Cultural Feasibility of Conversational Robots for Dementia Care in India: Participatory Design Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia poses a significant challenge in India. The rising incidence rates, limited resources, and restricted clinician access have contributed to a staggering 90% gap in diagnosis and care. Conversational technology provides a natural user interface with the potential to promote the independence, well-being, and safety of people living with dementia at home. However, the feasibility of implementing such technology to support people living with dementia across diverse cultural and economic settings remains underexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cultural feasibility of conversational robots for dementia care in India, a culturally underserved context in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) for aging and dementia care. METHODS: We involved 29 stakeholders, including people living with dementia, caregivers, and dementia care professionals. We evaluated (1) the engagement of people living with dementia with 3 conversational robots with varying interactive modalities (a voice agent, a virtual affective robot, and an embodied robot), (2) robot acceptance, and (3) stakeholder perspectives on the benefits and challenges of deploying conversational AI in India. RESULTS: People living with dementia were willing to engage in verbal dialogue with conversational robots. Stakeholders perceived the technology as beneficial for supporting daily tasks at home, reducing loneliness, and enhancing cognitive function. We identified design adaptations to address feasibility challenges in India, including the need to (1) adapt interaction style to use a kind tone, appreciative language, and customizable facial expressions; (2) improve speech recognition for local accents interpretation and noisy settings; and (3) introduce prototypes in local clinics to promote familiarity. CONCLUSIONS: This work offers novel insights into cultural acceptance, human-robot engagement, and perceived utility for dementia care, along with key design implications for integrating conversational AI into care settings in India.
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 | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".