Exploring the perceptions of people with dementia about the social robot PARO in a hospital setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New technology, such as social robots, opens up new opportunities in hospital settings. PARO, a robotic pet seal, was designed to provide emotional and social support for older people with dementia. We applied video-ethnographic methods, including conversational interviews and observations with video recording among 10 patient participants while they were using the robot. We also conducted semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups with nursing staff to gain contextual information. Patient and family partners were actively involved in the study as co-researchers. This study reports our findings on the perceptions of 10 patients with dementia about their experiences with PARO in a hospital setting. Thematic analysis yielded three substantive themes: (a) 'it's like a buddy' - the robot helps people with dementia uphold a sense of self in the world, (b) 'it's a conversation piece' - the baby seal facilitates social connection and (c) 'it makes me happy' - PARO transforms and humanizes the clinical setting. Our findings help provide a better understanding of the perspectives of patients with dementia on the use of social robots.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".