Virtual Agents as Daily Assistants for Elderly or Cognitively Impaired People
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In Yaghoubzadeh et al.'s feasibility study, feedbacks were mostly positive.
“Regarding acceptance, feedbacks were mostly positive.”
From Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
In Yaghoubzadeh et al.'s feasibility study, 10 of the 11 cognitively impaired users successfully entered their appointment.
“Overall results were very encouraging: 10 of the 11 cognitively impaired users successfully entered their appointment and could spot and correct 75% of the (purposefully introduced) errors.”
From Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
In Yaghoubzadeh et al.'s feasibility study, all the elderly participants completed the task successfully and could repair about 80% of the errors introduced.
“All the elderly participants completed the task successfully and could repair about 80% of the errors introduced.”
From Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
In Yaghoubzadeh et al.'s feasibility study, the cognitively impaired users could spot and correct 75% of the purposefully introduced errors.
“Overall results were very encouraging: 10 of the 11 cognitively impaired users successfully entered their appointment and could spot and correct 75% of the (purposefully introduced) errors.”
From Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
The current literature on the use of ECAs by older adults with cognitive impairment does not provide many guidelines for adapting ECA technology for this public.
“However, the current literature on the use of ECAs by older adults with cognitive impairment does not provide many guidelines for adapting ECA technology for this public.”
From Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
It is best to confirm each bit of information individually.
“This is similar to the approach for confirmations recommended by Yaghoubzadeh et al. [8], who stated that it is best to confirm each bit of information individually.”
From Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
Several researchers have proposed to use virtual humanoid characters, called ECAs, that are able to interact with a person through verbal and nonverbal communication.
“To do this, several researchers [5, 6, 7, 8, 9] have proposed to use virtual humanoid characters, called Embodied Conversational Agents (ECAs), that are able to interact with a person through verbal and nonverbal communication.”
From Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
In Yagoubzadeh et al.'s study, subjects repaired significantly more errors in the local condition than in the global condition.
“In addition, they observed that the subjects repaired significantly more errors in the local condition than in the global condition; this improvement was much more significant in the cognitively impaired group, who performed just as well as the healthy elderly group in this condition.”
From Field evaluation with cognitively-impaired older adults of attention management in the Embodied Conversational Agent Louise (2016) · cites this paper as [14]
In Yagoubzadeh et al.'s study, the cognitively impaired group performed just as well as the healthy elderly group in the local condition.
“In addition, they observed that the subjects repaired significantly more errors in the local condition than in the global condition; this improvement was much more significant in the cognitively impaired group, who performed just as well as the healthy elderly group in this condition.”
From Field evaluation with cognitively-impaired older adults of attention management in the Embodied Conversational Agent Louise (2016) · cites this paper as [14]
In Yagoubzadeh et al.'s study, the improvement in error repair was much more significant in the cognitively impaired group.
“In addition, they observed that the subjects repaired significantly more errors in the local condition than in the global condition; this improvement was much more significant in the cognitively impaired group, who performed just as well as the healthy elderly group in this condition.”
From Field evaluation with cognitively-impaired older adults of attention management in the Embodied Conversational Agent Louise (2016) · cites this paper as [14]
Cites
Synthesizing multimodal utterances for conversational agents
Kopp, S., & Wachsmuth, I. (2004) · Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds · doi:10.1002/cav.6 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Self-citationDesigning Relational Agents as Long Term Social Companions for Older Adults
Vardoulakis, L. P., Ring, L., Barry, B., Sidner, C. L., & Bickmore, T. (2012) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33197-8_30 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Young, V., & Mihailidis, A. (2010) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.2010.483646 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Listener agent for elderly people with dementia
Sakai, Y., Nonaka, Y., Yasuda, K., & Nakano, Y. I. (2012) · Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2157689.2157754 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Survey of conversational agents in health
Montenegro, J. L. Z., da Costa, C. A., & da Rosa Righi, R. (2019) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.03.054 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Kuziemsky, C., Maeder, A. J., John, O., Gogia, S. B., Basu, A., Meher, S., & Ito, M. (2019) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1677897 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Pandey, S., Sharma, S., & Wazir, S. (2022) · International Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s41870-022-00999-6 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
A Virtual Assistive Companion for Older Adults: Design Implications for a Real-World Application
Tsiourti, C., Ben Moussa, M., Quintas, J., Loke, B., Jochem, I., Lopes, J. A., & Konstantas, D. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56994-9_69 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Jegundo, A. L., Dantas, C., Quintas, J., Dutra, J., Almeida, A. L., Caravau, H., Rosa, A. F., Martins, A. I., & Pacheco Rocha, N. (2020) · Technologies · doi:10.3390/technologies8030042 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Dialogue Systems and Conversational Agents for Patients with Dementia: The Human–Robot Interaction
Russo, A., D'Onofrio, G., Gangemi, A., Giuliani, F., Mongiovi, M., Ricciardi, F., Greco, F., Cavallo, F., Dario, P., Sancarlo, D., et al. (2019) · Rejuvenation Research · doi:10.1089/rej.2018.2075 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Wargnier, P., Benveniste, S., Jouvelot, P., & Rigaud, A.-S. (2018) · Technology and Disability · doi:10.3233/tad-180189 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Wargnier, P., Carletti, G., Laurent-Corniquet, Y., Benveniste, S., Jouvelot, P., & Rigaud, A.-S. (2016) · 2016 IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH) · doi:10.1109/segah.2016.7586282 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
The CaMeLi Framework—A Multimodal Virtual Companion for Older Adults
Tsiourti, C., Quintas, J., Ben-Moussa, M., Hanke, S., Nijdam, N. A., & Konstantas, D. (2018) · Studies in Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69266-1_10 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Iniesto, F., Coughlan, T., Lister, K., Devine, P., Freear, N., Greenwood, R., Holmes, W., Kenny, I., McLeod, K., & Tudor, R. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3568166 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Enabling robust and fluid spoken dialogue with cognitively impaired users
Yaghoubzadeh, R., & Kopp, S. (2017) · Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5533 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Yaghoubzadeh, R., Kramer, M., Pitsch, K., & Kopp, S.
- Affiliations
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Published
- 2013
- Pages
- 79-91
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W57349375
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 19.65
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- virtual agents, assistive technology, elderly users, cognitive impairment, user acceptance, participatory design, speech understanding, daily living support
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