Assistive Robotics and Assistive Technology for the Aging Population Jenay M. Beer University of South Carolina

Assistive Robotics and Assistive Technology for the Aging Population

Jenay M. BeerUniversity of South Carolina

Aging in place

How can I help older adults?

• Director of the Assistive Robotics and Technology Lab

• Associate Director of Usability SmartHome

• Joint appointment– Computer Science– Social Work

• Degree: Engineering Psychology

“The study of human beings and their interactions with products, environments, and equipment in performing tasks and activities.”

(Czaja, 1997)

What is Engineering Psychology?

Why focus on designing for older adults?

Home sweet home

• Older adults growing segment of population• Goal to “age-in-place”– 80% older adults live independently in own home• Houses, apartments, assisted living, retirement

communities

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011Lawton, 1990Giuliani, Scopelliti, & Fornara, 2005

Challenges of aging-in-place• Healthy older adults maintain their

home– but not without difficulty

• Age is a marker of change– Physical– Perceptual– Cognitive

• Stress– Age-related changes– Caregiver stress

Robots and assistive technology have the potential to reduce the stress/workload!

Fausset et al., 2011; Fisk et al., 2009; Rogers et al., 1998; Clark, Czaja, & Weber, 1990

What is a Robot?

An intelligent, or “smart”, robot is a computer-based system that is• Autonomous (at some

level)

• proactive• Reactive

Autonomy

Less Autonomous More Autonomous

“Someone controls robot”“Robot controls itself”

Beer, Fisk, and Rogers (2015) Journal of HRI

iRobot Roomba

Willow Garage TexaiPhilips iCat

TWENDY-ONE

Willow Garage PR2

MIT CSAIL

MySpoon

Ri-Man Why aren’t these robots commonplace?

Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

“dedicated to understanding, designing, and evaluating robotic systems for use by or with

humans” (Goodrich & Schultz, 2007, p. 204)

Robots as a compensatory technology for older adults

Tasks to be compensated

by robot

Barriers and facilitators of acceptance

Design guidelines

Implementation of design

User adoption of

robot

User Studies

TELEPRESENCE


Telepresence for CCRCs

• Continuous Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs)– Range of care – from independent

living to skilled nursing

• Will CCRC administrators, health care workers, and staff want to use telepresence?

Liles, Stuck, Kacmar, & Beer (2015) HRILiles, Stuck Kacmar, & Beer (2015) HCII

Goals of Research

To investigate:

1. CCRC employees' perceived benefits and concerns about the system

2. CCRC employees' views on how a smart presence system may be used


Area Count

Administration(includes directors, admin, and IT) 9

Activities(includes 1 activities coordinator/ 3 directors) 4

Nursing(includes 1 RN, 1 LPN & 3 CNAs) 5

Other(includes 2 Chaplains, 1 Marketing employee, 1 Human Resources employee, 1 IT Support Engineer & 1 Office Manager ) 6

Work Area/Department

Participants (N=23, 17 female, 6 male)Recruited from 2 CCRCs in Columbia, SC


Method

• 1 hour structured interview– Pilot and local user, within subjects– “How would you find the BEAM useful? Do you have

any concerns? How might you use the BEAM?”


Segment Data

ConcernsBenefits

Develop coding schemePROS

1. visualization2. Monitoring3. Convenience4. Etc

CONS1. Privacy2. Reliability3. Harm4. etc

Code transcripts (MaxQDA)

Coder 1 Coder 2 Not actual study data

Benefit Example QuotesConvenienceEffort SavingTime Saving

“–you’ve got a staff member tied up. So you could do that remotely. . . particularly in the evening when our staff is shorter and there’s not as much demand for staffing interaction.”

“– before we could move an assisted living resident into the community... We could do the level of care assessment without the resident having to come in.”

Visualization “– it can go places, so it’d be better than like getting a photograph . . .”

Socialization “– and we’re fortunate to have a lot of family involvement, but that does not mean everybody has family visiting and we have people that have children out of state, a lot of them do. So I think the positive is ten-fold by getting some interaction with their loved ones. “

Mobility “I like the mobility of it. I think it’s neat the way it – like it moves around . . .”

Perceived benefits (interview)


Concern Example Quotes

Emotional harm to others/resistance

“I guess with some dementia residents it might scare them…”

Limitations “. . . that might be a little challenging on entering the room if you can’t knock. “

Reduce in person interaction (perception)

“… it could be perceived that we’re trying to replace human interaction, which we are not. We’re actually trying to add to it.”

Physical Harm to others“I think another concern would be it was very quiet… they’re elderly, they might not see it . . .there’d be a tripping type situation... what would happen if it tipped over?

Cost “Well, my concerns would be really just the cost of using it compared to other technologies”

Perceived concerns (interview)


• HIPAA– 60% stated considerations for

HIPAA are necessary– 23.3% said it is not a concern– 16.7% didn’t know

Perceived concerns (interview)


Interaction (staff, pa-tients, doctors)

33%

Interaction (family, friends, guests)

12%

Conduct/attend meetings9%

Activities/classes8%

Health monitoring8%

Telemedicine/telehealth8%

Tour7%

Fitness/exercise3%

Make remote visits3%

Oversee the facility3%

Medication reminder2%

Rehabilitation2%

Entertainment 1% Unclear/Don't Know

1%

Times mentioned (N=25)

Use cases (interview)


MOBILE MANIPULATORS


Willow Garage’s PR2 - GATSBII

• 7 DOF Arms, 1 DOF grippers• Counter balanced arms with

4lb payload• Telescoping spine 4’4-5’5• RFID antennas

• Base size = most wheelchairs• Head sensors

– Color, wide-angle, narrow-angle, and LED texture projector cameras

– Laser scanner (above shoulders)– Xbox Kinect

Lift / Move Objects

(robot)

Locate / Retrieve Objects

(robot)

Cleaning House(robot)

Beer et al., (2012) HRI; Beer et al., (2012) HFES;Prakash et al., (2014) HRI; Smarr et al., (2014) SORO

Medication Delivery

(robot)

Medication Decision Making

(human)


Dishes by Hand(human)

Prepping Meals(human)

Personal Care(human)


Conclusions

• For robots to be readily accepted by older users and caregivers– Design to their needs– Understand how to reduce stress and

workload (not add to it!)

• Many variables important to consider…

Customize Robot Behavior

Collaboration

Range of Motionand

Payload

Size

Conditional Use

Trust

Control Methods


Acknowledgements

• SeniorSMART• Department of Education

• National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

• CREATE • NIH/NIA• NSF

Jenay M. Beer [email protected]

Documents

Assistive Robotics and Assistive Technology for the Aging Population Jenay M. Beer University of South Carolina