Long-Term Exercise Assistance: Group and One-on-One Interactions between a Social Robot and Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For older adults, regular exercises can provide both physical and mental benefits, increase their independence, and reduce the risks of diseases associated with aging. However, only a small portion of older adults regularly engage in physical activity. Therefore, it is important to promote exercise among older adults to help maintain overall health. In this paper, we present the first exploratory long-term human–robot interaction (HRI) study conducted at a local long-term care facility to investigate the benefits of one-on-one and group exercise interactions with an autonomous socially assistive robot and older adults. To provide targeted facilitation, our robot utilizes a unique emotion model that can adapt its assistive behaviors to users’ affect and track their progress towards exercise goals through repeated sessions using the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), while also monitoring heart rate to prevent overexertion. Results of the study show that users had positive valence and high engagement towards the robot and were able to maintain their exercise performance throughout the study. Questionnaire results showed high robot acceptance for both types of interactions. However, users in the one-on-one sessions perceived the robot as more sociable and intelligent, and had more positive perception of the robot’s appearance and movements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".