Cited by 124Social Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Use by Older AdultsAI in Service Interactions

Human Robot Engagement and Acceptability in Residential Aged Care

Khosla, Rajiv, Nguyen, Khanh, Chu, Mei-Tai·2017·International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

Abstract

People with dementia often suffer the limitation in their ability to communicate and express themselves clearly, consequently spend most of their time alone, and are not engaged in social activity as before. The prolonged lack of engagement has contributed to a variety of negative health effects. The research on engagement and acceptability of people with dementia using assistive technology such as social robots can be useful to provide potential solutions and sustainability. Thus, this article focuses on the service design and the effectiveness of the engagement and acceptability while interacting with a social robot named Matilda being trialed from 2010 until 2013 with 115 participants in Australian residential aged care facilities. Combining the most updated engagement assessment method and the robot acceptance model as the methodology, the findings of this study indicate there is a statistically significant improvement in emotional, visual, and behavioral engagement of older people with social robots over the years. The post-trial survey has also verified their acceptance in the interaction with social robots.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10447318.2016.1275435

Cites

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?

  • PaPeRo could understand natural speech, but no specific details were given about its capacity for conducting autonomous, meaningful human-robot conversations.

    “The robot could understand natural speech, but no specific details were given about its capacity for conducting autonomous, meaningful human-robot conversations.”
  • A longitudinal study with 115 people with dementia in Australian care residences and subsequent trials in five home settings showed significant improvements in emotional, visual, and behavioral engagement with PaPeRo.

    “A longitudinal study on engagement and acceptance by 115 PwD living in Australian care residences [51] and subsequent trials in five home settings [82] showed significant improvements in emotional, visual, and behavioral engagement.”
  • Twelve studies presented results on IAT that were both accepted and used by the participants.

    “Twelve studies presented results on IAT that were both accepted and used by the participants [19–21, 23, 27, 30–33, 42, 43, 45].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 124

Authors
Khosla, R., Nguyen, K., & Chu, M.-T.
Affiliations
La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Khosla, Rajiv
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Published
2016-12-27
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
510-522
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
OpenAlex
W2564685734
Cited by
124
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
social robots, dementia, nursing homes, human-robot interaction, engagement, robot acceptance, service design, older adults, assistive technology, engagement assessment

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