Robot services for elderly with cognitive impairment: Testing usability of graphical user interfaces
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socially assistive robotics for elderly care is a growing field. However, although robotics has the potential to support elderly in daily tasks by offering specific services, the development of usable interfaces is still a challenge. Since several factors such as age or disease-related changes in perceptual or cognitive abilities and familiarity with computer technologies influence technology use they must be considered when designing interfaces for these users. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents findings from usability testing of two different services provided by a social assistive robot intended for elderly with cognitive impairment: a grocery shopping list and an agenda application. The main goal of this study is to identify the usability problems of the robot interface for target end-users as well as to isolate the human factors that affect the use of the technology by elderly. METHODS: Socio-demographic characteristics and computer experience were examined as factors that could have an influence on task performance. A group of 11 elderly persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment and a group of 11 cognitively healthy elderly individuals took part in this study. Performance measures (task completion time and number of errors) were collected. RESULTS: Cognitive profile, age and computer experience were found to impact task performance. Participants with cognitive impairment achieved the tasks committing more errors than cognitively healthy elderly. Instead younger participants and those with previous computer experience were faster at completing the tasks confirming previous findings in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results suggested that interfaces and contents of the services assessed were usable by older adults with cognitive impairment. However, some usability problems were identified and should be addressed to better meet the needs and capacities of target end-users.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 eleven studies, the IAT was accepted but not used in the following implementation period, resulting in poor adherence.
“In eleven studies, the IAT was accepted but not used in the following implementation period, therefore resulting in poor adherence [24, 29, 34–38, 41, 44, 46, 47].”
From Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [24]
The main factors hindering adherence to IAT were the participants' lack of experience of technology in general and the age of the person using the technology.
“the main factors hindering adherence to IAT were the participants' lack of experience of technology in general, and the age of the person using the technology [24].”
From Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [24]
Lack of experience with technology and older age affected time-use and increased the occurrence of errors significantly.
“This affected time-use and increased the occurrence of errors significantly [24, 29].”
From Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [24]
Users had generally low interest to use the robot, as well as negative attitudes toward and negative images for this type of device.
“When it comes to use of robots in health care, our results show that the users had generally low interest to use the robot, as well as negative attitudes toward and negative images for this type of devices [24, 26, 48].”
From Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 58
- Authors
- Granata, C., Pino, M., Legouverneur, G., Vidal, J.-S., Bidaud, P., & Rigaud, A.-S.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
- Venue
- Technology and Health Care
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-06-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 217-231
- ISSN
- 0928-7329 (ISSN-L)
- 1878-7401
- OpenAlex
- W1793955052
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 6.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Technology and Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche
- 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 › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- socially assistive robots, elderly care, mild cognitive impairment, usability, graphical user interface, age differences, computer experience, task performance, older adults
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Ergonomics, Learning, Male, Paris, Robotics, Self-Help Devices, User-Computer Interface, Patient Satisfaction, 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