Cited by 47Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Interactive activity recognition and prompting to assist people with cognitive disabilities

Open access
Chu, Yi, Chol Song, Young, Levinson, Richard, Kautz, Henry·2012·Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments

Abstract

This paper presents a model of interactive activity recognition and prompting for use in an assistive system for persons with cognitive disabilities. The system can determine the user's state by interpreting sensor data and/or by explicitly querying the user, and can prompt the user to begin, resume, or end tasks. The objective of the system is to help the user maintain a daily schedule of activities while minimizing interruptions from questions or prompts. The model is built upon an option-based hierarchical POMDP. Options can be programmed and customized to specify complex routines for prompting or questioning. The paper proposes a heuristic approach to solving the POMDP based on a dual control algorithm using selective-inquiry that can appeal for help from the user explicitly when the sensor data is ambiguous. The dual control algorithm is working effectively in the unified control model which features the adaptive option and robust state estimation. Simulation results show that the unified dual control model achieves the best performance and efficiency comparing with various alternatives. To further demonstrate the system's performance, lab experiments have been carried out with volunteer actors performing a series of carefully designed scenarios with different kinds of interruption cases. The results show that the system is able to successfully guide the agent through the sample schedule by delivering correct prompts while efficiently dealing with ambiguous situations.

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 · 10.3233/ais-2012-0168

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • In the interactive activity recognition software, the concern was that patients would reject an overly intrusive technology, hence a balance was sought.

    “Here, the concern was that patients would reject an overly intrusive technology; hence a balance was sought.”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Chu et al. 2012

  • In the interactive activity recognition software, only important interventions are made, and all interventions are partially optional because declining one prompt leads to the same prompt later on.

    “Moreover, only important interventions are made, and yet all interventions are partially optional because declining one prompt leads to the same prompt later on.”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Chu et al. 2012

  • Interactive activity recognition software for people with cognitive disabilities is designed to prompt patients to maintain a daily schedule while minimising interruptions, and each intervention is contextualised so that the software learns the timing of future interventions from responses to past interventions.

    “Take, for example, interactive activity recognition software for people with cognitive disabilities (Chu et al. 2012). The software is designed to prompt patients to maintain a daily schedule of activities (e.g., taking medication), whilst minimising interruptions to their wider goals. Each intervention is contextualised in such a way that the software learns the timing of future interventions”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Chu et al. 2012

  • The system to prompt people with cognitive disabilities to take their medication is not designed to coerce patients into a given behaviour, nor to resemble a human being, and patients have autonomy not to interact with it.

    “Consider, for example, the development of AI solutions to prompt people with cognitive disabilities to take their medication (Chu et al. 2012). On its face, this application may seem invasive, involving vulnerable users, limiting the effectiveness of receiver-conceptualised explanation. However, the system is not designed to coerce the patients into a given behaviour, nor is it designed to resemb”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Chu et al. 2012

  • The researchers designed the system so that caregivers can spend most of their time providing empathic support and preserving a meaningful relationship with the patient.

    “The researchers designed the system so that caregivers can spend most of their time providing empathic support and preserving a meaningful relationship with the patient.”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Chu et al. 2012

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

3 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. J.B. Ibbme, J. Boger, and C. Boutilier, A decision-theoretic approach to task assistance for persons with dementia, in: In IJCAI, 2005, pp. 1293-1299.
  2. J. Kan, P. Hoey and A. Mihailidis, Stroke rehabilitation using haptics and a pomdp controller, in: AAAI Fall Symposium on Caring Machines: AI in Eldercare, 2008.
  3. R.S. Sutton and A.G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An In- troduction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chu, Y., Chol Song, Y., Levinson, R., & Kautz, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
  • BrainAid (United States) (US)
Venue
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments
Published
2012-09
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
443-459
ISSN
  • 1876-1364 (ISSN-L)
  • 1876-1372
OpenAlex
W1603731631
Cited by
47
References
49
Citations by year
2023: 22 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r21hd062898-01, W81XWH)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W31P4Q)
  • Office of the Secretary of Defense
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
activity recognition, prompting, assistive technology, cognitive disability, options framework, sensor data interpretation, robust state estimation

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