Slide 1 of 21

Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment

Marcel Heerink

Instituut voor Information Engineering - Hogeschool van Amsterdam

Universiteit van Amsterdam - Human Computer Systems & Intelligent Systemsco-researchers:

Vanessa Evers, Bob Wielinga , Ben Krose

Slide 2 of 21

Background

2000 2025

Slide 3 of 21

Robots & eldercare

• Paro• Pearl • Aibo

Slide 4 of 21

Research question

Is there a measurable influence of perceived social abilities on the acceptance of autonomous interactive systems by elders in an eldercare environment?

Slide 5 of 21

Approach• Quantitative research• iCat• Wizard of Oz• +S and –S version• Questionnaire• Observations• Functional and

conversational acceptance

• Field experiment: 2 eldercare institutions (Archipel and Ankerplaats)

Slide 6 of 21

Abilities

• listening attentively (looking at the participant, nodding),

• being nice and pleasant to interact with (smiling, being helpful),

• remembering little personal details about people (using their names),

• being expressive,• admitting mistakes.

Slide 7 of 21

Conditions

Slide 8 of 21

Possible functionalities

• Agenda/reminder• Device interface• Monitor• Companion

Slide 9 of 21

Questionnaire• UTAUT

– PE = performance expectancy – EE = effort expectancy – SI = social influence – AT = attitude toward using technology – SE = self-efficacy – ANX = anxiety – ITU = intention to use

• + SA = social abilities (-)• + feeling comfortable talking to a robot (conversational

acceptance)• 5 point scale• Questions instead of statements

Slide 10 of 21

Slide 11 of 21

Slide 12 of 21

Slide 13 of 21

Slide 14 of 21

Slide 15 of 21

Results 1Construct Cronbach’s Alpha t Sig. (2-tailed)

performance expectancy ,7649 -0,1327 0,8953

effort expectancy ,8610 0,3622 0,7195

social influence ,2997* 0,3453 0,7322

attitude toward using technology ,8889 0,4961 0,6230

self-efficacy ,8942 0,4567 0,6509

anxiety ,4303* -0,0046 0,9964

intention to use ,8954 0,4036 0,6891

all constructs ,9346

all questions ,9084

Slide 16 of 21

Did you feel uncomfortable talking to a robot?

Results 2

condition N Meant Sig. (2-tailed)

more social 17 1,00

-3,7500 0,0015less social 19 1,53

Slide 17 of 21

Would you want to use the iCat immediately if you could?

Results 3

gender N Mean t Sig. (2-tailed)

male 11 1,45

2,1717 0,0426female 25 0,72

Slide 18 of 21

Observationsconversational expressions by participants

more social

less social

nodding head 66 54

shaking head 16 15

greet with hand 2 0

'don't know' gesture 3 0

move away 0 4

approach robot 17 7

smile 42 30

laugh 26 9

surprise 2 0

show irritation (frown) 1 2

verbal greeting 36 21

Slide 19 of 21

Observations 2

Item t Sig. (2-tailed)Mann-Whitney U

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Positive 1 2,450 0,020 92,000 0,027

Negative 2 -1,685 0,108 131,000 0,108

All items 2,063 0,047 102,500 0,060

Slide 20 of 21

Movie

• Start

Slide 21 of 21

Conclusions & discussion• UTAUT constructs show no significant differences

between more en less social condition• There are significant differences concerning

“conversational acceptance”: participants felt more uncomfortable and used more conversational expressions with a more social robot

• Other differences are related to gender (could be a generation related result)

• Further research:– On screen agents– Different experimental conditions?– Work on ‘social abilities?’– More elaborate observation model