MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728979385 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.5039

EMBODIED CONVERSATIONAL AGENTS: TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPORT OLDER ADULTS WITH MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT

2017· article· en· W2728979385 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
George Demiris, Hilaire J. Thompson, Amanda Lazar, Shih‐Yin Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionCognitive impairmentCognitionPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceComputer scienceNeuroscienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various information technology applications with anthropomorphic or animal features (in order to generate likeness to a human or pet) have emerged, referred to as embodied conversational agents (ECAs), with the goal to engage older adults in conversations, with the ultimate goal to deliver health coaching, reminders, reminiscence therapy and address isolation and loneliness. We present findings from a longitudinal feasibility study assessing a digital companion system for ten older adults (average age 78.3 years) with mild cognitive impairment. The system was a tablet-based digital pet avatar that included features such as conversation ability, use of pictures and other media, and reminders. Participants used the system daily for 3 months and scored higher at the end of the study in cognition and social support scales (measured with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the MOS-Social support), with the largest benefit seen, as hypothesized, in the positive social interaction subscale. Participants scored lower in presence of depressive symptoms after study completion as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9. Interviews demonstrated that participants saw value in interacting with the system. Many appreciated the pet-like features and felt they developed attachment to it over time. Concerns included technical issues related to Internet connectivity and the repetitive nature of conversations. Our findings informed the creation of design recommendations for ECAs to support aging. We specifically focus on usability, responsiveness, ways to effectively engage clinicians and family members, as well as highlight ethical issues stemming from the use of ECAs by older adults with cognitive impairment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207