Cited by 87Social Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Use by Older AdultsAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Evaluation of a companion robot based on field tests with single older adults in their homes

Zsiga, Katalin, Tóth, András, Pilissy, Tamás, Péter, Orsolya, Dénes, Zoltán, Fazekas, Gábor·2018·Assistive Technology

Abstract

The growing number of older adults places insurmountable load on family members and professional caregivers. Assistive technology with the aid of robots can present a possible solution. The goal of this article was to test a companion robot supporting older adults in their home environments. Eight senior volunteers were involved in the field test. They all lived alone and were self-supporting. The robot was capable of providing cognitive assistance to manage the user's daily routine. Each participant used the robot for 94.9 ± 19.6 days. The primary communication modality was voice communication in their natural language, while the touch screen display was also available for interaction with the robot. The assistance given in daily living was evaluated by subjective (the user's opinion) and objective (logged data) criteria. The most useful and the least reliable robot functions according to the users were the navigation and the verbal communication. Entertainment, locomotion, and weather forecast were the most frequently used functions, while the shopping list was the least popular. The companion robot used in the test was accepted enthusiastically by the senior subjects. Specific robot functions (mainly navigation in the apartment and the speech recognition) require improvement to better accommodate real circumstances.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10400435.2017.1322158

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zsiga, K., Tóth, A., Pilissy, T., Péter, O., Dénes, Z., & Fazekas, G.
Affiliations
  • Szent János Kórház (HU)
  • Budapest University of Technology and Economics (HU)
  • National Institute of Medical Rehabilitation (HU)
Corresponding author
Fazekas, Gábor
Venue
Assistive Technology
Published
2017-06-19
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
259-266
ISSN
  • 1040-0435 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-3614
OpenAlex
W2717439789
Cited by
87
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2
FWCI
6.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Assistive Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Union Ambient Assistive Living Programme (AAL-2008-1-159)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
companion robots, older adults, assistive robots, home care, cognitive support, daily living support, voice interaction, speech recognition, robot navigation, user acceptance, field testing
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Female, Humans, Male, Robotics, User-Computer Interface, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Speech Recognition Software, 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