CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261Social Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Use by Older AdultsAI in Service Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human–robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting

Open access
Wu, Ya-Huei, Wrobel, Jérémy, Cornuet, Mélanie, Kerhervé, Hélène, Damnée, Souad, Rigaud, Anne-Sophie·2014·Clinical Interventions in Aging
DOI 10.2147/cia.s56435PMC PMC4020879
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in investigating acceptance of robots, which are increasingly being proposed as one form of assistive technology to support older adults, maintain their independence, and enhance their well-being. In the present study, we aimed to observe robot-acceptance in older adults, particularly subsequent to a 1-month direct experience with a robot. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Six older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and five cognitively intact healthy (CIH) older adults were recruited. Participants interacted with an assistive robot in the Living Lab once a week for 4 weeks. After being shown how to use the robot, participants performed tasks to simulate robot use in everyday life. Mixed methods, comprising a robot-acceptance questionnaire, semistructured interviews, usability-performance measures, and a focus group, were used. RESULTS: Both CIH and MCI subjects were able to learn how to use the robot. However, MCI subjects needed more time to perform tasks after a 1-week period of not using the robot. Both groups rated similarly on the robot-acceptance questionnaire. They showed low intention to use the robot, as well as negative attitudes toward and negative images of this device. They did not perceive it as useful in their daily life. However, they found it easy to use, amusing, and not threatening. In addition, social influence was perceived as powerful on robot adoption. Direct experience with the robot did not change the way the participants rated robots in their acceptance questionnaire. We identified several barriers to robot-acceptance, including older adults' uneasiness with technology, feeling of stigmatization, and ethical/societal issues associated with robot use. CONCLUSION: It is important to destigmatize images of assistive robots to facilitate their acceptance. Universal design aiming to increase the market for and production of products that are usable by everyone (to the greatest extent possible) might help to destigmatize assistive devices.

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 · 10.2147/cia.s56435

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Interaction between a participant and Kompaï.
Figure 1 Interaction between a participant and Kompaï.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 261

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wu, Y.-H., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerhervé, H., Damnée, S., & Rigaud, A.-S.
Affiliations
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
Corresponding author
Wu, Ya-Huei
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Interventions in Aging
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-05
Volume
9
Pages
801
ISSN
  • 1176-9092 (ISSN-L)
  • 1178-1998
DOI
10.2147/cia.s56435
PMC
PMC4020879
OpenAlex
W2060200729
Cited by
261
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5
FWCI
10.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Interventions in Aging (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-09-TECS-0012)
  • Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l'autonomie
  • Direction Générale de l’Armement
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
assistive robots, robot acceptance, older adults, mild cognitive impairment, human-robot interaction, living labs, intention to use, social influence, stigmatization, universal design, technology adoption barriers
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Computers, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Robotics, Self-Help Devices, User-Computer Interface, Focus Groups, Cognitive Dysfunction

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