Speech Interaction with Personal Assistive Robots Supporting Aging at Home for Individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increases in the prevalence of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are a growing challenge in many nations where healthcare infrastructures are ill-prepared for the upcoming demand for personal caregiving. To help individuals with AD live at home for longer, we are developing a mobile robot, called ED, intended to assist with activities of daily living through visual monitoring and verbal prompts in cases of difficulty. In a series of experiments, we study speech-based interactions between ED and each of 10 older adults with AD as the latter complete daily tasks in a simulated home environment. Traditional automatic speech recognition is evaluated in this environment, along with rates of verbal behaviors that indicate confusion or trouble with the conversation. Analysis reveals that speech recognition remains a challenge in this setup, especially during household tasks with individuals with AD. Across the verbal behaviors that indicate confusion, older adults with AD are very likely to simply ignore the robot, which accounts for over 40% of all such behaviors when interacting with the robot. This work provides a baseline assessment of the types of technical and communicative challenges that will need to be overcome for robots to be used effectively in the home for speech-based assistance with 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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".