Cited by 106Social Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Use by Older AdultsAging and Gerontology Research

Reframing Assistive Robots to Promote Successful Aging

Open access
Lee, Hee Rin, Riek, Laurel D.·2018·ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction

Abstract

We are living in an exciting time, as people are living longer, more active lives. This is reshaping how we think about aging. Rather than viewing aging as a problem to be fixed (i.e., a deficit model of aging), many aging researchers are viewing aging as a developmental stage of life to be celebrated and supported, that is, “successful aging.” In this article, we embrace this approach and consider it in the context of assistive robot design in an aim to steer the conversation away from deficit models that have limited robot design possibilities. To explore an alternative design approach to the study of aging in human-robot interaction (HRI), we invited five aging researchers (three geriatricians, one gerontologist, and one epidemiologist) and nine older adults to participate in our research. In the study, participants illustrated their interpretations of aging and suggested potential assistive robots. We found that while all participants perceived the importance of potential disabilities due to aging, they considered potential disabilities as only one aspect of the experience of aging. They highlighted other key themes to consider in designing robots to support successful aging, such as older adults’ autonomy and resilience. We discuss these findings for the HRI community and call for “robots for successful aging.”

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3203303

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 86 · Cited by 106

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hee Rin Lee. 2017. Collaborative Design for Intelligent Technologies. Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana University, Blooming- ton, IN.

Authors
Lee, H. R., & Riek, L. D.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
Published
2018-05-21
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
1-23
ISSN
2573-9522 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2998090943
Cited by
106
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9
FWCI
12.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
assistive robots, successful aging, human-robot interaction, older adults, robot design, autonomy, resilience

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