Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The telepresence avatar robot OriHime as a communication tool for adults with acquired brain injury: an ethnographic case study

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Intelligent Service Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Acquired brain injuries are one of the main causes of human disability worldwide. It can lead to social isolation due to physical and mental dysfunctions. Studies on using robots in social psychiatry have shown positive results regarding mental function and social behavior among patients facing challenges similar to acquired brain injury (ABI).

Aim

To explore how the telepresence avatar robot OriHime can be used as a communication tool between patients at home with mild-to-moderate ABI and members at a rehabilitation center with ABI and to determine whether the telepresence avatar robot OriHime can motivate the patients at home to participate in rehabilitation activities at the rehabilitation center.

Method

We conducted an exploratory ethnographic case study, applying the conceptual framework ‘community of practice.’ The intervention consisted of sessions where ABI patients at home (n = 8) interacted with a member (n = 4) from Aalborg Rehabilitation Club using OriHime. Data collection consisted of documentary materials, participant observation (141 h) and semi-structured interviews (n = 11). The data were analyzed and triangulated in NVivo 12.0.

Findings

The patients at home found nonverbal communication valuable, while the members at the rehabilitation center felt that OriHime lacked human features and preferred direct verbal communication. The technology facilitated a feeling of being a part of a community of practice between the participants, and it motivated the patients at home to participate in the rehabilitating activities. One patient visited the rehabilitation center physically.

Conclusion

OriHime can as a communication tool motivate and engage patients to participate in rehabilitating activities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  1. Dewan MC, Rattani A, Gupta S, Baticulon RE, Hung Y-C, Punchak M et al (2018) Estimating the global incidence of traumatic brain injury, pp 1–18. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29701556

  2. Feigin VL, Norrving B, Mensah GA (2017) Semin global burden of stroke. Neurology 38(2):208–211

    Google Scholar 

  3. Proctor CJ, Best LA (2019) Social and psychological influences on satisfaction with life after brain injury. Disabil Health J 12:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhogal SK, Teasell R, Foley N, Speechley MJ (2005) Heterocyclics and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of poststroke depression. Am Geriatr Soc 53(6):1051–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Teasdale TW, Engberg AW (2005) Subjective well-being and quality of life following traumatic brain injury in adults: a long-term population-based follow-up. Brain Inj 19(12):1041–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. WHO (2012) Neurological disorders: public health challenges. WHO. World Health Organization [cited 2019 May 18]. https://www.who.int/mental_health/neurology/neurodiso/en/

  7. Strandberg T (2009) Adults with acquired traumatic brain injury: experiences of a changeover process and consequences in everyday life. Soc Work Health Care 48(3):276–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paterson J, Stewart J (2012) Adults with acquired brain injury: perceptions of their social world. Rehabil Nurs 27(1):13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Secrest JA, Thomas S (1999) Continuity and discontinuity: the quality of life. Rehabil Nurs J 24(6):240–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Teasdale TW, Engberg AW (2001) Suicide after traumatic brain injury: a population study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 71(4):436–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McCabe P, Lippert C, Weiser M, Hilditch M, Hartridge C, Villamere J (2007) Community reintegration following acquired brain injury. Brain Inj 21(2):231–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolf TJ, Chuh A, Floyd T, McInnis K, Williams E (2014) Effectiveness of occupation-based interventions to improve areas of occupation and social participation after stroke: an evidence-based review. Am J Occup Ther 69(1):6901180060p1. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.012195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Häggström A, Lund ML (2008) The complexity of participation in daily life: a qualitative study of the experiences of persons with acquired brain injury. J Rehabil Med 40(2):89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Turner B, Fleming J, Cornwell P, Worrall L, Ownsworth T, Haines T et al (2007) A qualitative study of the transition from hospital to home for individuals with acquired brain injury and their family caregivers. Brain Inj 21(11):1119–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen S-C, Jones C, Moyle W (2018) Social robots for depression in older adults: a systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh 50(6):612–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pu L, Moyle W, Jones C, Todorovic M (2018) The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gerontologist 59(1):E37–E51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Papadopoulos I, Koulouglioti C (2018) The influence of culture on attitudes towards humanoid and animal-like robots: an integrative review. J Nurs Scholarsh 50(6):653–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Góngora Alonso S, Hamrioui S, de la Torre Díez I, Motta Cruz E, López-Coronado M, Franco M (2018) Social robots for people with aging and dementia: a systematic review of literature. Telemed e-Health 00(00):10–12

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shishehgar M, Kerr D, Blake J (2018) A systematic review of research into how robotic technology can help older people. Smart Heal 1:1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smhl.2018.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moyle W, Bramble M, Jones CJ, Murfield JE (2017) “She had a smile on her face as wide as the great australian bite”: a qualitative examination of family perceptions of a therapeutic robot and a plush toy. Gerontologist 59(1):177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Strandbech JD (2018) Humanoid robots for health and welfare: on humanoid robots as a welfare technology used in interaction with persons with dementia. Aalborg Universitetsforlag. 251 s. (Aalborg Universitet. Det Humanistiske Fakultet. Ph.D.-Serien) https://doi.org/10.5278/vbn.phd.hum.00092

  22. Moyle W, Arnautovska U, Ownsworth T, Jones C (2017) Potential of telepresence robots to enhance social connectedness in older adults with dementia: an integrative review of feasibility. Int Psychogeriatr 29(12):1951–1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications—design and methods. In: Oaks T, 6th edn, COSMOS Corporation, United States

  24. Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnology; Principles in Practice [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2019 Feb 20]. 14–17 p. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.zorac.aub.aau.dk/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzE5NzI1M19fQU41?sid=0f249291-ca58-4a39-9959-c88e07dbac34@sessionmgr120&vid=0&format=EK&lpid=ac-6&rid=0

  25. InterSoft Consulting (2018) General data protection regulation (GDPR)—final text neatly arranged. EU [cited 2019 Jun 4]. https://gdpr-info.eu/?fbclid=IwAR3Xk0NPOSqNSY2_E50X13XTHXhwjkfnKElapwJEQ3LFjWHUg2R6fjRck0A

  26. Datatilsynet.dk. Tv-overvågning (2019) [cited 2019 Jun 4]. https://www.datatilsynet.dk/emner/overvaagning-og-sporing/tv-overvaagning/

  27. ARK. ARK Aalborg er en ArbejdsRehabiliteringsKlub i Aalborg. [cited 2019 May 18]. https://handicaptilbuddene.aalborg.dk/fagcentre/fagcenter-for-erhvervet-hjerneskade-og-fysisk-handicap/ark-aalborg

  28. OryLab. OriHime by Ory Laboratory. [cited 2019 Jun 4]. http://ces15.orylab.com/

  29. Wenger E, White N, Smith JD (2009) Digital habitats: stewarding technology for communities. CPsquare, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wenger-Trayner E and B. Communities of practice—a brief introduction. www.wenger-trayner.com. 2015 [cited 2019 Apr 10], pp 1–8. https://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/07-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf

  31. Tanggaard L (2010) Kvalitative metoder og tilgange: en grundbog. Hans Reitzel. [cited 2019 May 18], 560 pp. https://www.saxo.com/dk/kvalitative-metoder_svend-brinkmann_indbundet_9788741259048?dfw_tracker=13098-21157778&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2v7mBRC1ARIsAAiw3485zUva2aV7EZwMIw6G-iZeqQD0s5aKk_KWacBXK-GIpqHmM-5SCEQaAswLEALw_wcB

  32. Kvale S, Brinkmann S (2009) Interview: introduktion til et håndværk. Hans Reitzel [cited 2019 May 18]. https://bibliotek.dk/da/work/810015-katalog%3A009100625

  33. Statistik D, Helle A, Holm H, Statistik D, Statistik D (1996) Vores tro digitale følgesvend fylder 20 år. 2016 [cited 2019 May 30], pp 8–10. https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/bagtal/2016/2016-08-30-vores-tro-digitale-foelgesvend-fylder-20-aar

  34. Jack rachael, Schyns PG. Toward a Social Psychophysics of Face Communication. Ssrn. 2017 (2017)

  35. Roberts J (2006) Limits to communities of practice. J Manag Stud 43(3):623–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kusec A, Velikonja D, DeMatteo C, Harris JE. Motivation in rehabilitation and acquired brain injury: can theory help us understand it? Disability and rehabilitation, pp 1–7. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=idre20

  37. Jamieson M, Jack R, O’Neill B, Cullen B, Lennon M, Brewster S et al (2019) Technology to encourage meaningful activities following brain injury. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iidt20

  38. Brett CE, Sykes C, Pires-Yfantouda R (2017) Interventions to increase engagement with rehabilitation in adults with acquired brain injury: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rehabil 27:959–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The investigating authors wish to thank the ABI patients at home, mentors and members of the ARC who participated in this study, as well as the staff at ARC and the social workers who helped us in the planning of the study and recruiting the participants. We also wish to thank Lars Nøhr, Chief Consultant of Aalborg Municipality and Kristian Kjeldsgaard Liltorp, Assistant Director of ARC. Thanks to the Laboratory for Welfare Technology, Telehealth and Telerehabilitation, Department of Health Science and Technology at Aalborg University, Denmark, for providing telecommunication facilities and supervision through the study. And finally, we thank OryLab for providing the OriHime (named after the tale of princess OriHime) robot used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark

    Stefan Vikkelsø, Tuyet-Hoa Hoang, Fransine Carrara, Karl Damkjær Hansen & Birthe Dinesen

Authors
  1. Stefan Vikkelsø
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuyet-Hoa Hoang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fransine Carrara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karl Damkjær Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Birthe Dinesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Vikkelsø.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The investigating authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

figure c
figure d
figure e
figure f

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vikkelsø, S., Hoang, TH., Carrara, F. et al. The telepresence avatar robot OriHime as a communication tool for adults with acquired brain injury: an ethnographic case study. Intel Serv Robotics 13, 521–537 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-020-00335-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-020-00335-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation