Towards emotionally aligned social robots for dementia: perspectives of care partners and persons with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons living with dementia and their care partners place a high value on aging in place and maintaining independence. Socially assistive robots - embodied characters or pets that provide companionship and aid through social interaction - are a promising tool to support these goals. There is a growing commercial market for these devices, with functions including medication reminders, conversation, pet-like behaviours, and even the collection of health data. While potential users generally report positive feelings towards social robots, persons with dementia have been under-included in design and development, leading to a disconnect between robot functions and the real-world needs and desires of end-users. Furthermore, a key element of social and emotional connectedness in human relationships is emotional alignment - a state where all partners have congruent emotional understandings of a situation. Strong emotional alignment between users and robots will be necessary for social robots to provide meaningful companionship, but a computational model of how to achieve this has been absent from the field. To this end, we propose and test Affect Control Theory (ACT) as a framework to improve emotional alignment between older adults and social robotics. METHOD: Using a Canadian online survey, we introduced respondents to three exemplar social robots with older adult-specific functionalities and evaluated their responses around features, emotions, and ethics using standardized and novel measures (n=171 older adults, n=28 care partners, and n=7 persons living with dementia). RESULT: Overall, participants responded positively to the robots. High priority uses included companionship, interaction, and safety. Reasoning around robot use was pragmatic; curiosity and entertainment were motivators to use, while a perceived lack of need and the mechanical appearance of the robots were detractors. Realistic, cute, and cuddly robots were preferred while artificial-looking, creepy, and toy-like robots were disliked. Most importantly, our evidence supported ACT as a viable model of human-robot emotional alignment. CONCLUSION: This work supports the development of emotionally sophisticated, evidence-based, and user-centered social robotics with older adult- and dementia-specific functionality.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".