective raises a

variety of ethical issues that must be considered. These include vulnerability in the presence

of an assistive robot.

Ongoing research conducted by Mataric (2005) also includes modelling empathy. Empathy is

a key aid used by healthcare professionals in regards to providing care for older people.

Again this raises ethical issues related to an older person’s vulnerability, and the extent to

which they can be manipulated on account of cognitive decline.

In a study aimed to identify useful tasks for robots to assist residents of a retirement village,

and preferences for the appearance and features of healthcare robots, Broadbent et al. (2009)

used a mixture of questionnaires and interviews. Two sets of questionnaires were issued to

both staff and residents at retirement village and this was followed up by an interview to

discuss preference for the robot’s colour, shape, design and size. The questionnaires focused

upon which tasks a robot could be designed to assist with and general attitudes towards

healthcare robots.

In general residents’ responses were more positive towards robots compared to staff. This

information was gathered using a PANAS (positive and negative affect scale) scale. From a

MOBISERV FP7 248434


questionnaire, 30 tasks were prioritised from most useful to least useful using an average of

the participants’ responses. Those tasks rated highest by the residents were detecting falls and

calling for help, switching on and off appliances, cleaning, making phone calls to a doctor or

nurse, lifting heavy things, monitoring the location of people, and reminders to take

medications.

The results indicated that residents prioritized healthcare related functions while staff

prioritized tasks related to their care roles. Participants were also asked to assess their

preferred embodiment and shape of a robot using the images below:

Figure 1 Eight different shaped robots images used in Broadbent et al.’s study

The participants showed a preference towards a robot with a screen held on the body

compared to a screen on the head. There were no major differences between a humanoid or

rounded, box shaped embodiments.

In regards to the height of the robot, 1.25m was the preferred height chosen by the

participants. Both carers and residents stressed the need for the robot to be non-intrusive yet

tall enough to perform bed related tasks. Bright colours were preferred with silver as the most

MOBISERV FP7 248434


popular followed by gold and white. Participants were also asked to choose between two

robots for the following tasks: Medication reminding, companionship and blood pressure.

Over 70% of the participants chose Hopis (left in the picture below) for companionship and

over 70% of the participants chose In-touch (right in the picture below) for health related

functions. Comments from the participants in regards to Hopis, revealed that the participants

believed the older people would pay more attention to a soft touch “childlike” robot.

Comments in regards to the In-touch robot indicated that the participants believed such a

robot would be more capable at performing healthcare related functions.

Figure 2 Hopis and In-touch Telemedicine Robot from the Broadbent et al. study

Broadbent et al.’s results also suggested that the robot should have a clear voice, a middle-

aged appearance (if age is identifiable), and users should be able to choose the robot’s gender.

The appearance should not be too human-like and the robot should have wheels (similar to

Image 2 in Figure 1), and should be matched to its tasks. Credibility and dependability of the

robot emerged as important features.

Other studies involving user preference regarding robots include the study conducted by

Hendriks et al. (2010) which involved a semi-structured interview session with a group of 6

participants (2 women and 4 men) in order to discover end user preferences in regards to the

personality of a robot vacuum cleaner. Participants shared a similar background having a

busy schedule and a fondness towards technology. Before the interview took place, MOBISERV FP7 248434


participants were familiarised with the concept of a robot vacuum cleaner and were provided

with a presentation of visual displays of various robot vacuum cleaners. 30 personality traits

and characteristics were taken from the Five-Factor Model. This model organizes personality

traits in terms of five basic dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience,

agreeableness and conscientiousness (McCrae and Costa (1987) as in Hendriks et al.).

For each of the 5 dimensions, 6 characteristics (3 positive and 3 negative) were selected for

cue cards to be used during the interview in order to provoke discussion of preferred

personality aspects of a robot vacuum cleaner amongst the participants. The results suggested

that the participants wanted a polite, efficient and calm robot vacuum cleaner, which was

capable of completing its primary function. Participants did not want a highly sophisticated

“fancy gadget” to perform the task of a vacuum cleaner.

The results of the interviews were used to construct a video prototype of the robot vacuum

cleaner. The video included various scenarios and tasks, which a real robot vacuum cleaner

would encounter within the home. These included recharging, detecting and cleaning certain

areas within the home. These scenarios were established with focus group discussion with

potential end users and ten scenarios were selected to be implemented in the prototype video.

The behaviour of the robot within the video prototype was based upon the results of the

previous semi structured interviews.

15 participants were invited to view the video prototype and discuss their impression and

opinions of the simulation. 3 out of 15 of the participants described the robot as appropriate, 3

stated its behaviour as calm. 2 of the participants mentioned that the robot was boring and 2

stated that it was careful with another 2 describing it as systematic. 14 participants applied a

gender to the robot.

Task based feedback in regards to the personality of the robot resulted with the majority of

participants stating the robot was calm, cooperative, systematic and routine driven. The robot

was generally described as polite.

Hendriks et al. (2010) conclude that end users anthropomorphize the robot vacuum cleaner

and as a result apply various personality characteristics and traits based upon its demonstrated

behaviour. Hendriks et al. (2010) also state that developers can use this as a means to

improve human-robot interaction and user experience by creating a specific personality for

MOBISERV FP7 248434


the robot which helps the end user develop a conceptual model of how to interact with the

robot within the home.

Han et al. (2010) conducted a focus group study in order to discover end users perceptions,

opinions and expectations for a robotic receptionist. Han et al. selected a group of 36

participants, which were divided into 4 categories: creative, youth, middle aged and senior.

The creative group consisted of participants aged between 24 and 25 whose occupation was

related to creative industries or marketing, Participants within the creative group was also

well travelled. The youth group consisted of participants aged between 24 to 29; the middle

aged group, 31-39 and the senior group, 38-49. The youth, middle aged and senior group all

shared a similar occupational background in regards to having worked, studied or researched

computing, engineering, and life sciences. These 3 groups are also described by Han et al. as

open towards emerging technology.

Each group worked together for 2 hours on a different day from the rest, starting with the

creative group. The creative group produced mock up sketches of the robot, which were

evaluated by the other groups. 20 robot images were used as cue cards, which consisted of

motion and mobility, exterior shape, appearance (embodiment), head and functionality. Issues

and themes arising from the focus groups are summarised below:

Human Touch, Warmth and Friendliness - Due to the nature of the primary task and role

of the robot as a receptionist, “warmth and friendliness was highlighted as an essential

requirement.

Lack of Familiarity - Participants were unsure as to how people would interact and behave

in the presence of a robot receptionist. One participant stated that in the absence of a person

they would look for a security guard instead. Participants stated concern over the potential of

the lack of familiarity to create embarrassment and confusion for the end user.

Fear of Embarrassment - Senior local (Singapore based) participants expressed concern

over making a mistake upon interacting with the robot and stated that they would wish to

have access to an instruction manual or otherwise know in advance how to interact with the

robot in order to avoid a potentially embarrassing situation which draws attention to

themselves upon making an error while engaging with the robotic receptionist.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Perceived benefits of having a robotic receptionist amongst the creative group included:

Innovative company presentation, particularly if the robot was the property of a technology

related organisation, increase productivity benefits as the robot would not require breaks or

holidays; and consistency through interaction as the robot would treat all visitors the same no

matter how they behaved and acted towards the robot.

Major themes related to the appearance, and embodiment of the robot are familiarity,

friendliness, credibility and safety.

In regards to the functionality of the robotic receptionist, participants did not expect the robot

to go beyond expected receptionist roles such as first point of contact, information and

guidance provision for visitors and other tasks including booking a taxi and the ability to

speak multiple languages.

The results of the focus group were used as input for researchers and designer to create a new

design concept for a robotic receptionist. Han et al. concludes that by consulting the user and

understanding the expectations and their perceptions of robots, human robotic interaction can

be enhanced.

2.1 Summary

Previous studies from literature help to identify the following issues related to user

acceptance of robot assistants:

Customisability of voice

Not-overly human-like in appearance

Reliability

An embodiment that evokes friendliness

MOBISERV FP7 248434


3 Methodology for primary research

A combination of focus groups and questionnaires have been used as a means of primary data

gathering to address the aims and objectives identified in section 1.2 of this report.

3.1 Focus Groups Workshops

This section explains the structure of the focus group workshops.

Two types of workshops were organised: Embodiment workshops, where the focus was on the nature of a robot as interface, Scenario-focussed workshops, were part of the evaluation phase of the project,

exploring issues related to user acceptance from a more holistic perspective.

Type Male FemaleEmbodiment workshops 8 10Scenario-focussed workshops

11 11

Table 1 Breakdown of participants by type of workshop

3.1.1 Embodiment workshops

Participants

There were three separate embodiment workshops focussing on the views of older adults -

group 1 comprising 3 males, group 2 comprising 10 females and group 3 comprising 5 males

(ages ranges across all three groups was 60 - 93). These workshops were carried out in the

UK. The decision to have single-gender groups was based on our previous experience of the

dynamics between male and female participants in discussing their views and relationship

with technology, and levels of contribution to such discussions. It was hypothesised that

single-gender workshops would reduce the level of inhibition and result in more candid

revelations.

Workshops organisation

Each of the embodiment workshops was broken down into three main discussion sessions.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


In the first session the participants brainstormed their ideal robot assistant. To stimulate and

provoke ideas amongst the participants, a mystery bag of robot related items was brought to

the session. These included the following items: Robot doll, Xbox control pad, Xbox wireless

headset, Miniature toy robot (RoboQ), Toy 6 legged robot beetle, Roomba robotic vacuum,

Robosapien (humanoid robot toy), Head massage tool, Electronically controlled butterfly in a

jar toy, SMARTEX vests, Animated stick figure electronic toys. It should be noted that the

participants had also seen the Kompai robot in a previous requirements focussed workshop.

Following the brainstorming session, participants were asked to consider and discuss the

following questions:

If you could have a robot in your home,

What would you want it to do?

How would you want it to look?

In the second session, participants were asked to spend some time writing down ideas and

discussing with each other the following questions:

What would your nightmare robot be?

What would it do?

How would it look?

In the third session, in order generate further discussion of domestic care robots amongst the

participants, a short video documentary compiled by UWE researchers on the existing state of

the art in robotics was played to inform the participants of the robots’ developments and

capabilities that was divided into three main sections was shown. The three sections on the

video documentary were as follows:

1. Industrial – Briefly summarising the emergence of robots within industry, specifically car

manufacturing

2. State of the art – Brief summary of medical robots

3. Care robots – Brief summary of care robot developments

MOBISERV FP7 248434


After the participants had watched the robot video documentary, the facilitator asked each of

the participants which aspects they preferred and why. This was followed by a further

discussion using cue cards which images of the care robots on the video.

3.1.2 Scenario-focussed workshops

These were conducted in smaller groups or individually and also included carers and

therapists. Three sessions were held in the Netherlands (NL) with a total of 9 participants and

seven sessions were held in England (UK) with a total of 13 participants: four face-to-face

and three via telephone. Overall there were 8 older adults and 14 secondary stakeholders,

with an equal mix of genders. The details of the composition of the groups and methodology

will be available in D2.5.

The participants were provided with scenarios relating to hydration, nutrition support, voice/

video calling, exercise and front door control. Key discussion points included the following

points: What is good? What is bad? What is the effect of this situation? Is it right or wrong?

How could this scenario be different? (e.g. extend it, change it). The scenarios were presented

both verbally and on paper.

3.2 Survey

A questionnaire (Appendix 1) was prepared and distributed at the Festival of Age Celebration

in Bristol, UK. This was an event for older adults to introduce them to a range of support

services and technologies organised by the Bristol City Council and Bristol Older Peoples

Forum. We showed concept videos of the MOBISERV system and gave a demonstration of

existing functionalities (voice control of shopping list, emailing, weather forecasts) on the

PRU, and the WHSHU (vests and live graphs of the sensor data). This was followed by

individual and small group hands-on sessions. Participants were then asked to fill out the

questionnaire. 29 older people completed the questionnaire (see Appendix 1 - Questionnaire

Responses for detailed responses) and took part in an unstructured group discussion.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


4 Results of the Embodiment Workshops

The section contains a summary of the results recorded during the embodiment workshops.

For each activity in the session the summary of ideas recorded by the participants is listed

below.

4.1 Discussions on the nature of an Ideal Robot

The following contains contributions from the participants regarding what they would find

acceptable for their “ideal robot assistant”. Suggestions and ideas made by the participants

have been categorised into themes, which in some cases overlap with each other.

4.1.1 Functionality4.1.1.1 Memory associated tasks

Informs user of the date and any appointments

Reminds user what to take with them and what they have arranged to do for the day (arranged duties)

Reminder for birthdays and anniversaries

Medication reminders, dosage, schedule

Wake the user at a certain time

Remind the user to check their diary

Act like a diary

To be able to answer questions

To ask the user if they switched everything off at night

4.1.1.2 Cleaning tasks

Clean under bed

Turn mattress

Clean the oven

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Clean windows

Clear up kitchen waste and take to bin

Clean corners, under chairs

Remove cobwebs on ceiling and walls

Robot as a vacuum – access corners, Hoover stairs, under chairs

4.1.1.3 Assistive tasks

Hang up laundry

Read instructions, open packets

Make user aware of potential hazards, obstacles - to let the user know if they were likely to fall over an obstacle

Cooking and serving a meal

Answers the phone

Ability to pick up objects and pass to the user

Help with clothing, putting on shoes, tie laces, do up buttons

An ejector seat

Be able to lift item

Some form of mobile support to assist with playing croquet

Load washing machine and remove washing from

Ironing

4.1.2 Behaviour and Appearance

Results on considerations of behaviour and appearance show some notable differences

between male and female perspectives.

Female Perspectives:

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Social companionshipThis was a key aspect that emerged as more of a female perspective in the focus groups. Here is one specific quote from a female participant which communicates this particularly poignantly: “…it would be comfortable and nice and maybe make me think of my younger days and my family…that would be very nice and companionable and if I can’t have something living, I’ll have that doll…it’s the feeling of comfort. I think comfort is very important, extremely important.” Would like a robot to ask how they are feeling To look like a machine not a human

To look like a doll, at least pleasant

Appearance: “I wouldn’t mind how it looked but happy perhaps?”

Smell of a human

While working, to sing like Frank Sinatra

Window cleaning, to sing like George Formby while performing this task

Sound –soft music, Viennese waltz, not noisy

Like it to look like George Clooney

Voice: A Scottish or Irish woman’s accent

Wake up the user at a given time, pleasing colour and smiling face

Colour red with some white

Pleasing voice, easy to operate, to make a washing sound when approached

Dome shaped

Not life-like

Materials: Natural wood

Voice: Female, not like a satellite navigator

Male Perspectives:

Merge into the surroundings, similar to the furniture (table) although a human form might enable certain functionality such as picking things up

Social companionship was not a priority

Functionality over appearance dominated the discussions

MOBISERV FP7 248434


A system with attachments which could be swapped depending on the tasks required

Voice: Female

Clean lines and easy to clean

4.2 Discussions on the nature of a Nightmare Robot

A useful method for understanding user acceptance is to reverse the question and get them to

consider aspects that would not be acceptable to them. The following is a summary of the

outcomes of the second sessions from the workshops.

4.2.1 Behaviour and Appearance

Never stops talking

Always asking questions

“Rushing” around

Threatening appearance, metallic “Terminator like”

Makes frightening noises

Removing the human element in daily life

Lack of human / personal touch

Loud repetitive annoying sounds

Lack of setting preferences

Unnatural voice

Plastic

Metallic

4.2.2 Loss of Control and Reliability

Cannot be stopped, uncontrollable

Turns on by itself, particularly at night

Noisy, smelly, a fire hazard

Causing one to become dependent upon it

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Unreliable

The following two comments capture the above concerns that were frequently echoed: by female participants: “...it would be a nightmare, what would happen to you if the tablets were there to order…that would be my greatest worry that I…that something would go wrong with it and something that I was depending on for medication wouldn’t be available and it could be quite damaging.”

“…that it would run amuck…and that you wouldn’t be able to know how to stop it making horrible harsh noises…frightening noises.”

Male participants in general, did not seem perturbed by the appearance, with one say-ing: “I don’t think I would find it scary. I like machinery, all kinds of machines. That wouldn’t frighten me. Whether it speaks or doesn’t speak, whether it moves or doesn’t move”. However, there was general agreement that they would be concerned about a robot’s advancing intelligence: “If the robot got that clever and it then decided that I was more stupid than the robot and it wasn’t going to let me switch it off, so I lost control of the robot, that would cause me a lot of trouble.” During the discussions, it was clear that people tend to base their impressions on what they have seen in science fiction movies, with one male participant referring to the movie, I-Robot commenting: “If they were able to communicate with each other and start to think independently…then that would start to get scary”.

Examples were also given relating to the complexity of technology and some older peoples’ lack of cognitive ability to ensure safe use.

4.3 Discussions prompted by a documentary on robot development

After discussing with the participants, ideas and themes resulting from the nightmare robot

activity, participants were shown a brief documentary about robotic development, from

industrial, to state of the art and finally care robots as described in 3.1

4.3.1 Initial Feedback, impressions and opinions

A female participant stated that they preferred the “pet” embodiment robots, referring to the Paro robotic seal, compared to a humanoid robot: “A fury animal or a machine, rather than something that’s pretending to be…I don’t like that.”

Another female participant supported the previous comment regarding humanoid em-bodiment : “ I don’t like the figures, they seemed ghostly.”

MOBISERV FP7 248434


A female participant approved of the Paro robotic seal embodiment but also asked whether or not it would be applicable to someone who did not suffer from dementia and therefore whether it would have any benefit.

A female participant stated that the video acted as a confidence builder: “It was a confidence builder to see how reliable those huge machines were in the car industry…I mean they, presumably never fail?”.

The male participants enjoyed the video pointing out the compliance of the industrial assembly robots.

A female participant stated that they would not like the robot to be entirely in control of themselves: “…It would have to be there as a background and as a convenience to me not to control me and take over my own feelings and my own personality. It would have to be there just as a help, solely as a help.”

o A female participant stated that if this was the case (referring to the previous comment), that they might not require such a system if this was the case.

o Another female participant agreed and stated that much of the features and be-nefits of the Care robots, would not be applicable to themselves on the grounds that they were very mobile and active: “…and really it’s like being on another planet at the moment. I can’t imagine being put in that position but if I was I am sure I would only want it there for what it’s meant to be… ”

The facilitator asked the participants how they would feel if they did require more support and such a system (as a care robot) was made available to them and whether it would be better to be introduced to using such a system before it became more applic-able due to increasing needs.

o All participants agreed that it would be better to have had previous experience with the system before their needs increased to the extent where such a system would be more applicable. A female participant stated the following: “Like everything else, it’s always good to be one step ahead.” Another made similar comments and referred to have to adjust to living in the retirement village site compared to living in their own homes: “…if that was brought in gradually that would be very satisfactory.”

o A female participant further stated the following: “You could just have it there, even if you didn’t need it, but you could give it things to do and you could get used to it having the feeling of it helping you”, with another stating that this would be similar to “learning the computer.”

4.3.2 Cue card discussion and comments

MOBISERV FP7 248434


After the post-video discussion, the images shown in Figures 3 to 7 were shown to the

participants in order to prompt further discussion. A summary of key responses that emerged

from the discussions are included in each section.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


4.3.2.1 Cue Card A

Figure 3 Robot A Care-O-bot II Fraunhofer IPA

Participants made comments about the size of such a robot and raising concerns about how much space it would take up.

A participant also commented about whether the robot could cope with “bumps” due to different floor surfaces in their home and stated this would be an important require-ment should it be serving drinks.

A participant also asked whether the robot would be able to locate an item if it was placed somewhere other than where the robot would expect it to be.

4.3.2.2 Cue Card B

Figure 4 Robot B (PaPeRo 2005 From NEC)

MOBISERV FP7 248434


While some female and male participants thought these robots were cute and re-minded them of cuddly toys, others stated that they did not like this. One female parti-cipant stated: “It would drive me up the wall to see something like that.” Overall par-ticipants seemed to argue that these robots appeared too childish, with one comment-ing that they would prefer a pet dog.

One of the female participants asked what were the robots “up to?” and what benefit this would have for an older person.

One female participant stated that she would not mind having this type of robot, and another stated that they were not frightening.

One female participant commented on how a robot without arms would not be able to pick up items.

4.3.2.3 Cue Card C

Figure 5 Robot C Seeker by David Shinsel

Participants made several comments regarding the size and storage of such a robot.

Male participants were interested to know whether the robot did gardening tasks, and in general liked the “machine” aspect of its embodiment.

One issue that emerged from the discussion by male participants of robots performing tasks inside and outside the home was related to a feeling of loss of purpose. This is en-capsulated by the following quote: “What would I do with myself though if all these little

MOBISERV FP7 248434


beasties are doing everything for me, because it’s part of my world to do the gardening and everything. If it’s all done for me I might as well climb into a box and …that would be a problem.” Further discussion revealed that a job sharing scenario would be more ac-ceptable.

4.3.2.4 Cue Card D

Figure 6 Robot D ApriAttenda by Toshiba

A female participant stated that she found this robot frightening with another commenting that such a robot might be more suitable for a laboratory but not in the home.

While a female participant noted that the height of the robot was a necessity in order to be able to access items in the fridge, another said that such a robot may find it difficult to move through disabled access doors.

Male participants discussed safety and control issues with such as robot in relation to ad-ministering medication and injections.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


4.3.2.5 Cue Card E

Figure 7 Robot F, RIBA "Robot for Interactive Body Assistance" Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, Japan, and Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd.

A female participant asked whether the robot would be able to get them out of the bath, with another stating that nurses within the care home would appreciate the benefits of having a robot that could lift people out of their bed

Upon asked about the appearance of the robot, a female participant stated that they did not mind the embodiment features: “I could live with that if I had to”.

Regarding the appearance of the robot, a male participant noted that: If it is a machine, make it look like a machine”, which was agreed as being acceptable by another male par-ticipant.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


5 Results of the Scenario-Focussed Workshops

While the focus of these sessions was the evaluation of MOBISERV components, the ensuing

discussions revealed important aspects relating to user acceptance and embodiment.

So while the entirety of the results emerging from these sessions will be available in D2.5, it

is thought appropriate to include the results pertaining to user acceptance and embodiment in

this report.

5.1 User Acceptance

Timeo One informal carer reported that older people will take time “to get used to it”.

(UK) Aesthetics

o Aesthetics is an important consideration for older people. (UK) Simplicity

o Carers advise to keep it simple. Often the most simple things are of most value! (NL)

Understandingo One informal carer reported if an older person doesn’t understand technology (e.g.

broadband), she/he won’t accept it. The novelty of the system, such as computerised objects like smart garments, may form a barrier. It may not be possible to ‘understand’ it. (UK)

Types of interactionso Some older people are rejecters of computers – simply calling the system a

computer may be off-putting. Older people may accept a system if they can interact implicitly (e.g. via sensors), rather than explicitly (e.g via PRU). (UK)

Process of introductiono Introduction should follow a staged process of describe concepts and benefits,

demo/ show /explain, practice with demonstrator, trial alone, review acceptability – if older people can’t understand the system’s benefits in relation to their perceived needs, they will reject it before the demo! (UK)

o People really have to see the added value. They have to see and experience it is worth it. People have to see, if you can show and let them experience the benefits than they like it. We have to show them, then they will like it. (NL)

MOBISERV FP7 248434


o Older people will need lots of time to adopt and get used to (e.g. a son already has to set the alarm clock to summertime). It will overawe people with technology, it moves, it makes you nervous. (NL)

o Easy manuals are important and crucial for seniors, not big books, but simple to start using. Work with colours, good for older people. Link colour to certain activity. (NL)

o Introduction in this setting should go slowly; first put the robot in their environment for a couple of days standing still, then increase the functionality, and then movements, step by step.(NL)

Costo There was a strong concern about the costs of running a MOBISERV system –

older people reported financial worries leading to a review of whether they should carry on paying for internet access. Also, the cost of spending their time trying to troubleshoot or delegate any technical problems is reported to be off-putting. (UK)

o Older people state that it would be great if we can use technology to decrease care costs. Older people become expensive as soon as they go to care/nursing home, not before. (NL)

o Older people and carers wonder what the added value of the robot is, compared to other possibilities. Are the costs justifiable? Is it financially viable to have a robot at home? (NL)

Dependencyo Some older people anticipate their own dependency on the system and report

when the will-to-live reduces they might start ignoring eating reminders and video calls to be “bloody-minded” and “get on with life independently”. Carers report that some older people deliberately refuse to eat. (UK)

Personalisationo Personalisation / customisation was felt to be very important, according to an

informal carer, such as choosing voice (male/female, mechanical/human/family) and robot name. (UK)

o Carers, doctors, and therapists see that maybe the robot should be different depending where they are to be used and for whom. (NL)

o Older people ask for different options on the robot to communicate with the user. (NL)

Carer’s perceptionso Carers: It has to be an addition to the team, not a replacement of a carer. (NL)

Personalityo A robot just listens, without discussion, it does what it has to do. Maybe it should

sometimes say, you have not been very active, close the curtains yourself. (NL)

MOBISERV FP7 248434


5.2 Embodiment

Relevance of the roboto Older people see the use of the reminder functions and like it, but some have

doubts about the need for a robot. (NL) Human tasks

o Older people reported that drinking and eating reminders were ‘human’ activities (in the sense that these were tasks that people would normally do) and they expected these reminding activities to be undertaken by a robot that looked human. (UK)

Movement and soundo Some older people were concerned about the robot moving around and

beeping. (UK)o People state that in certain homes a robot would be difficult. Think of carpets,

doorsteps, books, slippery floors, etc. It looks like an inconvenient device for an average household. For in care organizations, the patient would not be afraid if a door suddenly opens with the robot, how wide are the corridors, can they pass each other, and what are disturbing elements in terms of technology. (NL)

o What if the robot goes to the user, and there are for instance some shoes on floor, does the robot know? The dog will be nervous with a robot driving around. (NL)

Deviceso Older people ask whether you need a robot that drives around. They suggest,

“maybe you can also use observation techniques and speakers and microphones to give triggers. I can also have the same reminder on my video mobile phone. Focus on the functions and forget the robot. A robot is not suitable for the home environment; there are many barriers when you focus on the robot.” (NL)

o “Standalone front door control systems exist, but they can have a link to the robot. For the currently existing systems with a screen on the wall, you do not need the robot.” (NL)

MOBISERV FP7 248434


5.2.1 Behaviour and appearance

Pet ‘friend’o Older people responded positively to the concept of talking to the robot (in the

manner that they talked to their pet). (UK) Voice and companionship

o A non-staccato voice was preferred by some older people. (UK)o Older people worry about speech output, it should not be strange or staccato.

(NL)o Voice interaction with robot could lead to it becoming a “little friend”,

according to one informal carer and “the next best thing [to human contact]”. (UK)

o The robot, including screen, coming towards you is fundamentally different from a fixed screen or tablet. This mobility is its strength. (NL)

o Carers focus on who takes initiative. For people with dementia, this should be the robot very often, to keep them busy and distract them. (NL)

o Speech technology is not really good to distinguish sounds and speech, artificial sounds, not yet developed to give trust to older people. Articulation is difficult with older people, so if they mumble, then maybe the curtains suddenly open. (NL)

Bereavement triggers social technology adoptiono Older people who live alone report the adoption of social technology (email,

facebook, twitter, skype) after the loss of a life partner. (UK)

MOBISERV FP7 248434


6 Results of the survey and discussions

The detailed results of the survey can be found in Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Responses.

6.1 Some observations from the questionnaires

Use of social media and internet telephony is higher among people living alone, com-pared to people living with others.

People living alone were more accepting of the robot’s size, compared to people liv-ing with others. Four older people reported that it should be half-size or slimmer, due to constraints of their physical environment (“I have a narrow hallway”). One older person reported that the small size of her house was a reason to not want one. This suggests people without enough space will not accept the robot.

Some older people reported that it was important that the robot did not enter certain rooms in the house (bedroom, bathroom). This suggests that robot interaction with the user is highly contextualised: sometimes the user’s preferences about the physical en-vironment should be respected (e.g. user is asleep in bed) and sometimes the system needs to override them (user has fallen in bathroom).

People aged 50-79 years old preferred to change the appearance of the robot. Being able to change or customise or configure the robot appearance may be a key user re-quirement and an important aspect in acceptability.

Other aspects of appearance reported included “softer” and “it looks like a toy”. This suggests other materials – e.g. textiles and wood or metal – could improve acceptabil-ity.

People living alone preferred a pet-like appearance.

People aged 80-90 years old would like the robot to be like a social companion

People living alone strongly wanted to interact by talking. Irrespective of living status, this preference seems to increase with age.

People living alone strongly wanted the robot to perform care-related tasks. Irrespect-ive of living status, this preference seems to increase with age

Unacceptable aspects

Older people reported they did NOT want the robot To think for them

Give opinionsMOBISERV FP7 248434


Make tinny sounds

Imitate a human

Move without being instructed

These findings chime with those obtained from the embodiment workshops as well.

Some people considered that they would not want the robot performing care-related tasks in

the future. This suggests low perceived needs (now, future) – and raising awareness of poten-

tial needs in the future is a key criteria of acceptability.

6.2 New robot functions and characteristics drawn from the discussions

1. The robot could come in different colours.

2. The robot could support unrestricted web browsing.

3. The robot could tell the older person they are not wearing the WHSU if it were able to

detect this.

4. The robot could support way-finding (i.e. lead the older person around a residential

home, from their room to canteen and back).

5. Several people (e.g. older person and their carer) may need to speak to the robot at

different times or within the same conversation. At the moment, it is inconsistent in

understanding different voices and does not distinguish them.

6. Popular areas for robot assistance were housework and fall detection.

7. Fall detection was reported as the only function that seemed to require a robot, the

other functions did not.

8. The system can be very slow updating the shopping list apparently due to fluctuations

in wireless network connectivity: connectivity should not impact of speed of human-

robot interaction, which will reduce acceptance.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


9. Older people frequently were seen leaning forwards to read information on the visual

display, ergonomic comfort in accessing the data, particularly if used over long peri-

ods of time will be crucial to long-term acceptability.

10. People did not seem to understand the environment mapping image: some controls to

re-orientate the mapped image would help, indicating a further need for enhanced cus-

tomisation.

11. Dancing with the robot was suggested as a fun activity. User acceptance could be seen

as being closely coupled with enjoyment of, and with the system.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


7 Conclusion and Discussion

The focus group workshop sessions allowed for a deeper discussion of views in regards to

user acceptance of a system such as MOBISERV, focussing on the behaviour and appearance

of the robot that serves as an interface, but also considering associate functionality.

User acceptance is closely bound to the level of utility that is offered, and in the case of the

situations where age has impaired the ability to carry out tasks that require physical agility or

memory, alternative solutions that enable a person to continue with these, will always have a

high degree of user acceptance.

However, the discussions related to embodiments revealed some intrinsic fears and

misconceptions, which would be a barrier to user acceptance and need to be addressed by

higher levels of engagement, education and training.

Justifying the relevance of having a robot-based system for a specific task, also emerges as an

issue in regards to user acceptance. The solution offered to address users’ specific

requirements to enable independent living, needs to be seen by them to be at an appropriate

level; the right tool for the task at hand. People often see some of the current solutions being

offered as overkill.

We need to consider in more depth, how we communicate that the strength of what is being

offered in an effective manner. The MOBISERV system needs to be presented more clearly

as an integrated modular solution, providing the ability to add on functions based on

changing personal needs resulting from progression of aging. We also need to emphasise that

the robot potentially provides a more engaging, enjoyable and sociable interface, enhancing

the quality of the user-experience.

User acceptance will depend on the way we respond to, and address, the concerns and issues

highlighted in this report, through our communications with all stakeholders and the external

design of the system, always aiming for a flexible, customisable solution, rather than trying to

shoehorn a plethora of requirements into one solution.

MOBISERV FP7 248434


8 References

1. Broadbent, E.; Tamagawa, R.; Kerse, N.; Knock, B.; Patience, A.; MacDonald, B. (2009)

Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN. 18th IEEE International

Symposium on, Page(s): 645 - 650

2. Hendriks, B., Meerbeek, B., Boess, S., Pauws, S., Sonneveld, M. (2011) Robot Vacuum

Cleaner Personality and Behaviour, International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol 3, No.

2, 187-195, Springerlink,

3. Han B.S., Alvin, H.Y.W., Tan, Y.K., Li, H. (2010) Using Design Methodology to En-

hance Interaction for a Robotic Receptionist, IEEE, , RO-MAN, pp 797-802, 2010

4. Mataric M J. (2005) The Role of Embodiment in Assistive Interactive Robots for the Eld-

erly, AAAI Fall Symposium on “Caring Machines: AI for the Elderly”, Arlington VA

MOBISERV FP7 248434


9 Appendix 1 - Questionnaire responses

1. Would you mind having a robot like this in your house support-ing you, if needed?

# Answer Response

%

1 Yes 17 63%

2No, please state why .........................................................................................................................................................................

10 37%

Statistic ValueMin Value 1

Max Value 2

Total Responses 27

2. Do you think this robot is too big for your house?

# Answer Response %

1

Yes. If yes, then please state what would be the ideal size and shape for such a robot

13 46%

2 No 15 54%

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Yes. If yes, then please state what would be the ideal size and shape for such a robotNot sure but I am in a flat

Smaller shape is okay

monitoring screen

Small

Half-size

Reduced by 1/2 scale

Half the size

Stairs will be a problem

Can't say really

I don't think I could cope with it any size although I can see it would be useful

Slimmer as I have a narrow hallway

About half-size


Max Value 2

Total Responses 28

MOBISERV FP7 248434


3. How would you feel about the robot moving around in your home?

Text ResponseOkay

Okay

Not in bedroom or bathroom

Don't think I would like that (it's only a two-bedroom house)

Could be frightening depending on 'awareness'

Okay

Not good. It could be immobile

Okay

It's creepy

Would not be concerned

Okay

Scared to death

Doesn't matter to me

Okay

Fine

I wouldn't like it

Strange initially, but would soon become used to it

If it is helping you, you feel fine about it

Statistic ValueTotal Responses 18

4. Would you prefer the robot to have a different appearance?

# Answer Response %1 Yes 15 56%

2 No 12 44%


Max Value 2

Total Responses 27

MOBISERV FP7 248434


5. If Yes, then which of these would you prefer for the appearance of the robot

# Answer Response %

1For the robot to look more human

6 35%

2For the robot to look like a pet (dog, cat)

6 35%

3

For the robot to look like a piece of furniture

0 0%

4 Other - Please state 6 35%

Other - Please stateI don't want one

Screen

Softer

Less human

Look like a robot

Currently it looks like a toy


Max Value 4

Total Responses 17

6. How would you like the robot to behave?

# Answer Response %

1 As a social companion? 9 35%

2

Non-interactive - like a machine (e.g. vacuum cleaner)?

16 62%


MOBISERV FP7 248434


Other - Please stateAs an aid to daily living


Max Value 3

Total Responses 26

7. What would you NOT like the robot to do and why?

Text ResponseIntimate personal needs

Make a tinny sounds

Personal care

Imitate a human

Nothing. Anything it could do - the more tasks the better

Give opinions or personal tasks

To think for me

Move without being instructed. Unnerving!

Statistic ValueTotal Responses 8

8. How would you prefer to communicate with the robot?

# Answer Response %

1Via the interactive touch screen

6 23%

2 Talking to it 20 77%


Other - Please state


Max Value 2

Total Responses 26

MOBISERV FP7 248434


9. How old are you?

# Answer Response %1 Below 50 0 0%

2 50 - 59 1 4%

3 60 - 69 5 18%

4 70 - 79 14 50%

5 80 - 90 8 29%

6 Above 90 0 0%


Max Value 5

Total Responses 28

10. What is your gender?

# Answer Response %1 Male 6 21%

2 Female 22 79%


Max Value 2

Total Responses 28

11. Where and with whom do you live?

# Answer Response %1 In my own house 24 86%

2 In a residential care home 0 0%

3Other accommodation - Please state

3 11%

4 With someone 9 32%

5 On my own 11 39%

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Other accommodation - Please stateAt St Monica's care village with husband who has Parkinsons

Sheltered

with elderly parents


Max Value 5

Total Responses 28

12. In the future, would you consider having the robot perform care-related tasks for you?

# Answer Response %

1Yes, Please state what tasks

15 58%

2No, Please state what tasks

11 42%

MOBISERV FP7 248434


Yes, Please state what tasks No, Please state what tasksAct as a memory

Any

vacuum and clean windows

Sweep the floor and wash up. If I was stuck in bed or a chair, but I don't know what I would need help with..

housework

cleaning the house

Don't know yet (not yet applicable)

Illegible response

Anything it was able to do

house-work, gardening

vacuuming, cooking, ironing and polishing

Any

Turn lights on/off, radio/tv on/off, make a cup of tea

If I fall over (this keeps happening to a friend of mine)

personal care

At present I am able-bodied

Never

Can't see what these would be

It is okay for house-keeping but not for personal tasks

Until I was incapable


Max Value 2

Total Responses 26

MOBISERV FP7 248434


13. Do you use any of the following on a regular basis?

# Answer Response %1 Email 15 83%

2 Internet shopping 7 39%

3 Skype 3 17%

4

Web browsers for reading the news or searching for information

12 67%

5 Word Processing 9 50%

6 Facebook or Twitter 3 17%

7 Computer games 4 22%

8 Keep fit videos 0 0%

Value1

7

18

MOBISERV FP7 248434

mobiserv – fp7 – 248434 - cordis :...

Documents