Positive Emotional Responses to Socially Assistive Robots in People With Dementia: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interventions and care that can evoke positive emotions and reduce apathy or agitation are important for people with dementia. In recent years, socially assistive robots used for better dementia care have been found to be feasible. However, the immediate responses of people with dementia when they are given multiple sensory modalities from socially assistive robots have not yet been sufficiently elucidated. Objective: This study aimed to quantitatively examine the immediate emotional responses of people with dementia to stimuli presented by socially assistive robots using facial expression analysis in order to determine whether they elicited positive emotions. Methods: This pilot study adopted a single-arm interventional design. Socially assistive robots were presented to nursing home residents in a three-step procedure: (1) the robot was placed in front of participants (visual stimulus), (2) the robot was manipulated to produce sound (visual and auditory stimuli), and (3) participants held the robot in their hands (visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli). Expression intensity values for "happy," "sad," "angry," "surprised," "scared," and "disgusted" were calculated continuously using facial expression analysis with FaceReader. Additionally, self-reported feelings were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. In addition to the comparison between the subjective and objective emotional assessments, expression intensity values were compared across the aforementioned 3 stimuli patterns within each session. Finally, the expression intensity value for "happy" was compared between the different types of robots. Results: A total of 29 participants (mean age 88.7, SD 6.2 years; n=27 female; Japanese version of Mini-Mental State Examination mean score 18.2, SD 5.1) were recruited. The expression intensity value for "happy" was the largest in both the subjective and objective assessments and increased significantly when all sensory modalities (visual, auditory, and tactile) were presented (median expression intensity 0.21, IQR 0.09-0.35) compared to the other 2 patterns (visual alone: median expression intensity 0.10, IQR 0.03-0.22; P<.001; visual and auditory: median expression intensity 0.10, IQR 0.04-0.23; P<.001). The comparison of different types of robots revealed a significant increase when all stimuli were presented by doll-type and animal-type robots, but not humanoid-type robots. Conclusions: By quantifying the emotional responses of people with dementia, this study highlighted that socially assistive robots may be more effective in eliciting positive emotions when multiple sensory stimuli, including tactile stimuli, are involved. More studies, including randomized controlled trials, are required to further explore the effectiveness of using socially assistive robots in dementia care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".