slide 1 of 21 experimenting with icat in an eldercare environment marcel heerink instituut voor...
TRANSCRIPT
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 1
Construct 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