Skip to main content
Log in

Human–Robot Interaction Analysis for a Smart Walker for Elderly: The ACANTO Interactive Guidance System

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the interaction between older adults and a robotic walker named FriWalk, which has the capability to act as a navigation support and to guide the user through indoor environments along a planned path. To this purpose, we developed a guidance system named Simulated Passivity, which leaves the responsibility of the locomotion to the user, both to increase the mobility of elder users and to enhance their perception of control over the robot. Moreover, the robotic walker can be integrated with a tablet and graphical user interface (GUI) which provides visual indications to the user on the path to follow. Since the FriWalk and Simulated Passivity were developed to suit the needs of users with different deficits, we conducted a human–robot interaction experiment, complemented with direct interviews of the participants. The goals of the present work were to observe the relation between elders (with and without visual impairments) and the robot in completing a path (with and without the support of the GUI), and to collect the impressions about of the older adult participants about the interaction. Our results show an overall positive impression of the FriWalk and an evident flexibility and adaptability of its guidance system across different categories of users (e.g., with or without visual impairments). In the paper, we discuss the implications of these findings on service social robotics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.trionic.uk/en/rollator-walker-12er-c-15/.

  2. https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-tab-s2/.

References

  1. ACANTO (2015) A CyberphysicAl social NeTwOrk using robot friends. EU Project. http://www.ict-acanto.eu/acanto

  2. Andreetto M, Divan S, Ferrari F, Fontanelli D, Palopoli L, Zenatti F (2018) Simulating passivity for robotic walkers via authority-sharing. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 3(2):1306–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andreetto M, Divan S, Fontanelli D, Palopoli L (2017) Path following with authority sharing between humans and passive robotic walkers equipped with low-cost actuators. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 2(4):2271–2278. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2017.2724772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett C, Doub T, Bragg A, Luellen J, Van Regenmorter C, Lockman J, Reiserer R (2011) Data mining session-based patient reported outcomes (PROs) in a mental health setting: toward data-driven clinical decision support and personalized treatment. In: 2011 IEEE 1st international conference on healthcare informatics, imaging and systems biology. IEEE, New York, pp 229–236

  5. Bevilacqua P, Frego M, Bertolazzi E, Fontanelli D, Palopoli L, Biral F (2016) Path planning maximising human comfort for assistive robots. In: 2016 IEEE conference on control applications (CCA). IEEE, New York, pp 1421–1427

  6. Bevilacqua P, Frego M, Fontanelli D, Palopoli L (2018) Reactive planning for assistive robots. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 3(2):1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2795642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Orlandini A, Tiberio L (2016) Long-term evaluation of a telepresence robot for the elderly: methodology and ecological case study. Int J Soc Robot 8(3):421–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Colombo A, Fontanelli D, Legay A, Palopoli L, Sedwards S (2015) Efficient customisable dynamic motion planning for assistive robots in complex human environments. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 7(5):617–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J (2006) Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (create). Psychol Aging 21(2):333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Nuovo A, Broz F, Cavallo F, Dario P (2016) New frontiers of service robotics for active and healthy ageing. Int J Soc Robot 8(3):353–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2017) Case report: implications of doing research on socially assistive robots in real homes. Int J Soc Robot 9(3):401–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Friard O, Gamba M (2016) Boris: a free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods Ecol Evol 7(11):1325–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goswami A, Peshkin M, Colgate J (1990) Passive robotics: an exploration of mechanical computation. In: Proceedings of the 1990 American control conference, pp 2791–2796

  14. Graf B (2009) An adaptive guidance system for robotic walking aids. CIT J Comput Inf Technol 17(1):109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hebesberger D, Koertner T, Gisinger C, Pripfl J (2017) A long-term autonomous robot at a care hospital: a mixed methods study on social acceptance and experiences of staff and older adults. Int J Soc Robot 9(3):417–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hedley L, Suckley N, Robinson L, Dawson P (2010) Staying steady: a community-based exercise initiative for falls prevention. Physiother Theory Pract 26(7):425–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heinz M, Martin P, Margrett JA, Yearns M, Franke W, Yang HI, Wong J, Chang CK (2013) Perceptions of technology among older adults. J Gerontol Nurs 39(1):42–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Holden RJ, Karsh BT (2010) The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inf 43(1):159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ISTAT (2015): Anziani: Le condizioni di salute in Italia e nell’Unione Europea. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/203820

  22. Keller K, Engelhardt M (2013) Strength and muscle mass loss with aging process, age and strength loss. Muscles Ligaments Tend J 3(4):346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khaw KT, Wareham N, Bingham S, Welch A, Luben R, Day N et al (2008) Combined impact of health behaviours and mortality in men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study. Obstet Gynecol Surv 63(6):376–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kulyukin V, Kutiyanawala A, LoPresti E, Matthews J, Simpson R (2008) iwalker: Toward a rollator-mounted wayfinding system for the elderly. In: 2008 IEEE international conference on RFID, pp 303–311

  25. Langan J, Peltier S, Bo J, Fling BW, Welsh RC, Seidler RD (2010) Functional implications of age differences in motor system connectivity. Front Syst Neurosci 4:17

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lu CK, Huang YC, Lee CJ (2015) Adaptive guidance system design for the assistive robotic walker. Neurocomputing 170(Supplement C):152–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Magnago V, Bevilacqua P, Palopoli L, Passerone R, Fontanelli D, Macii D (2018) Optimal landmark placement for indoor positioning using context information and multi-sensor data. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international instrumentation and measurement technology conference (I2MTC). IEEE, Houston (to appear)

  28. Magnago V, Palopoli L, Passerone R, Fontanelli D, Macii D (2017) A nearly optimal landmark deployment for indoor localisation with limited sensing. In: International conference on indoor positioning and indoor navigation (IPIN). IEEE, Sapporo, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPIN.2017.8115883

  29. Martins M, Santos C, Frizera A, Ceres R (2014) Real time control of the asbgo walker through a physical human–robot interface. Measurement 48(Supplement C):77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Minocha S, Hartnett E, Dunn K, Evans S, Heap T, Middup CP, Murphy B, Roberts D (2013) Conducting empirical research with older people. In: Designing for - and with - vulnerable people, Paris.

  31. Montemerlo M, Pineau J, Roy N, Thrun S, Verma V (2002) Experiences with a mobile robotic guide for the elderly. AAAI/IAAI 2002:587–592

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nations U (2015) World population ageing. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2018

  33. Nazemzadeh P, Fontanelli D, Macii D, Palopoli L (2017) Indoor localization of mobile robots through QR code detection and dead reckoning data fusion. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 22(6):2588–2599. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2017.2762598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nazemzadeh P, Moro F, Fontanelli D, Macii D, Palopoli L (2015) Indoor positioning of a robotic walking assistant for large public environments. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 64(11):2965–2976. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2015.2437637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ni D, Song A, Tian L, Xu X, Chen D (2015) A walking assistant robotic system for the visually impaired based on computer vision and tactile perception. Int J Soc Robot 7(5):617–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0313-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nielsen J (2013) Seniors as web users, vol 28. Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont

    Google Scholar 

  37. Palopoli L, Argyros A, Birchbauer J, Colombo A, Fontanelli D et al (2015) Navigation assistance and guidance of older adults across complex public spaces: the DALi approach. Intell Serv Robot 8(2):77–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-015-0169-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Peng H, Song G, You J, Zhang Y, Lian J (2017) An indoor navigation service robot system based on vibration tactile feedback. Int J Soc Robot 9(3):331–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0403-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pinto JM, Wroblewski KE, Huisingh-Scheetz M, Correia C, Lopez KJ, Chen RC, Kern DW, Schumm PL, Dale W, McClintock MK (2017) Global sensory impairment predicts morbidity and mortality in older us adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 65(12):2587–2595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Robinson H, MacDonald B, Broadbent E (2014) The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int J Soc Robot 6(4):575–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Soetanto D, Lapierre L, Pascoal A (2003) Adaptive, non-singular path-following control of dynamic wheeled robots. In: IEEE conference on decision and control, vol 2. IEEE, New York, pp 1765–1770

  42. Vaportzis E, Giatsi Clausen M, Gow AJ (2017) Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus group study. Front Psychol 8:1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wachaja A, Agarwal P, Zink M, Adame MR, Möller K, Burgard W (2015) Navigating blind people with a smart walker. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 6014–6019

  44. Walsh SA (2009) Conducting research with the elderly: ethical concerns for a vulnerable population. South Online J Nurs Res 9(4):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wang Y, Wang S (2017) A new directional-intent recognition method for walking training using an omnidirectional robot. J Intell Robot Syst 87(2):231–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Whelan S, Murphy K, Barrett E, Krusche C, Santorelli A, Casey D (2018) Factors affecting the acceptability of social robots by older adults including people with dementia or cognitive impairment: a literature review. Int J Soc Robot 10:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the referents of the following elder centres of Trento and province for their support to the ACANTO Project: Civica di Trento, APSP Levico Terme San Valentino, Casa Di Riposo A.P.S.P. S. Spirito—Fondazione Montel, APSP Clementino Vannetti (Rovereto), Centro Diurno “Sempreverde”—Mattarello—Cooperativa Sad, APSP Beato De Tschiderer (Trento), and Casa Santa Maria—Kaleidoscopio Scs (Vigolo Vattaro).

Funding

This Project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme—Societal Challenge 1 (DG CONNECT/H) under Grant Agreement No. 643644 “ACANTO—A CyberphysicAl social NeTwOrk using robot friends”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele Fontanelli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferrari, F., Divan, S., Guerrero, C. et al. Human–Robot Interaction Analysis for a Smart Walker for Elderly: The ACANTO Interactive Guidance System. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 479–492 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00572-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00572-5

Keywords

Navigation