Cited by 52Technology Use by Older AdultsInnovative Human-Technology InteractionAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Potential Intrusiveness of Aware Home Technology: Perceptions of Older Adults

Melenhorst, Anne-Sophie, Fisk, Arthur D., Mynatt, Elizabeth D., Rogers, Wendy A.·2004·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Abstract

Older individuals in particular might benefit from an aware domestic environment. Yet, fear of intrusion is a potential barrier that might keep older adults from adopting smart technologies in the home. In this study, 44 participants (aged 65–75) were given a tour of the Georgia Tech Aware Home and shown five prototype smart home devices. The structured interviews after the tour yielded 2136 quotes containing the participants' opinions about living in a technology-rich home environment. A subset addressing technology intrusiveness of five devices is presented in this paper. The results show three domains of potential technology intrusion in the home as perceived by the older adults: physical obtrusiveness, invasion of privacy, and security risk. Technology intrusiveness represented 19% of the total technology judgments, but accounted for almost half of the negative judgments in general. The distribution of the participants' conditional statements (e.g., I wouldn't mind privacy intrusion if) suggested a careful weighing of potential intrusiveness against benefits such as prolonged independence for some of the devices in particular.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/154193120404800209

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?

  • Of the nearly 3,000 comments made about pros and cons of the house or specific technologies within the home, only 19% were related to intrusiveness.

    “Of the nearly 3,000 comments made about pros and cons of the house or specifi c technologies within the home, only 19% were related to intrusiveness.”

    From Toward a Psychological Science of Advanced Technology Design for Older Adults (2010) · cites this paper as Melenhorst, Fisk, Mynatt, & Rogers, 2004

  • Concerns about intrusiveness were related to physical issues about the technology design or interface display, privacy issues, or security issues.

    “Concerns about intrusiveness were related to physical issues about the technology design or interface display, privacy issues, or security issues.”

    From Toward a Psychological Science of Advanced Technology Design for Older Adults (2010) · cites this paper as Melenhorst, Fisk, Mynatt, & Rogers, 2004

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 7 · Cited by 52

Authors
Melenhorst, A.-S., Fisk, A. D., Mynatt, E. D., & Rogers, W. A.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2004-09
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
266-270
ISSN
  • 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1071-1813
  • 2169-5067
OpenAlex
W1996443825
Cited by
52
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
smart home technology, older adults, privacy violations, security risks, technology adoption

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