Performance of daily activities by older adults with dementia: The role of an assistive robot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with cognitive impairment often have difficulties in remembering the proper sequence of activities of daily living (ADLs) or how to use the tools necessary to perform ADLs. They, therefore, require reminders in a timely fashion while performing ADLs. This is a very stressful situation for the caregivers of people with dementia. In this paper we describe a pilot study where a tele-operated assistive robot helps a group of older adults with dementia (OAwD) to perform an ADL, namely making a cup of tea in the kitchen. Five OAwD along with their caregivers participated in this study which took place in a simulated-home setting. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and usability of a robotic system in assisting the OAwD to perform ADL in a home setting. The findings from this study will contribute to achieve our ultimate goal of designing a full-fledged assistive robot that assists OAwD aging in their own homes. The assistive robots designed for people with dementia mostly focus on companionship. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first attempt to design an assistive robot which will provide step-by-step guidance to people with dementia in their activities of daily living.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".