CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robot companion cats for people at home with dementia: A qualitative case study on companotics

Pike, Joanne, Picking, Richard, Cunningham, Stuart·2021·Dementia
DOI 10.1177/1471301220932780
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The use of robot companion pets for people in care homes has been extensively studied. The results are largely positive and suggest that they are valuable in enhancing wellbeing, communication and behavioural aspects. However, there has been little research in people’s own homes, possibly due to the cost and complexity of some of the robot pets currently available. As dementia affects people in different ways, this study explores the effects of a robot cat for people in their own homes, without specifically investigating the effects on a particular symptom. We utilised a case study design to investigate the proposition that various factors influence the impact of a robot cat on the person living with dementia and their carer, including acceptability of the robot pet and acceptance of dementia and its symptoms. The qualitative analysis explores the similarities and differences within the data which were gathered during interviews with people with dementia and their families. This analysis revealed four themes: Distraction, Communication, Acceptance and rejection, and Connecting with the cat and connecting with others. These themes were synthesised into two overarching themes: the effect of the cat on mood and behaviour, and The interaction with the cat. We present the acceptability and impact of the robot cat on symptoms of dementia, with data presented across and within the group of participants. Our analysis suggests that benefits of the robot pet were evident, and although this was a small-scale study, where they were accepted, robot pets provided positive outcomes for the participants and their families.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/1471301220932780

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.12.014 · DOI
  2. 10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00 · DOI
  3. 10.1186/s12888-018-1613-2 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70206-0 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Chang W.L. Šabanović S., Huber L. (2013, March). Use of seal-like robot PARO in sensory group therapy for older adults with dementia. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction ( HRI ‘13 ), Tokyo, Japan (pp. 101–102). IEEE Press. · DOI
  6. Cherniak E. P., 2014, Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, 2014, 623203
  7. Chmiliar L., 2010, Encyclopedia of case study research
  8. Cho K., 2009, Journal of Korean Association for Person with Autism, 9, 45
  9. Dalibard S., Magnenat-Talmann N., Thalmann D. (2012, May). Anthropomorphism of artificial agents: A comparative survey of expressive design and motion of virtual characters and social robots. In Workshop on autonomous social robots and virtual humans at the 25th annual conference on computer animation and social agents ( CASA 2012) , Singapore, Singapore.
  10. Denzin N. K., 1998, Strategies of qualitative enquiry
  11. 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.12.010 · DOI
  12. Feil-Seifer D., Mataric M. J. (2008, August 1–3). B3IA: A control architecture for autonomous robot-assisted behavior intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium of robot human interaction and communication , Munich, Germany. · DOI
  13. 10.1177/1609406917748215 · DOI
  14. 10.3928/00989134-20150806-44 · DOI
  15. Grimshaw, M. “The audio Uncanny Valley: Sound, fear and the horror game.” (2009). Games Computing and Creative Technologies: Conference Papers (Peer-Reviewed). Paper 9. http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/gcct_conferencepr/9
  16. 10.3389/fict.2017.00016 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/10447318.2013.873278 · DOI
  18. Kidd C. D., Taggart W., Turkle S. (2006). A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, ICRA 2006 (pp. 3972–3976). IEEE. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Kim K. H., 2010, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 26, 331
  20. 10.1177/153331750401900209 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1252 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.12968/nrec.2016.18.4.214 · DOI
  24. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017376 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009097 · DOI
  27. 10.3928/00989134-20130313-03 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1177/1049732316668819 · DOI
  29. Nalin M., Baroni I., Sanna A., Pozzi C. (2012). Robotic companion for diabetic children: Emotional and educational support to diabetic children, through an interactive robot. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children ( IDC ‘12 ), New York, NY, USA (pp. 260–263). ACM. · DOI
  30. 10.1017/CBO9781139164924 · DOI
  31. Picking R., Pike J. (2017). Exploring the effects of interaction with a robot cat for dementia sufferers and their carers. In Proceedings of 7th international conference on internet technologies and applications ( ITA 17 ), Wrexham, UK (pp. 209–10). IEEE. · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.07.001 · DOI
  33. 10.1109/JPROC.2012.2200559 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6 · DOI
  35. Stake R. E., 2005, The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 443
  36. Stake R. E., 2006, Multiple case study analysis
  37. 10.1002/gps.4882 · DOI
  38. 10.12659/MSM.883350 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Wada K., Shibata T. (2007). Social effects of robot therapy in a care house – Change of social network of the residents for two months. In Proceedings – IEEE international conference on robotics and automation , Japan, 23 (pp. 1250–1255). IEEE. · DOI
  40. 10.1108/WWOP-05-2014-0012 · DOI
  41. Yazan B., 2015, The Qualitative Report, 20, 134

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pike, J., Picking, R., & Cunningham, S.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Wrexham Glyndŵr University, UK
  • Faculty of Arts, Science and Technology, Wrexham Glyndŵr University, UK
  • Centre for Advanced Computational Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
ORCID
Picking, Richard
Venue
Dementia
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-07-16
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
1300-1318
ISSN
  • 1471-3012
  • 1741-2684
DOI
10.1177/1471301220932780
Cited by
30
References
5
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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