An analysis of design recommendations for socially assistive robot helpers for effective human-robot interactions in senior care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the global population ages, there is an increase in demand for assistive technologies that can alleviate the stresses on healthcare systems. The growing field of socially assistive robotics (SARs) offers unique solutions that are interactive, engaging, and adaptable to different users' needs. Crucial to having positive human-robot interaction (HRI) experiences in senior care settings is the overall design of the robot, considering the unique challenges and opportunities that come with novice users. This paper presents a novel study that explores the effect of SAR design on HRI in senior care through a results-oriented analysis of the literature. We provide key design recommendations to ensure inclusion for a diverse set of users. Open challenges of considering user preferences during design, creating adaptive behaviors, and developing intelligent autonomy are discussed in detail. SAR features of appearance and interaction mode along with SAR frameworks for perception and intelligence are explored to evaluate individual developments using metrics such as trust, acceptance, and intent to use. Drawing from a diverse set of features, SAR frameworks, and HRI studies, the discussion highlights robot characteristics of greatest influence in promoting wellbeing and aging-in-place of older adults and generates design recommendations that are important for future development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".