Cited by 11Technology Use by Older AdultsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

A User Study on the Feasibility and Acceptance of Delivering Physical Activity Programs to Older Adults through Conversational Agents

Open access
Chin, Jessie, Quinn, Kelly, Muramatsu, Naoko, Marquez, David·2020·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Abstract

The implementation of evidence-based physical activity (PA) programs for older adults is limited in part due to the administration-related personnel costs. The rapid growth of the off-the-shelf smart speakers, conversational agents (CAs), demonstrates the potential of scalable delivery of PA programs to older adults at home. We implemented a PA virtual coach based on an evidence-based PA program on a Google Home device, and conducted a user study to examine how older adults interact with the virtual coach. Results suggested that all older adults were able to complete the PA program with guidance from the virtual coach, and showed high acceptance and intentions to use CAs in the future. Analyses on conversation turn-taking further suggested that all older adults (including 80% novice CAs users) experienced minimum difficulty talking with the PA virtual coach. Relationships among age, technology acceptance, conversation patterns and the perceived sociability of CAs are also discussed.

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 · 10.1177/1071181320641010

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Chin J, Li Y, & Burns CM (2018, 4). User Perspectives of Conversational Agents across Lifespan: Being Assistive, But Not Too Smart. Cognitive Aging Conference 2018. Cognitive Aging Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chin, J., Quinn, K., Muramatsu, N., & Marquez, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2020-12
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
33-37
ISSN
  • 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1071-1813
  • 2169-5067
OpenAlex
W3126265517
Cited by
11
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002003)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
chatbots, physical activity programs, older adults, virtual coach, smart speakers, Google Home, technology acceptance, home-based exercise, user acceptance

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