Cited by 100Social Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Use by Older AdultsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

A Robot of My Own: Participatory Design of Socially Assistive Robots for Independently Living Older Adults Diagnosed with Depression

Šabanović, Selma, Chang, Wan-Ling, Bennett, Casey C., Piatt, Jennifer A., Hakken, David·2015·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-20892-3_11

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social robots have been found to provide a sense of social presence and communication that may reduce loneliness and social isolation and enable older adults to connect with family, friends, and their community.

    “Social robots have been found to provide a sense of social presence and communication that may reduce loneliness and social isolation and enable older adults to connect with family, friends, and their community (Beer and Takayama, 2011; Šabanović et al., 2015; Ostrowski et al., 2019).”
  • Little emphasis has been placed on analyzing older adults' informally told stories about their prior technology experiences or experiences with social robots.

    “Despite the evidence of this approach, little emphasis has been placed on analyzing older adults’ informally told stories about their prior technology experiences or experiences with social robots.”
  • Informal personal narratives from everyday people, such as older adults, have not been considered meaningful data in the storytelling lens in human-computer interaction.

    “The storytelling lens in human-computer interaction has primarily focused on personas, design fiction, and other stories crafted by designers, yet informal personal narratives from everyday people have not been considered meaningful data, such as storytelling from older adults.”
  • Lee et al. (2017) and Šabanović et al. (2015)'s co-design process was with older adults who have depression, and their results focused on a social robot for companionship without the additional focus of the social robot as a tool for therapy applications.

    “While Lee et al. (2017) and Šabanović et al. (2015)’s co-design process was with older adults who have depression, the results focused on a social robot for companionship without the additional focus of the social robot as a tool for therapy applications as was referenced in our study.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 100

Authors
Šabanović, S., Chang, W.-L., Bennett, C. C., Piatt, J. A., & Hakken, D.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Šabanović, Selma
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2015
Pages
104-114
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W1424293901
Cited by
100
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
13.48
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
socially assistive robots, older adults, depression, participatory design, social interaction, companionship, therapist involvement, independent living

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review