Dances with Social Robots: A Pilot Study at Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dance therapy can have significant physical, emotional and cognitive benefits for older adults. In particular, social robots can be developed to autonomously facilitate dance sessions to engage these individuals with the aim of improving quality of life. To successfully integrate and promote long-term use of social robots into long-term care homes for such recreational activities, it is important to explore both residents’ and staff’s perceptions of such robots. In this paper, we present the first pilot human–robot interaction study that investigates the overall experiences and attitudes of both residents and staff in a long-term care home for robot-facilitated dance sessions. In general, the questionnaire results from our study showed that both staff and residents had positive attitudes towards the robot-facilitated dance activity. Encouraging trends showed residents had higher ratings for statements on perceived ease of use, safety, and enjoyment than the staff. However, the staff had a statistically significantly higher rating for willingness to use the robots for dance facilitation. Some key statistical differences were also determined with respect to: (1) gender within the resident group (men had higher ratings for the robots being useful in helping facilitate recreational activities), as well as between staff and residents (resident men had higher perceived safety), and (2) prior robot experience (residents with limited prior experience had higher ratings on perceived ease of use and perceived enjoyment than staff with the same level of experience). The robot-facilitated dance activity was positively received by both older adults and staff as an activity of daily living that can enhance wellbeing while also being safe, easy to use and enjoyable.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".