A Conversational Robot for Older Adults with Alzheimer’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amid the rising cost of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), assistive health technologies can reduce care-giving burden by aiding in assessment, monitoring, and therapy. This article presents a pilot study testing the feasibility and effect of a conversational robot in a cognitive assessment task with older adults with AD. We examine the robot interactions through dialogue and miscommunication analysis, linguistic feature analysis, and the use of a qualitative analysis, in which we report key themes that were prevalent throughout the study. While conversations were typically better with human conversation partners (being longer, with greater engagement and less misunderstanding), we found that the robot was generally well liked by participants and that it was able to capture their interest in dialogue. Miscommunication due to issues of understanding and intelligibility did not seem to deter participants from their experience. Furthermore, in automatically extracting linguistic features, we examine how non-acoustic aspects of language change across participants with varying degrees of cognitive impairment, highlighting the robot’s potential as a monitoring tool. This pilot study is an exploration of how conversational robots can be used to support individuals with AD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 it